CHAPTER Nine.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.
THE general design of this chapter is the same as the-two preceding, to
show that Christ as High Priest is superior to the Jewish high priest.
This the apostle had already shown to be true in regard to his rank, and
to the dispensation of which he was the "Mediator." He proceeds now to
show that this was also true in reference to the efficacy of the
sacrifice which he made; and in order to this, he gives an account of the
ancient Jewish sacrifices, and compares them with that made by the
Redeemer. The essential point is, that the former dispensation was mere
shadow, type, or figure, and that the latter was real and efficacious.
The chapter comprises, in illustration of this general idea, the
following points:
(1.) A description of the ancient tabernacle, and of the utensils
that were in it, Hebrews 9:1-5.
(2.) A description of the services in it, particularly of that performed
by the high priest once a year, Hebrews 9:6,7.
(3.) All this was typical and symbolical, and was a standing
demonstration that the way into the most holy place in heaven was not
yet fully revealed, Hebrews 9:8-10.
(4.) Christ was now come--the substance of which that was the shadow;
the real sacrifice of which that was the emblem, Hebrews 9:11-14.
He pertained, as a Priest, to a more perfect tabernacle, Hebrews 9:11
he offered not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own blood,
Hebrews 9:12; with that blood he entered into the most holy place in
heaven, Hebrews 9:12 and if the blood of bulls and goats was admitted
to be efficacious in putting away external uncleanness, it must be
admitted that the blood of Christ had an efficacy in cleansing the
conscience, Hebrews 9:13,14.
(5.) His blood is efficacious not only in remitting present sins, but it
extends in its efficacy even to past ages, and removes the sins of those
who had worshipped God under the former covenant, Hebrews 9:15.
(6.) The apostle then proceeds to show that it was necessary that the
Mediator of the new covenant should shed his own blood, and that the
blood thus shed should be applied to purify those for whom the
sacrifice was made, Hebrews 9:16-23. This he shows by the following
considerations, viz. :
(a.) Hie argues it from the nature of a covenant or compact, showing
that it was ratified only over dead sacrifices, and that of necessity
the victim that was set apart to confirm or ratify it must be slain.
See Barnes "Hebrews 9:16"; See Barnes "Hebrews 9:17".
(b.) The first covenant was confirmed or ratified by blood; and hence
it was necessary that, since the "patterns" of the heavenly things were
sprinkled with blood, the heavenly things themselves should be purified
with better sacrifices, Hebrews 9:18-23.
(7.) The offering made by the Redeemer was to be made but once. This
arose from the necessity of the case, since it could not be supposed
that the Mediator would suffer often, as the high priest went once
every year into the most holy place. He had come and died once in the
last dispensation of things on earth, and then had entered into heaven,
and could suffer no more, Hebrews 9:24-26.
(8.) In the close of the chapter the apostle adverts to the fact that
there was a remarkable resemblance, in one respect, between the death
of Christ and the death of all men. It was appointed to them to die
once, and but once; and so Christ died but once. As a man, it was in
accordance with the universal condition of things that he should die
once; and in accordance with the same condition of things it was proper
that he should die but once. In like manner there was a resemblance
or fitness in regard to what would occur after death. Man was to appear
at the judgment, he was not to cease to be, but would stand hereafter at
the bar of God. In like manner, Christ would again appear. He did not
cease to exist when he expired, but would appear again that he might save
his people, Hebrews 9:27,28.
Verse 1. Then verily. Or, moreover. The object is to describe the
tabernacle in which the service of God was celebrated under the
former dispensation, and to show that it had a reference to what
was future, and was only an imperfect representation of the reality.
It was important to show this, as the Jews regarded the ordinances
of the tabernacle and of the whole Levitical service as of Divine
appointment, and of perpetual obligation. The object of Paul is
to prove that they were to give place to a more perfect system, and
hence it was necessary to discuss their real nature.
The first covenant. The word "covenant" is not in the Greek, but is
not improperly supplied. The meaning is, that the former arrangement or
dispensation had religious rites and services connected with it.
Had also ordinances. Marg. Ceremonies. The Greek word means,
laws, precepts, ordinances; and the idea is, that there were laws
regulating the worship of God. The Jewish institutions abounded with such
laws.
And a worldly sanctuary. The word sanctuary means a holy place,
and is applied to a house of worship, or a temple. Here it may refer
either to the temple or to the tabernacle. As the temple was constructed
after the same form as the tabernacle, and had the same furniture, the
description of the apostle may be regarded as applicable to either of
them, and it is difficult to determine which he had in his eye. The term
"worldly," applied to "sanctuary," here means that it pertained
to this world; it was contradistinguished from the heavenly
sanctuary not made with hands, where Christ was now gone.
Comp. Hebrews 9:11,24. It does not mean that it was worldly in the
sense in which that word is now used, as denoting the opposite of
spiritual, serious, religious; but worldly in the sense that it
belonged to the earth rather than to heaven; it was made by human
hands, not directly by the hands of God.
{1} "ordinances" "ceremonies"
{a} "sanctuary" Exodus 25:8
Verse 2. For there was a tabernacle made. The word "tabernacle"
properly means, a tent, a booth, or a hut, and was then given by
way of eminence to the tent for public worship made by Moses m
the wilderness. For a description of this, see Exodus 25. In this
place the word means the outer sanctuary or room in the tabernacle;
that is, the first room which was entered--called here "the first."
The same word--\~skhnh\~--is used in Hebrews 9:3 to denote the
inner sanctuary, or holy of holies. The tabernacle, like the temple
afterwards, was divided into two parts by the veil, Exodus 26:31,32,
one of which was called "the holy place," and the other the holy of
holies." The exact size of the two rooms in the tabernacle is not
specified in the Scriptures, but it is commonly supposed that the
tabernacle was divided in the same manner as the temple was afterwards;
that is, two-thirds of the interior constituted the holy place, and
one-third the holy of holies. According to this, the holy place, or
"first tabernacle" was twenty cubits long by ten broad, and the most
holy place was ten cubits square. The whole length of the tabernacle was
about fifty-five feet, the breadth eighteen, and the height eighteen. In
the temple, the two rooms, though of the same relative proportions, were
of course much larger. See a description of the temple
See Barnes "Matthew 21:12". In both cases, the holy place was at the east,
and the holy of holies at the west end of the sacred edifice. The
following cut will furnish a good illustration of the tabernacle
when set up, with the principal coverings removed.
The first. The first room on entering the sacred edifice, here
called the "first tabernacle." The apostle proceeds now to enumerate the
various articles of furniture which were in the two rooms of the
tabernacle and temple. His object seems to be, not for information, for
it could not be supposed that they to whom he was writing were ignorant
on this point, but partly to show that it could not be said that he spoke
of that of which he had no information, or that he undervalued it; and
partly to show the real nature of the institution, and to prove that it
was of an imperfect and typical character, and had a designed reference
to something that was to come. It is remarkable that, though he maintains
that the whole institution was a "figure" of what was to come, and though
he specifies by name all the furniture of the tabernacle, he does not
attempt to explain their particular typical character nor does he affirm
that they had such a character. He does not say that the candlestick,
and the table of shewbread, and the ark, and the cherubim, were designed
to adumbrate some particular truth or fact of the future dispensation,
or had a designed spiritual meaning. It would have been happy if all
expositors had followed the example of Paul, and had been content, as he
was, to state the facts about the tabernacle, and the general truth
that the dispensation was intended to introduce a more perfect
economy, without endeavouring to explain the typical import of
every pin and pillar of the ancient place of worship. If those
things had such a designed typical reference, it is remarkable that
Paul did not go into an explanation of that fact in the epistle before
us. Never could a better opportunity for doing it occur than was
furnished here. Yet it was not done. Paul is silent where many
expositors have found occasion for admiration. Where they have
seen the profoundest wisdom, he saw none; where they have found
spiritual instruction in the various implements of divine service in
the sanctuary, he found none. Why should we be more wise than
he was? Why attempt to hunt for types and shadows where he found none?
And why should we not be limited to the views which he actually
expressed in regard to the design and import of the ancient
dispensation? Following an inspired example, we are on solid ground, and
are not in danger. But the moment we leave that, and attempt to
spiritualize everything in the ancient economy, we are in an open sea
without compass or chart, and no one knows to what fairy lands he may be
drifted. As there are frequent allusions in the New Testament to the
different parts of the tabernacle furniture here specified, it may be a
matter of interest and profit to furnish an illustration of the most
material of them.
The candlestick. For an account of the candlestick, see
Exodus 25:31-37. It was made of pure gold, and had seven branches, that
is, three on each side and one in the centre. These branches had on
the extremities seven golden lamps, which were fed with pure
olive oil, and which were lighted "to give light over against it";
that is, they shed light on the altar of incense, the table of shew,
bread, and generally on the furniture of the holy place. These
branches were made with three "bowls," "knops,"and "flowers,
occurring alternately on each one of the six branches; while on
the centre or upright shaft, there were four "bowls," "knops,"
and "flowers" of this kind. These ornaments were probably taken
from the almond, and represented the flower of that tree in various
stages. The "bowls" on the branches of the candlestick probably
meant the calyx or cup of that plant from which the flower springs.
The "knops" probably referred to some ornament on the candlestick mingled
with the "bowls" and the "flowers" perhaps designed as an imitation of
the nut or fruit of the almond. The "flowers" were evidently ornaments
resembling the flowers on the almond tree, wrought, as all the rest
were, in pure gold. See Bush's Notes on Exod. xxv. The following
beautiful cut, drawn on this supposition, will probably give a tolerably
correct view of the ancient candelabrum or candlestick. I introduce this
cut as being a fine illustration furnished by Professor Bush of the
candlestick itself; with the views which he has expressed of its
spiritual reference, however, I have no sympathy, The candlestick was
undoubtedly designed to furnish light in the dark room of the
tabernacle and temple; and, in accordance with the general plan
of those edifices, was ornamented after the most chaste and pure
views of ornamental architecture of those times--but there is no
evidence that its branches, and bowls, and knops, and flowers, had
each a peculiar typical significance. The sacred writers are wholly
silent as to any such reference, and it is not well to attempt to be
"wise above that which is written." An expositor of the Scripture cannot
have a safer guide than the sacred writers themselves. How should any
uninspired man know that these things had such a peculiar typical
signification? The candlestick was placed on the south, or left hand side
of the holy place as one entered, the row of lamps being probably
parallel with the wall. It was at first placed in the tabernacle, and
afterwards removed into the temple built by Solomon. Its subsequent
history is unknown. Probably it was destroyed when the temple was taken
by the Chaldeans. The form of the candlestick in the second temple, whose
figure is preserved on the "Arch of Titus" in Rome, was of somewhat
different construction. But it is to be remembered, that the articles
taken away from the temple by Vespasian were not the same as those
made by Moses; and Josephus says expressly that the candlestick
was altered from its original form.
And the table. That is, the table on which the shewbread was placed.
This table was made of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold. It was two
cubits long, and one cubit broad, and a cubit and a half high; that is,
about three feet and a half in length, one foot and nine inches wide, and
two feet and a half in height. It was furnished with rings or staples,
through which were passed staves, by which it was carried. These
staves, we are informed by Josephus, were removed when the table
was at rest, so that they might not be in the way of the priests at
they officiated in the tabernacle. It stood lengthwise east and
west, on the north side of the holy place.
And the shewbread. On the table just described. This bread consisted
of twelve loaves, placed on the table every Sabbath. The Hebrews affirm
that they were square loaves, having the four sides covered with leaves
of gold. They were arranged in two piles, of course with six in a
pile, Leviticus 24:5-9. The number twelve was selected with reference to
the twelve tribes of Israel. They were made without leaven; were renewed
each Sabbath, when the old loaves were then taken away to be eaten by the
priests only. The Hebrew phrase rendered "shewbread" means, properly,
"bread of faces," or "bread of presence." The Seventy render it
\~artouv enwpiouv\~ foreplaced loaves. In the New Testament it is,
\~h proyesiv twn artwn\~ --the placing of bread; and, in Symmachus, "bread of
proposition," or placing. Why it was called "bread of presence" has
been a subject on which expositors have been much divided.
Some have held that it was because it was before, or in the presence
of the symbol of the Divine Presence in the tabernacle, though in
another department; some, that it was because it was set there to
be seen by men, rather than to be seen by God. Others that it
had an emblematic design, looking forward to the Messiah as the
food or nourishment of the soul, and was substantially the same
as the table spread with the symbols of the Saviour's body and
blood. See Bush, in loc. But of this last mentioned opinion, it
may be asked, where is the proof? It is not found in the account
of it in the Old Testament, and there is not the slightest intimation in
the New Testament that it had any such design. The object for which
it was placed there can be only a matter of conjecture, as it is not
explained in the Bible; and it is more difficult to ascertain the use and
design of the shewbread than of almost any other emblem of the Jewish
economy. Calmet. Perhaps the true idea, after all that has been
written and conjectured, is, that the table and the bread were
for the sake of carrying out the idea that the tabernacle was the
dwelling-place of God, and that there was a propriety that it should
be fitted up with the usual appurtenances of a dwelling. Hence there
was a candlestick and a table, because these were the common and ordinary
furniture of a room; and the idea was to be kept up constantly that that
was the dwelling-place of the Most High by lighting and trimming the
lamps every day, and by renewing the bread on the table periodically.
The most simple explanation of the phrase "bread of faces," or "bread of
presence," is, that it was so called because it was set before the
face, or in the presence of God in the tabernacle. The various
forms which it has been supposed would represent the table of shewbread
may be seen in Calmet's Large Dictionary. The preceding cut is the usual
illustration of it. If the loaves were piled above one another, as they
are represented in the cut, they were probably separated by thin plates
of gold, or some other substance, to keep them from moulding. The Jews
say that they were separated by plates of gold.
Which is called the sanctuary. Marg., "Or, holy." That is, the
holy place. The name sanctuary was commonly given to the whole
edifice, but with strict propriety appertained only to this first room.
{a} "tabernacle" Exodus 26:1,35
{b} "table" Exodus 11:4
{c} "shewbread" Exodus 25:30
{1} "sanctuary" "holy"
Verse 3. And after the second veil. There were two veils to the
tabernacle. The one which is described in Exodus 26:36,37, was called
"the hanging for the door of the tent," and was made of "blue,
and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen," and was suspended
on five pillars of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold. This answered
for a door to the whole tabernacle. The second or inner veil, here
referred to, divided the holy from the most holy place. This is
described in Exodus 26:31-33. It was made of the same materials as the
other, though it would seem in a more costly manner, and with more
embroidered work. On this veil the figures of the cherubim were curiously
wrought. The design of this veil was to separate the holy from the most
holy place; and in regard to its symbolical meaning we can be at no loss,
for the apostle Paul has himself explained it in this chapter.
See Barnes "Hebrews 9:8", seq.
The tabernacle. That is, the inner tabernacle; or that which was
more properly called the tabernacle. The name was given to either
of the two rooms into which it was divided, or to the whole structure.
Which is called the Holiest of all. It was called "the Most Holy
Place;" "the Holy of Holies;" or "the Holiest of all." It was so called
because the symbol of the Divine Presence--the Shekinah--dwelt there
between the cherubim.
{a} "veil" Exodus 26:31,31
Verse 4. Which had the golden censer. The censer was a fire-pan,
made for the purpose of carrying fire, in order to burn incense on it in
the place of worship. The forms of the censer were various; but the
following cuts will represent those which are most common. Some
difficulty has been felt respecting the statement of Paul here, that the
"golden censer" was in the most holy place, from the fact that no such
utensil is mentioned by Moses as pertaining to the tabernacle; nor in the
description of Solomon's temple, which was modelled after the tabernacle,
is there any account of it given. But the following considerations will
probably remove the difficulty.
(1.) Paul was a Jew, and was familiar with what pertained to the
temple, and gave such a description of it as would be in accordance
with what actually existed in his time. The fact that Moses does
not expressly mention it does not prove that, in fact, no such censer
was laid up in the most holy place.
(2.) Aaron and his successors were expressly commanded to burn incense in
a "censer" in the most holy place before the mercy-seat. This was to be
done on the great day of atonement, and but once in a year,
Leviticus 16:12,13.
(3.) There is every probability that the censer that was used on such an
occasion was made of gold. All the implements that were employed in the
most holy place were made of gold, or overlaid with gold, and it is in
the highest degree improbable that the high priest would use any other on
so solemn an occasion. Comp. 1 Kings 7:50.
(4.) As the golden censer was to be used only once in a year, it would
naturally be laid away in some secure situation--and none would so
obviously occur as the most holy place. There it would be perfectly safe.
No one was permitted to enter there but the high priest; and being
preserved there it would be always ready for his use. The statement of
Paul, therefore, has the highest probability, and undoubtedly accords
with what actually occurred in the tabernacle and the temple. The
object of the incense burned in worship was to produce an agreeable
fragrance or smell. See Barnes "Luke 1:9".
And the ark of the covenant. This ark or chest was made of
shittim-wood, was two cubits and a half long, a cubit and a half broad,
and the same in height, Exodus 25:10. It was completely covered with
gold, and had a lid, which was called the "mercy-seat," on which
rested the Shekinah, the symbol of the Divine Presence between the out.
stretched wings of the cherubim. It was called "the ark of the covenant,"
because within it were the two tables of the covenant, or the law of God
written on tables of stone. It was a simple chest, coffer, or box,
with little ornament, though rich in its materials. A golden crown or
moulding ran around the top, and it had rings and staves in its sides by
which it might be borne, Exodus 25:12-16. This ark was regarded as the
most sacred of all the appendages of the tabernacle. Containing the law,
and being the place where the symbol of the Divine Presence was
manifested, it was regarded as peculiarly holy; and in the various wars
and revolutions in the Hebrew commonwealth, it was guarded with peculiar
care. After the passage over the Jordan it remained for some time at
Gilgal, (Joshua 4:19,) whence it was removed to Shiloh, 1 Samuel 1:3.
From hence the Israelites took it to their camp, apparently to animate
them in battle, but it was taken by the Philistines, 1 Samuel 4. The
Philistines, however, oppressed by the hand of God, resolved to return it,
and sent it to Kirjath-Jearim, 1 Samuel 7:1. In the reign of Saul it was
at Nob. David conveyed it to the house of Obed-Edom, and thence to his
palace on Mount Zion. 2 Samuel 6. At the dedication of the temple it was
placed in the Holy of Holies by Solomon, where it remained for many
years. Subsequently, it is said, the wicked kings of Judah, abandoning
themselves to idolatry, established idols in the most holy place
itself; and the priests removed the ark, and bore it from place to
place to secure it from profanation. Calmet. When Josiah ascended
the throne he commanded the priests to restore the ark to its place
in the sanctuary, and forbade them to carry it about from one place
to another as they had before done, 2 Chronicles 35:3. The subsequent history
of the ark is unknown. It is probable that it was either destroyed when
the city of Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, or that it was carried
with other spoils to Babylon. There is no good reason to suppose that it
was ever in the second temple; and it is generally admitted by the Jews
that the ark of the covenant was one of the things that were wanting
there. Abarbanel says, that the Jews flatter themselves that it will be
restored by the Messiah.
Wherein, That is, in the ark for so the construction naturally
requires. In 1 Kings 8:9, however, it is said that there was nothing in
the ark, "save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb:"
and it has been supposed by some that the pot of manna and the rod of
Aaron were not in the ark, but that they were in capsules, or ledges made
on its sides for their safe keeping, and that this should be rendered
"by the ark." But the apostle uses the same language respecting the
pot of manna and the rod of Aaron which he does about the two tables of
stone; and as they were certainly in the ark, the fair construction here
is that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were in it also.
The account in Exodus 16:32-34,; Numbers 17:10, is, that they were laid up in
the most holy place, "before the testimony," and there is no
improbability whatever in the supposition that they were in the ark,
Indeed that would be the most safe place to keep them, as the tabernacle
was often taken down, and removed from place to place. It is clear, from
the passage in 1 Kings 8:9, that they were not in the ark in the temple,
but there is no improbability in the supposition that before the temple
was built they might have been removed from the ark and lost. When the
ark was carried from place to place, or during its captivity by the
Philistines, it is probable they were lost, as we never hear of them
afterwards.
The golden pot. In Exodus 16:33, it is simply a "pot," without
specifying the material. In the Septuagint it is rendered "golden pot;"
and as the other utensils of the sanctuary were of gold, it may be
fairly presumed that this was also.
That had manna. A small quantity of manna which was to be preserved
as a perpetual remembrance of the food which they had eaten in their
long journey in the wilderness, and of the goodness of God in
miraculously supplying their wants. As the manna, also, would not of
itself keep, Exodus 16:20, the fact that this was to be laid up to be
preserved from age to age was a perpetual miracle in proof of the
presence and faithfulness of God. On the subject of the manna, see Bush's
Notes on Exodus 16:15.
And Aaron's rod that budded. That budded and blossomed as a proof
that God had chosen him to minister to him. The princes of the tribes
were disposed to rebel, and to call in question the authority of Aaron.
To settle the matter each one was required to take a rod or staff of
office, and to bring it to Moses with the name of the tribe to which it
appertained written on it. These were laid up by Moses in the tabernacle;
and it was found, on the next day, that the rod marked with the name of
Levi had budded and blossomed, and produced almonds. In perpetual
remembrance of this miracle, the rod was preserved in the ark,
Numbers 17. Its subsequent history is unknown. It was not in
the ark when the temple was built; nor is there any reason to suppose
that it was preserved to that time.
And the tables of the covenant. The two tables of stone on which the
ten commandments were written. They were expressly called "the words of
the covenant" in Exodus 34:28. On the word covenant,
See Barnes "Exodus 34:28". See Barnes "Hebrews 9:6" and
See Barnes "Hebrews 9:17" of this chapter. These two tables were
in the ark at the time the temple was dedicated, 1 Kings 8:9.
Their subsequent history is unknown. It is probable that they
shared the fate of the ark, and were either carried to Babylon, or
were destroyed when the city was taken by Nebuchadnezzar.
{b} "golden censer" Leviticus 16:12
{c} "ark" Exodus 25:10
{d} "golden pot" Exodus 25:10
{e} "rod" Numbers 17:10
{f} "tables" Exodus 34:19; 40:20; Deuteronomy 10:2,5
Verse 5. And over it. That is, over the ark.
The cherubim of glory. A Hebrew mode of expression, meaning the
glorious cherubim. The word cherubim is the Hebrew form of the plural,
of which cherub is the singular. The word glory, used here in
connexion with "cherubim," refers to the splendour, or magnificence of
the image, as being carved with great skill, and covered with gold. There
were two cherubim on the ark, placed on the lid in such a manner that
their faces looked inward towards each other, and downward toward the
mercy-seat. They stretched out their wings "on high," and covered the
mercy-seat, or the lid of the ark, Exodus 25:18-20. Comp. 1 Kings 8:6,7;
1 Chronicles 28:18. In the temple, the cherubim were made of the olive-tree,
and were ten cubits high. They were overlaid with gold, and were so placed
that the wing of one touched the wall on one side of the holy of holies,
and that of the other the other side, and their wings met together over
the ark, 1 Kings 6:23-28. It is not probable. However, that this was the
form used in the tabernacle, as wings thus expanded would have rendered it
inconvenient to carry them from place to place. Of the form and design of
the cherubim much has been written, and much that is the mere creation of
fancy and the fruit of wild conjecture. Their design is not explained in
the Bible, and silence in regard to it would have been wisdom. If they
were intended to be symbolical as is certainly possible comp.
Ezekiel 10:20-22, it is impossible now to determine the object of the
symbol. Who is authorized to explain it? Who can give to his speculations
anything more than the authority of pious conjecture? And of what
advantage, therefore, can speculation be, where the volume of inspiration
says nothing? They who wish to examine this subject more fully, with the
various opinions that have been formed on it, may consult the following
works, viz.: Calmet's Dictionary, Fragment No, 152, with the numerous
illustrations; Bush's Notes on Exodus 25:18; and the Quarterly
Christian Spectator, vol. viii. pp. 368--388. Drawings resembling
the cherubim were not uncommon on ancient sculptures. The preceding winged
figure, taken from the sculpture at Persepolis, may perhaps have been a
rude image of the ancient cherub. The common representation of the ark and
cherubim is something like the following, which may perhaps be as correct
as it is possible now to furnish.
Shadowing. Stretching out its wings so as to cover the mercy-seat.
The mercy-seat. The cover of the ark, on which rested the cloud or
visible symbol of the Divine Presence. It was called "mercy-seat," or
propitiatory-- \~ilasthrion\~--because it was this which was sprinkled over
with the blood of atonements or propitiation, and because it was from this
place, on which the symbol of the Deity rested, that God manifested
himself as propitious to sinners. The blood of the atonement was that
through or by means of which he declared his mercy to the guilty. Here
God was supposed to be seated; and from this place he was supposed to
dispense mercy to man when the blood of the atonement was sprinkled there.
This was undoubtedly designed to be a symbol of his dispensing mercy to
men, in virtue of the blood which the Saviour shed as the great sacrifice
for guilt. See Hebrews 9:13,14.
Of which we cannot now speak particularly. That is, it is not my
present design to speak particularly of these things. These matters were
well understood by those to whom he wrote, and his object did not require
him to go into a fuller explanation.
{a} "cherubim" Exodus 25:18,22
Verse 6. When thee things were thus ordained. Thus arranged or
appointed. Having shown what the tabernacle was, the apostle proceeds
to show what was done in it.
The Priests went always into the first tabernacle. The outer
tabernacle, called the holy place. They were not permitted to enter the
holy of holies, that being entered only once in a year by the high priest.
The holy place was entered every day to make the morning and evening
oblation.
Accomplishing the service of God. Performing the acts of worship which
God had appointed--burning incense, etc. Luke 1:9.
{b} "Priests" Numbers 27:3
Verse 7. But into the second. The second apartment or room, called
the most holy place, Hebrews 9:3.
Went the High priest alone once every year. On the great day of
atonement, Exodus 30:10. On that day he probably entered the holy of
holies three or four times, first to burn incense, Leviticus 16:12; then to
sprinkle the blood of the bullock on the mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:14; then
he was to kill the goat of the sin-offering, and bring that blood within
the veil, and sprinkle it also on the mercy-seat; and then, perhaps, he
entered again to bring out the golden censer. The Jewish tradition is,
that he entered the holy of holies four times on that day. After all,
however, the number of times is not certain, nor is it material; the
only important point being that he entered it only on one day of
the year, while the holy place was entered every day.
Not without blood. That is, he bare with him blood to sprinkle on the
mercy-seat. This was the blood of the bullock and of the goat--borne in at
two different times.
Which he offered for himself. The blood of the bullock was offered for
himself and for his house or family--thus keeping impressively before his
own mind and the mind of the people the fact that the priests, even of the
highest order, were sinners, and needed expiation like others,
Leviticus 16:11.
And for the errors of the people. The blood of the goat was offered
for them, Leviticus 16:15. The word rendered errors--\~agnohma\~
--denotes, properly, ignorance, involuntary error; and then error or
fault in general--the same as the Hebrew \^HEBREW\^ from \^HEBREW\^--
to err. The object was to make expiation for all the error and sins
of the people, and this occurred once in the year. The repetition
of these sacrifices was a constant remembrance of sin; and the design
was, that neither the priests nor the people should lose sight of the fact
that they were violators of the law of God.
{c} "once" Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16:2
Verse 8. The Holy Ghost. Who appointed all this. The whole
arrangement in the service of the tabernacle is represented as having been
under the direction of the Holy Ghost, or this was one of his
methods of teaching the great truths of religion, and of keeping
them before the minds of men. Sometimes that Spirit taught
by direct revelation; sometimes by the written word; and sometimes by
symbols. The tabernacle, with its different apartments, utensils, and
services, was a permanent means of keeping important truths before the
minds of the ancient people of God.
This signifying. That is, showing this truth, or making use of this
arrangement to impress this truth on the minds of men, that the way into
the holiest of all was not yet made manifest.
That the way into the holiest of all. Into heaven--of which the most
holy place in the tabernacle was undoubtedly designed to be an emblem. It
was the place where the visible symbol of God--the Shekinah--dwelt; where
the blood of propitiation was sprinkled, and was, therefore, an
appropriate emblem of that holy heaven where God dwells, and whence pardon
is obtained by the blood of the atonement.
Was not yet made manifest. The way to heaven was not opened, or fully
understood. It was not known how men could appear before God, or how they
could come with the hope of pardon. That way has now been opened by the
ascension of the Redeemer to heaven, and by the assurance that all who
will may come in his name.
While as the first tabernacle was yet standing. As long as it stood,
and the appointed services were held in it. The idea is, that until it was
superseded by a more perfect system it was a proof that the way to
heaven was not yet fully and freely opened, and that the Holy Ghost
designed that it should be such a proof. The apostle does not specify
in what the proof consisted, but it may have been in something like the
following.
(1.) It was a mere symbol, and not the reality--showing that the true
way was not yet fully understood.
(2.) It was entered but once a year--showing that there was not access at
all times.
(3.) It was entered only by the high priest--showing that there was not
free and full access to all the people.
(4.) It was accessible only by Jews--showing that the way in which all men
might be saved was not then fully revealed. The sense is, that it was a
system of types and shadows, in which there were many burdensome rites,
and many things to prevent men from coming before the symbol of the
Divinity, and was therefore an imperfect system. All these
obstructions are now removed; the Saviour--the great High Priest of his
people--has entered heaven, and "opened it to all true believers,"
and all of every nation may now have free access to God. See
Hebrews 9:12; comp. Hebrews 10:19-22.
{b} "way" John 14:6
Verse 9. Which was a figure for the time then present. That is, as
long as the tabernacle stood. The word rendered figure--\~parabolh\~--
is not the same as type --\~tupov\~, (Romans 5:14;; Acts 7:43,44;
John 20:25; 1 Corinthians 10:6,11; Philippians 3:17, --but is the word commonly rendered
parable, Matthew 13:3,10,13,18,24,31,33-36,53; 15:15
et saepe, and means, properly, a placing side by side; then, a
comparison, or similitude, Here it is used in the sense of image, or
symbol--something to represent other things. The idea is, that the
arrangements and services of the tabernacle were a representation of
important realities, and of things which were more fully to be revealed
at a future period. There can be no doubt that Paul meant to say that
this service in general was symbolical or typical, though this will not
authorize us to attempt to spiritualize every minute arrangement of it.
Some of the things in which it was typical are specified by the apostle
himself; and wisdom and safety in explaining the arrangements of the
tabernacle and its services consist in adhering very closely to the
explanations furnished by the inspired writers. An interpreter is on an
open Sea, to be driven he knows not whither, when he takes leave of these
safe pilots.
Both gifts. Thank-offerings.
And sacrifices. Bloody offerings. The idea as, that all kinds of
offerings to God were made there.
That could not make him that did the service perfect. That could not
take away sin, and remove the stains of guilt on the soul.
See Barnes "Hebrews 7:11"; comp. Hebrews 8:7; 7:27; 10:1,11.
As pertaining to the conscience. They related mainly to outward and
ceremonial rites; and even when offerings were made for sin, the
conscience was not relieved. They could not expiate guilt; they
could not make the soul pure; they could not of themselves impart
peace to the soul by reconciling it to God. They could not fully
accomplish what the conscience needed to have done in order to
give it peace. Nothing will do this but the blood of the Redeemer.
{c} "could not" Psalms 40:6,7; Galatians 3:21; Hebrews 10:1,11
{d} "conscience" Psalms 51:16-19
Verse 10. Which stood only in meats and drinks. The idea is, that
the ordinances of the Jews, in connexion with the services of religion,
consisted much of laws pertaining to what was lawful to eat and drink,
etc. A considerable part of those laws related to the distinction between
clean and unclean beasts, and to such arrangements as were designed to
keep them externally distinct from other nations. It is possible, also,
that there may be a reference here to meat and drink offerings. On the
grammatical difficulties of this verse, see Stuart on the Hebrews,
in loc.
And divers washings. The various ablutions which were required in
the service of the tabernacle and the temple--washing of the hands,
of the victim that was to be offered, etc, It was for this purpose that
the laver was erected in front of the tabernacle, Exodus 30:18; 31:9
Exodus 35:16, and that the brazen sea and the lavers were constructed in
connexion with the temple of Solomon, 2 Chronicles 4:3-5;; 1 Kings 7:26. The Greek
word here is baptisms. On its meaning, See Barnes "Matthew 3:6";
See Barnes "Mark 7:4".
And carnal ordinances. Marg. "Or, rites or ceremonies." Or,
"Ordinances of the flesh;" that is, which pertained to the flesh,
or to external ceremonies. The object was rather to keep them
externally pure than to cleanse the conscience and make them holy
in heart.
Imposed on them. Laid on them--\~epikeimena\~. It does not mean that there
was any oppression or injustice in regard to these ordinances, but
that they were appointed for a temporary purpose.
Until the time of reformation. The word here rendered
reformation --\~diorywsiv\~ means, properly, emendation,
improvement, reform. It refers to putting a thing in a right
condition; making it better; or raising up and restoring that which is
fallen down. Passow. Here the reference is undoubtedly to the gospel,
as being a better system--a putting things where they ought to be.
Comp. See Barnes "Acts 3:21". The idea here is, that those ordinances
were only temporary in their nature, and were designed to endure till a
more perfect system should be introduced. They were of value
to introduce that better system; they were not adapted to purify the
conscience and remove the stains of guilt from the soul.
{e} "meats and drinks" Leviticus 11:2
{f} "washings" Numbers 19:7
{1} "ordinances" "rites or ceremonies"
{g} "imposed" Ephesians 2:15
Verse 11. But Christ being come. Now that the Messiah has come, a
more perfect system is introduced, by which the conscience may
be made free from guilt.
An High Priest of good things to come. See Hebrews 10:1. The apostle
having described the tabernacle, and shown wherein it was defective in
regard to the real wants of sinners, proceeds now to describe the
Christian system, and to show how that met the real condition of man, and
especially how it was adapted to remove sin from the soul. The phrase,
"high priest of good things to come," seems to refer to those "good
things" which belonged to the dispensation that was to come; that is,
the dispensation under the Messiah. The Jews anticipated great blessings
in that time. They looked forward to better things than they enjoyed under
the old dispensation. They expected more signal proofs of the Divine
favour; a clearer knowledge of the way of pardon; and more eminent
spiritual enjoyments. Of these, the apostle says that Christ, who had
come, was now the high priest. It was he by whom they were procured; and
the time had actually arrived when they might enjoy the long-anticipated
good things under the Messiah.
By a greater and more perfect tabernacle. The meaning is, that Christ
officiated as High Priest in a much more magnificent and perfect temple
than either the tabernacle or the temple under the old dispensation. He
performed the great functions of his priestly office--the sprinkling of
the blood of the atonement--in heaven itself, of which the most holy
place in the tabernacle was but the emblem. The Jewish high priest entered
the sanctuary made with hands to minister before God; Christ entered into
heaven itself. The word "by" here \~dia\~ means, probably,
through; and the idea is, that Christ passed through a more perfect
tabernacle on his way to the mercy-seat in heaven than the Jewish high
priest did when: he passed through the outer tabernacle, Hebrews 9:2,
and through the veil into the most holy place. Probably the idea in the
mind of the writer was that of the Saviour passing through the
visible heavens above us, to which the veil, dividing the holy from
the most holy place in the temple, bore some resemblance. Many, however,
have understood the word "tabernacle" here as denoting the body of
Christ, (see Grotius and Bloomfield, in loc.;) and according to
this the idea is, that Christ, by means of his own body and blood offered
as a sacrifice, entered into the Most Holy Place in heaven. But it
seems to me that the whole scope of the passage requires us to
understand it of the more perfect temple in heaven where Christ
performs his ministry, and of which the tabernacle of the Hebrews
was but the emblem. Christ did not belong to the tribe of Levi;
he was not an high priest of the order of Aaron; he did not enter
the holy place on earth, but he entered the heavens, and perfects
the work of his ministry there.
Not made with hands. A phrase that properly, describes heaven as being
fitted up by God himself. See Barnes "2 Corinthians 5:1".
Not Of this building. Gr. "of this creation \~ktisewv\~. The meaning
is, that the place where he officiates is not fitted up by human power and
art, but is the work of God. The object is to show that his ministry is
altogether more perfect than that which could be rendered by a Jewish
priest, and performed in a temple which could not have been reared by
human skill and power.
{h} "High Priest" Hebrews 3:1
{a} "good things" Hebrews 10:1
Verse 12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves. The Jewish
sacrifice consisted of the shedding of the blood of animals. On the great
day of attonement the high priest took with him into the most holy
place
(1.) the blood of a young bullock, Leviticus 16:3,11, which is here called
the blood of a "calf," which he offered for his own sin; and
(2.) the blood of a goat, as a sin-offering for others, Leviticus 16:9,15.
It was by, or by means of \~dia\~ blood thus sprinkled
on the mercy-seat, that the high priest sought the forgiveness of
his own sins and the sins of the people.
But by his own blood. That is, by his own blood shed for the remission
of sins. The meaning is, that it was in virtue of his own blood, or
by means of that, that, he sought the pardon of his people. That blood
was not shed for himself--for he had no sin--and consequently there
was a material difference between his offering and that of the
Jewish high priest. The difference related to such points as these,
(1.) The offering which Christ made was wholly for others; that
of the Jewish priest for himself as well as for them.
(2.) The blood offered by the Jewish priest was that of animals; that
offered by the Saviour was his own.
(3.) That offered by the Jewish priest was only an emblem or type--for it
could not take away sin; that offered by Christ had a real efficacy, and
removes transgression from the soul.
He entered into the holy place. Heaven. The meaning is, that as the
Jewish high priest bore the blood of the animal into the holy of holies,
and sprinkled it there as the means of expiation, so the offering which
Christ has to make in heaven, or the consideration on which he pleads
for the pardon of his people, is the blood which he shed on Calvary.
Having made the atonement, he now pleads the merit of it as a reason
why sinners should be saved. It is not, of course, meant that he literally
bore his own blood into heaven--as the high priest did the blood
of the bullock and the goat into the sanctuary; or that he literally
sprinkled it on the mercy-seat there; but that that blood, having
been shed for sin, is now the ground of his pleading and intercession for
the pardon of sin--as the sprinkled blood of the Jewish sacrifice was
the ground of the pleading of the Jewish high priest for the pardon of
himself and the people.
Having obtained eternal redemption for us. That is, by the shedding of
his blood. On the meaning of the word redemption,
See Barnes "Galatians 3:13". The redemption which the Lord Jesus effected
for his people is eternal. It will continue for ever. It is not a
temporary deliverance leaving the redeemed in danger of falling into sin
and ruin, but it makes salvation secure, and in its effects extends
through eternity. Who can estimate the extent of that love which
purchased for us such a redemption? Who can be sufficiently grateful
that he is thus redeemed? The doctrine in this verse is, that the
blood of Christ is the means of redemption, or atones for sin. In the
following verses the apostle shows that it not only makes atonement for
sin, but that it is the means of sanctifying or purifying the soul.
{c} "goats" Hebrews 10:4
{d} "own blood" Acts 8:2
{e} "holy place" Hebrews 10:19
Verse 13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats. Referring still to
the great day of atonement, when the offering made was the sacrifice of a
bullock and a goat.
And the ashes of an heifer. For an account of this, see
Numbers 19:2-10. In Hebrews 9:9 it is said that the ashes of the heifer,
after it was burnt, should be kept "for a water of separation; it is a
purification for sin." That is, the ashes were to be carefully preserved;
and, being mixed with water, were sprinkled on those who were from any
cause ceremonially impure. The reason for this appears to have been
that the heifer was considered as a sacrifice whose blood has been
offered, and the application of the ashes to which she had been burnt was
regarded as an evidence of participation in that sacrifice. It was
needful, where the laws were so numerous respecting eternal pollutions,
or where the members of the Jewish community were regarded as so
frequently "unclean" by contact with dead bodies, and in various other
ways, that there should be some method in which they could be declared
to be cleansed from their "uncleanness." The nature of these
institutions also required that this should be in connexion with
sacrifice; and in order to this it was arranged that there should be
this permanent sacrifice--the ashes of the heifer that had been
sacrificed --of which they could avail themselves at any time, without the
expense and delay of making a bloody offering specifically for the
occasion. It was, therefore, a provision of convenience; and at
the same time was designed to keep up the idea that all purification
was somehow connected with the shedding of blood.
Sprinkling the unclean. Mingled with water, and sprinkled on the
unclean. The word unclean here refers to such as had been defiled by
contact with dead bodies, or when one had died in the family, etc.
See Numbers 19:11-22.
Sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh. Makes holy so far as the
flesh or body is concerned. The uncleanness here referred to related to
the body only, and of course the means of cleansing extended only to that.
It was not designed to give peace to the conscience, or to expiate moral
offences. The offering thus made removed the obstructions to the worship
of God, so far as to allow him who had been defiled to approach him in a
regular manner. Thus much the apostle allows was accomplished by the
Jewish rites. They had an efficacy in removing ceremonial uncleanness;
and in rendering it proper that he who had been polluted should be
permitted again to approach and worship God. The apostle goes on to argue
that, if they had such an efficacy, it was fair to presume that the
blood of Christ would have far greater efficacy, and would reach to the
conscience itself and make that pure.
{f} "ashes" Numbers 19:2-17
Verse 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ. As being
infinitely more precious than the blood of an animal could possibly be.
If the blood of an animal had any efficacy at all, even in removing
ceremonial pollutions, how much more is it reasonable to suppose may be
effected by the blood of the Son of God!
Who through the eternal Spirit. This expression is very
difficult, and has given rise to a great variety of
interpretation.--Some Mss., instead of eternal here, read
holy, making it refer directly to the Holy Spirit.
See Wetstein. These various readings, however, are not regarded
as of sufficient authority to lead to a change in the text, and are of
importance only as showing that it was an early opinion that the Holy
Spirit is here referred to. The principal opinions which have been
entertained respecting this phrase are the following.
(1.) That which regards it as referring to the Holy Spirit, the third
person of the Trinity. This was the opinion of Owen, Doddridge, and
Archbishop Tillotson.
(2.) That which refers it to the divine:nature of Christ. Among those who
have maintained this opinion are Beza, Ernesti, Wolf, Vitriuga, Storr,
and the late Dr. J.P. Wilson, MSS. Notes.
(3.) Others, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, Koppe, understand it as meaning
endless or immortal life, in contradistinction from the Jewish
sacrifices which were of a perishable nature, and which needed so often
to be repeated.
(4.) Others regard it as referring to the glorified person of the
Saviour, meaning that, in his exited or spiritual station in heaven, he
presents the efficacy of blood,
(5.) Others suppose that it means Divine influence; and that the idea
is, that Christ was actuated and filled with a Divine influence when he
offered up himself as a sacrifice--an influence which was not of a
temporal and fleeting nature, but which was eternal in its efficacy.
This is the interpretation preferred by Prof. Stuart. For an examination
of these various opinions, see his "Excursus xviii." on this epistle. It
is difficult, if not impossible, to decide what is the true meaning of
the passage amidst this diversity of opinion; but there are some reasons
which seem to me to make it probable that the Holy Spirit is intended,
and that the idea is, that Christ made his great sacrifice under
the extraordinary influences of that Eternal Spirit. The reasons
which lead me to this opinion are the following.
(1.) It is that which would occur to the great mass of the readers of the
New Testament. It is presumed that the great body of sober, plain, and
intelligent readers of the Bible, on perusing the passage, suppose that
it refers to the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Trinity. There are
few better and safer rules for the interpretation of a volume designed
like the Bible for the mass of mankind, than to abide by the sense in
which they understand it.
(2.) This interpretation is one which is most naturally conveyed by the
language of the original. The phrase, the spirit \~to pneuma\~ has
so far a technical and established meaning in the New Testament as to
denote the Holy Ghost, unless there is something in the connexion which
renders such an application improper. In this case there is nothing
certainly which necessarily forbids such an application. The high names
and classical authority of those who have held this opinion are a
sufficient guarantee of this.
(3.) This interpretation accords with the fact, that the Lord Jesus is
represented as having been eminently endowed with the influences of the
Holy Spirit. Comp. See Barnes "John 3:34". Though he was Divine, yet
he was also a man, and as such was under influences similar to those, of
other pious men. The Holy Spirit is the source and sustainer of all
piety in the soul; and it is not improper to suppose that the man Christ
Jesus was, in a remarkable manner, influenced by the Holy Ghost in his
readiness to obey God, and to suffer according to his will.
(4.) If there was ever an occasion on which we may suppose he was
influenced by the Holy Ghost, that of his sufferings and death here
referred to may be supposed eminently to have been such an one. It was
expressive of the highest state of piety--of the purest love to God and
man--which has ever existed in the human bosom; it was the most trying
time of his own life; it was the period when there would be the most
strong temptation to abandon his work; and, as the redemption of the
whole world was dependent on that act, it is reasonable to suppose that
the richest heavenly grace would be there imparted to him, and that he
would then be eminently under the influence of that Spirit which was
granted not "by measure unto him." See Barnes "John 3:34".
(5.) This representation is not inconsistent with the belief that the
sufferings and death of the Redeemer were voluntary, and had all
the merit which belongs to a voluntary transaction. Piety in the
heart of a Christian now is not less voluntary because it is produced
and cherished by the Holy Ghost, nor is there less excellence in it
because the Holy Ghost imparts strong faith in the time of temptation and
trial. It seems to me, therefore, that the meaning of this expression is,
that the Lord Jesus was led by the strong influences of the Spirit of God
to devote himself as a sacrifice for sin. It was not by any temporary
influence--not by mere excitement; it was by the influence of the
Eternal Spirit of God; and the sacrifice thus offered could,
therefore, accomplish effects which would be eternal in their character.
It was not like the offering made by the Jewish high priest, which was
necessarily renewed every year, but it was under the influence of one who
was eternal, and the effects of whose influence might be everlasting.
It may be added, that if this is a correct exposition it follows that the
Holy Ghost is eternal, and must therefore be Divine.
Offered himself. That is, as a sacrifice. He did not offer a bullock
or a goat, but he offered himself. The sacrifice of one's self is the
highest offering which he can make: in this case it was the highest which
the universe had to make.
Without spot. Marg. "Or, fault." The animal that was offered in
the Jewish sacrifices was to be without blemish.
See Leviticus 1:10; 22:19-22. It was not to be lame, or blind,
or diseased. The word which is here used and rendered "without spot"
\~amwmov\~--refers to this fact, that there was no defect or blemish.
The idea is, that the Lord Jesus, the great Sacrifice, was perfect.
See Hebrews 7:26.
Purge your conscience. That is, cleanse, purify, or sanctify
your conscience. The idea is, that this offering would take away
whatever rendered the conscience defiled or sinful. The offerings
of the Jews related in the main to external purification, and were
not adapted to give peace to a troubled conscience. They could
render the worshipper externally pure, so that he might draw near
to God, and not be excluded by any ceremonial pollution or defile.
merit; but the mind, the heart, the conscience, they could not
make pure. They could not remove that which troubles a man when he
recollects that he has violated a holy law and has offended God, and when
he looks forward to an awful judgment-bar. The word conscience
here is not to be understood as a distinct and independent faculty of
the soul, but as the soul or mind itself reflecting and
pronouncing on its own acts. The whole expression refers to a mind
alarmed by the recollection of guilt--for it is guilt only that disturbs
a man s conscience. Guilt originates in the soul remorse and despair;
guilt makes a man troubled when he thinks of death and the judgment; it
is guilt only which alarms a man when he thinks of a holy God; and it is
nothing but guilt that makes the entrance into another world terrible
and awful. If man had no guilt he would never dread his Maker, nor would
the presence of his God be ever painful to him, Genesis 3:6-10; if a
man had no guilt he would not fear to die--for what have the innocent to
fear anywhere? The universe is under the government of a God of goodness
and truth, and, under such a government, how can those who have
done no wrong have anything to dread? The fear of death, the
apprehension of the judgment to come, and the dread of God, are
strong and irrefragable proofs that every man is a sinner. The only
thing, therefore, which ever disturbs the conscience, and makes death
dreadful, and God an object of aversion, and eternity awful, is GUILT.
If that is removed, man is calm and peaceful; if not, he is the victim
of wretchedness and despair.
From dead works. From works that are deadly in their nature, or that
lead to death. Or it may mean from works that have no spirituality, and
no life. By "works" here the apostle does not refer to their
outward religious acts particularly, but to the conduct of the life---to
what men do; and the idea is, that their acts are not spiritual
and saving, but such as lead to death. See See Barnes "Hebrews 6:1".
To serve the living God. Not in outward form, but in sincerity and in
truth; to be his true friends and worshippers. The phrase, "the
living God," is commonly used in tile Scriptures to describe the
true God as distinguished from idols, which are represented as
dead, or without life, Psalms 115:4-7. The idea in this verse
is, that it is only the sacrifice made by Christ which can remove the
stain of guilt from the soul. It could not be done by the blood of bulls
and of goats--for that did not furnish relief to a guilty
conscience--but it could be done by the blood of Christ. The sacrifice
which he made for sin was so pure and of such values that God can
consistently pardon the offender, and restore him to his favour. That
blood, too, can give peace--for Christ poured it out in behalf of
the guilty. It is not that he took part with the sinner against God; it
is not that he endeavours to convince him who has a troubled conscience
that he is needlessly alarmed, or that sin is not as bad as it is
represented to be, or that it does not expose the soul to danger. Christ
never took the part of the sinner against God; he never taught that sin
was a small matter, or that it did not expose to danger. He admitted all
that is said of its evil. But he provides for giving peace to the guilty
conscience by shedding his blood that it may be forgiven, and by
revealing a God of mercy who is willing to receive the offender into
favour, and to treat him as though he had never sinned. Thus the
troubled conscience may find peace; and thus, though guilty, man may be
delivered from the dread of the wrath to come.
{a} "who through" 1 Peter 3:18
{1} "spot" "fault"
{b} "purge" Hebrews 10:22
{c} "serve" 1 Peter 4:2
Verse 15. And for this cause. With this view; that is, to make an
effectual atonement for sin, and to provide a way by which the troubled
conscience may have peace.
He is the Mediator. See Barnes "Galatians 3:19,20". He is the Mediator
between God and man in respect to that new covenant which he has made, or
the new dispensation by which men are to be saved. He stands between
God and man--the parties at variance--and undertakes the work of mediation
and reconciliation.
Of the new testament. Not testament--for a testament, or will,
needs no mediator; but of the new covenant, or the new arrangement or
disposition of things under which he proposes to pardon and save the
guilty. See Barnes "Hebrews 9:16,17".
That by means of death. His own death as a sacrifice for sin. The old
covenant or arrangement also contemplated death but it was the death of
an animal. The purposes of this were to be effected by the death of the
Mediator himself; or this covenant was to be ratified in his blood.
For the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
testament. The covenant or arrangement under Moses. The general
idea here is, that these were offences for which no expiation could
be made by the sacrifices under that dispensation, or from which
the blood then shed could not redeem. This general idea may include two
particulars.
(1.) That they who had committed transgressions under that covenant, and
who could not be fully pardoned by the imperfect sacrifices then made,
would receive a full forgiveness of all their sins in the great day of
account through the blood of Christ. Though the blood of bulls and goats
could not expiate, yet they offered that blood in faith; they relied on
the promised mercy of God; they looked forward to a perfect sacrifice; and
now the blood of the great atonement, offered as a full expiation for
all their sins, would be the ground of their acquittal in the last day.
(2.) That the blood of Christ would now avail for the remission of all
those sins which could not be expiated by the sacrifices offered under the
law. It not only contemplated the remission of all the offences committed
by the truly pious under that law, but would now avail to put away sin
entirely. No sacrifice which men could offer would avail, but the blood of
Christ would remove all that guilt.
That they which are called. Alike under the old covenant and the new.
Might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. That is, the
fulfilment of the promise; or that they might be made partakers of eternal
blessings. That blood is effectual alike to save those under the ancient
covenant and the new--so that they will be saved in the same manner, and
unite in the same song of redeeming love.
Verse 16. For where a testament is. This is the same word \~diayhkh\~
which, in Hebrews 8:6, is rendered covenant. For the general
signification of the word, See Barnes "Hebrews 8:6". There is so much
depending, however, on the meaning of the word, not only in the
interpretation of this passage, but also of other parts of the Bible,
that it may be proper to explain it here more at length. The
word \~diayhkh\~ --occurs in the New Testament thirty-three times.
It is translated covenant in the common version, in Luke 1:72;
Acts 3:26; 7:8; Romans 9:4; 11:27; Galatians 3:15,17; 4:24; Ephesians 2:12; Hebrews 8:6,8,9,10;
Hebrews 9:4; 10:16; 12:24; 13:20. In the remaining places it is rendered
testament: Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6,14;
Hebrews 7:22; 9:15-17,20; Revelation 11:19. In four of those instances,
Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25, it is used with
reference to the institution or celebration of the Lord's Supper. In the
Septuagint it occurs not far from three hundred times; in considerably
more than two hundred of which, it is the translation of the Hebrew word
\^HEBREW\^ Berith. In one instance, Zechariah 11:14, it is the
translation of the word brotherhood; once, Deuteronomy 9:5, of \^HEBREW\^
--word; once, Jeremiah 34:18, of "words of the covenant;" once,
Leviticus 26:11, of tabernacle; once, Exodus 31:7, of testimony; it occurs
once, Ezekiel 16:8, where the reading of the Greek and Hebrew text is
doubtful; and it occurs three times, 1 Samuel 11:2; 20:8; 1 Kings 8:9, where
there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. From this use of the
word by the authors of the Septuagint, it is evident that they regarded
it
as the proper translation of the Hebrew \^HEBREW\^ Berith, and as
conveying the same sense which that word does. It cannot be reasonably
doubted that the writers of the New Testament were led to the use of the
word, in part at least, by. the fact that they found it occurring so
frequently in the version m common use; but it cannot be doubted,
also, that they regarded it as fairly conveying the sense of the word
\^HEBREW\^ Berith. On no principle can it be supposed that inspired
and honest men would use a word, in referring to transactions in
the Old Testament, which did not fairly convey the idea which
the writers of the Old Testament meant to express. The use being
thus regarded as settled, there are some facts in reference to it
which are of great importance in interpreting the New Testament,
and in understanding the nature of the "covenant" Which God
makes with man. These facts are the following.
(1.) The word \~diayhkh\~ diatheke--is not that which properly denotes
compact, agreement, or covenant. That word is \~sunyhkh\~ --syntheke--
or, in other forms, \~sunyesiv\~ and \~sunyesia\~; or if the word diatheke
is used in that signification it is only remotely, and as a secondary
meaning. See Passow; comp. the Septuagint in Isaiah 28:15; 30:1;
Daniel 11:6, and Wisdom i. 16; I Mac. x. 26; 2 Mac. xiii. 25;
xiv. 26. It is not the word which a Greek would have employed
to denote a compact or covenant, He would have employed it to
denote a disposition, ordering, or arrangement of things, whether of
religious rites, civil customs, or property; or if used with reference
to a compact, it would have been with the idea of an arrangement
or ordering of matters, not with the primary notion of an agreement
with another.
(2.) The word properly expressive of a covenant or compact \~sunyhkh\~ is
never used in the New Testament. In all the allusions to the
transactions between God and man, this word never occurs. From some
cause,
the writers and speakers in the New Testament seem to here supposed that
the word would leave an impression which.they did not wish to leave.
Though it might have been supposed that, in speaking of the various
transactions between God and man, they would have selected this word, yet
with entire uniformity they have avoided it. No one of them--though the
word \~diayhkh\~ diatheke--has been used by no less than six of
them--has been betrayed in a single instance into the use of the word
\~sunyhkh\~ syntheke, or has differed from the other writers in the
language employed. This cannot be supposed to be the result of concert or
collusion, but it must have been founded on some reason which operated
equally on all their minds.
(2.) In like manner, and with like remarkable uniformity, the word
\~sunyhkh\~ syntheke--is never used in the Septuagint with reference
to any arrangement or "covenant" between God and man. Once indeed in the
Apocrypha, and but once, it is used in that sense. In the three only
other
instances in Which it occurs in the Septuagint, it is with reference to
compacts between man and man, Isaiah 28:16; 30:1; Daniel 11:6. This
remarkable
fact, that the authors of that version never use the word to denote any
transaction between God and man, shows that there must have been some
reason for it which acted on their minds with entire uniformity.
(3.) It is no less remarkable that neither in the Septuagint nor the New
Testament is the word \~diayhkh\~--diatheke--ever used in the sense of
will or testament, unless it be in the case before us. This is conceded
on
all hands, and is expressly admitted by Prof. Stuart,
(Com Heb p. 439,) though he defends this use of the word in this passage.
A very important inquiry presents itself here which has never received a
solution generally regarded as satisfactory. It is why the word \~diayhkh\~
--diatheke--was selected by the writers of the New Testament to
express the nature of the transaction between God and man in the plan of
salvation. It might be said, indeed, that they found this word uniformly
used in the Septuagint, and that they employed it as expressing the idea
which they wished to convey, with sufficient accuracy. But this is only
removing the difficulty one step farther back. Why did the Seventy adopt
this word? Why did they not rather use the common and appropriate Greek
word to express the notion of a covenant? A suggestion on this subject
has
already been made in the See Barnes "Hebrews 8:6". Comp. Bib. Repository,
vol. xx. p. 55. Another reason may, however, be suggested for this
remarkable fact which is liable to no objection. It is, that in the
apprehension of the authors of the Septuagint, and of the writers of the
New Testament, the word \~diayhkh\~ diatheke--in its original and
proper signification, fairly conveyed the sense of the Hebrew word
\^HEBREW\^ Berith, and that the word \~sunyhkh\~ syntheke--or
compact, agreement, would not express that; and that they
never meant to be understood as conveying the idea, either that God
entered into a COMPACT or COVENANT with man, or that he made a WILL.
They meant to represent him as making an arrangement, a disposition,
an ordering of things, by which his service might be kept up among his
people, and by which men might be saved; but they were equally remote
from
representing him as making a compact, or a will. In support of
this there may be alleged
(1.) the remarkable uniformity in which the word \~diayhkh\~ diatheke--
is used, showing that there was some settled principle from which
they
never departed; and
(2.) used mainly the meaning of the word itself. Prof. Stuart has,
undoubtedly, given the accurate original sense of the word. "The real,
genuine, and original meaning of \~diayhkh\~ diatheke--is,
arrangement, disposition, or disposal of a thing," p. 440. The word
from which it is derived-- \~diatiyhmi\~ means, to place apart or asunder;
and
then to set, arrange, dispose in a certain order. Passow.
From this original signification is derived the use which the word
has, with singular uniformity, in the Scriptures. It denotes the
arrangement, disposition, or ordering of things which God made
in relation to mankind, by which he designed to keep up his worship on
earth, and to save the soul. It means neither covenant nor will; neither
compact nor legacy; neither agreement nor testament. It is an
arrangement of an entirely different order from either of them, and
the sacred writers, with an uniformity which could have been secured only
by the presiding influence of the One Eternal Spirit, have avoided the
suggestion that God made with man either a compact or a will. We have
no word which precisely expresses this idea; and hence our conceptions
are
constantly floating between a compact and a will, and the views which
we have are as unsettled as they are unscriptural. The simple idea is,
that God has made an arrangement by which his worship may be
celebrated and souls saved. Under the Jewish economy this arrangement
assumed one form; under the Christian another. In neither was it a
compact
or covenant between two parties in such a sense that one party would be
at
liberty to reject the terms proposed; in neither was it a testament or
will, as if God had left a legacy to man; but in both there were some
things in regard to the arrangement such as are found in a covenant or
compact. One of those things--equally appropriate to a compact between
man
and man, and to this arrangement the apostle refers to here, that
it implied in all cases the death of the victim. If these remarks
are well founded, they should be allowed materially to shape our
views in the interpretation of the Bible. Whole treatises of divinity
have
been written on a mistaken view of the meaning of this word--understood
as
meaning covenant. Volumes of angry controversy have been published on
the nature of the "covenant" with Adam, and on its influence on his
posterity. The only literal, "covenant" which can be supposed in the
plan of redemption is that between the Father and the Son--though even
the
existence of such a covenant is rather the result of devout and learned
imagining than of any distinct statement in the volume of inspiration.
The
simple statement there is, that God has made an arrangement for
salvation,
the execution of which he has entrusted to his Son, and has proposed it
to
man to be accepted as the only arrangement by which man can be saved, and
which he is not at liberty to disregard.
There has been much difference of opinion in reference to the meaning of
the passage here, and to the design of the illustration introduced. If
the word used--\~diayhkh\~--means testament, in the sense of a will, then
the sense of that passage is, that "a will is of force only when he who
made it dies, for it relates to a disposition of his property after his
death." The force of the remark of the apostle then would be, that the
fact that the Lord Jesus made or expressed his will to mankind,
implied that he would die to confirm it; or that since in the ordinary
mode of making a will it was of force only when he who made it was dead,
therefore it was necessary that the Redeemer should die, in order to
confirm and ratify that which he made. But the objections to this, which
appears to have been the view of our translators, seem to me to be
insuperable. They are these.
(1.) The word \~diayhkh\~ --diatheke--is not used in this sense in the
New Testament elsewhere. See the remarks above.
(2.) The Lord Jesus made no such will. He had no property, and
the
commandments and instructions which he gave to is disciples were not of
the nature of a will or testament.
(3.) Such an illustration would not be pertinent to the design of the
apostle, or in keeping with his argument. He is comparing the Jewish and
Christian dispensations, and the point of comparison in this chapter
relates to the question about the efficacy of sacrifice in the two
arrangements, he showed that the arrangement for blood-shedding by
sacrifice entered into both; that the high priest of both offered blood
as
an expiation; that the holy place was entered with blood, and that
consequently there was death in both the arrangements or
dispensations. The former arrangement or dispensation was ratified with
blood, and it was equally proper that the new arrangement should be also.
The point of comparison is not that Moses made a will or testament which
could be of force only when he died, and that the same thing was required
in the new dispensation, but it is that the former covenant was
ratified by blood, or by the death of a victim, and that it might be
expected that the new dispensation would be confirmed, and that it was,
in
fact, confirmed in the same manner. In this view of the argument what
pertinency would there be in introducing an illustration respecting a
will and the manner in which it became efficient.
See Barnes "Hebrews 9:18". It seems clear, therefore, to me, that the
word rendered testament here is to be taken in the sense in which
it is ordinarily used in the New Testament. The opinion that the word
here
means such a Divine arrangement as is commonly denoted a "covenant,"
and not testament, is sanctioned by not a few names of eminence in
criticism, such as Pierce, Doddridge, Michaelis, Steadel, and the late
Dr.
J.P. Wilson. Bloomfield says that the connexion here demands this. The
principal objections to this view are,
(1.) that it is not proved that no covenants or compacts were valid,
except such as were made by the intervention of sacrifices.
(2.) That the word rendered testator \~diayemenov\~ --cannot refer to the
death of an animal slain for the purpose of ratifying a covenant, but
must
mean either a testator or a contractor, i.e. one of two
contracting parties.
(3.) That the word rendered dead Hebrews 9:17-- \~nekroiv\~--means
only
dead men, and never is applied to the dead bodies of animals. See
Stuart on the Heb. p. 442. These objections to the supposition that the
passage refers to a covenant or compact, Prof. Stuart says are, in his
view, insuperable, and they are certainly entitled to grave
consideration.
Whether the view above presented is one which can be sustained, we may be
better able to determine after an examination of the words and phrases
which the apostle uses. Those objections which depend wholly on the
philological argument derived from the words used will be considered,
of course, in such an examination. It is to be remembered at the outset,
(1.) that the word \~diayhkh\~ -diatheke--is never used in the New
Testament in the sense of testament or will, unless in this place;
(2.) that it is never used in this sense in the Septuagint; and
(3.) that the Hebrew word \^HEBREW\^ --Berith--never has this
signification. This is admitted. See Stuart on the Heb. pp. 439, 440. It
must require very strong reasons to prove that it has this meaning here,
and that Paul has employed the word in a sense differing from its uniform
signification elsewhere in the Bible. Compare, however, the remarks of
Prof, Stuart ia Biblical Repository, vol. xx. p. 364.
There must also of necessity be. \~anagkh\~--That is, it is necessary
in order to confirm the covenant, or it would not be binding in cases
where this did not occur. The necessity in the case is simply to make it
valid or obligatory. So we say now, there must "necessarily" be a
seal, or a deed would not be valid. The fair interpretation of this
is, that this was the common and established custom in making a
"covenant"
with God, or confirming the arrangement with him in regard to salvation.
To this it is objected, (see the first objection above,) that "it is yet
to be made out that no covenants were valid except those by the
intervention of sacrifices." In reply to this, we may observe,
(1.) that the point to be made out is not that this was a custom in
compacts between man and man, but between man and his Maker.
There
is no evidence, as it seems to me, that the apostle alludes to a
compact between man and man. The mistake on this subject has arisen
partly
from the use of the word "testament" by our translators, in the sense
of will--supposing that it must refer to some transaction relating to man
only; and partly from the insertion of the word "men" in
Hebrews 9:17, in the translation of the phrase--\~epi nekroiv\~ upon the
dead,"
or "over the dead."- But it is not necessary to suppose that there is a
reference here to any transaction between man and man at all, as the
whole
force of the illustration introduced by the apostle will be retained if
we suppose him speaking only of a covenant between man and God. Then
his assertion will be simply that, in the arrangement between God and
man,
there was a necessity of the death of something, or of the shedding
of
blood in order to ratify it. This view will save the necessity of proof
that the custom of ratifying compacts between man and man by sacrifice
prevailed. Whether that can be made out or not, the assertion of the
apostle may be true, that in the arrangement which God makes with
man, sacrifice was necessary in order to confirm or ratify it.
(2.) The point to be made out is, not that such a custom is or was
universal among all nations, but that it was the known and regular
opinion
among the Hebrews that a sacrifice was necessary in a "covenant "with
God,
in the same way as if we should say that a deed was not valid without a
seal, it would not be necessary to show this in regard to all nations,
but
only that it is the law or the custom in the nation where the writer
lived, and at the time when he lived. Other nations may have very
different modes or confirming or ratifying a deed and the same nation may
have different methods at various times. The fact or custom to which
I
suppose there is allusion here, is that of sacrificing an animal to
ratify the arrangement between man and his Maker, commonly called a
"covenant;" In regard to the existence of such a custom, particularly
among the Hebrews? we may make the following observations. It was the
common mode of ratifying the "covenant" between God and man. That was
done
over a sacrifice, or by the shedding of blood. So the covenant with
Abraham was ratified by slaying an heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a
turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. The animals were divided and a burning
lamp passed between them, Genesis 15:9,18. So the covenant made with the
Hebrews in the wilderness was ratified in the same manner, Exodus 24:6,
seq. Thus, in Jeremiah 34:18, God speaks of the "men that had
transgressed his covenant which they had made before him when
they cut the calf in
twain and passed between the parts thereof." See also Zechariah 9:11.
Indeed, all the Jewish sacrifices were regarded as a ratification of the
covenant. It was never supposed that it was ratified or confirmed in a
proper manner without such a sacrifice. Instances occur, indeed, in which
there was no sacrifice offered when a covenant was made between man
and man, see Genesis 23:16; 24:9; Deuteronomy 25:7,9; Ruth 4:7; but these cases do not
establish the point that the custom did not prevail of ratifying a
covenant with God by the blood of sacrifice. Further; the terms used
in the Hebrew in regard to making a covenant with God, prove that it was
understood to be ratified by sacrifice, or that the death of a victim was
necessary. \^HEBREW\^. Berith "to cut a covenant"--the word
\^HEBREW\^ karath meaning to cut; to cut off; to cut down; and the
allusion being to the victims offered in sacrifice, and cut in pieces on
occasion of entering into a covenant. See Genesis 15:10; Jeremiah 34:18,19. The
same idea is expressed in the Greek phrases \~orkia temnein, temnein spondav\~,
and in the Latin icere faedus. Comp. Virgil, AEn, viii. 641.
Et caesa jungebant faedera porca
These considerations show that it was the common sentiment, alike among
the Hebrews and the heathen, that a covenant with God was to be ratified
or sanctioned by sacrifice; and the statement of Paul here is, that the
death of a sacrificial victim was needful to confirm or ratify such a
covenant with God. It was not secure, or confirmed, until blood was thus
shed. This was well understood among the Hebrews, that all their covenant
transactions with God were to be ratified by a sacrifice; and Paul says
that the same principle must apply to any arrangement between
God and men. Hence he goes on to show that it was necessary that a
sacrificial victim should die in the new Covenant which God established
by
man through the Mediator. See Hebrews 9:23. This I understand to be the
sum of the argument here. It is not that every contract made between man
and man was to be ratified or confirmed by a sacrifice--for the apostle
is not discussing that point; but it is that every similar transaction
with God must be based on such a sacrifice, and that no covenant with him
could be complete without such a sacrifice. This was provided for in the
ancient dispensation by the sacrifices which were constantly offered
in their worship; in the new, by the one great Sacrifice offered on
the cross. Hence all our approaches to God are based on the supposition
of such a sacrifice, and are, as it were, ratified over it. We ratify or
confirm such a covenant arrangement, not by offering the sacrifice anew,
but by recalling it in a proper manner when we celebrate the death of
Christ, and when, in view of his cross, we solemnly pledge ourselves to
be the Lord's.
The death of the testator. According to our common version,
the death of him who makes a will. But if the views above expressed
are correct, this should be rendered the covenanter, or "the victim
set apart to be slain." The Greek will admit of the translation of
the word \~diayemenov\~ --diathemenos --by the word covenanter, if the
word \~diayhkh\~ diatheke--is rendered covenant. To such a
translation here as would make the word refer to a victim slain in
order to ratify a covenant, it is objected that "the word has no such
meaning anywhere else. It must either mean a testator, or a
contractor, i. e. one of two covenanting parties. But where is the
death of a person covenanting made necessary in order to confirm the
covenant? Prof. Stuart, in loc. To this objection I remark
respectfully,
(1.) that the word is never used in the sense of testator, either
in the New Testament or the Old, unless it be here. It is admitted of
the word \~diayhkh\~, diatheke--by Prof. Smart himself, that it
never means will, or testament, unless it be here, and it is
equally true of the word used here that it never means
one who makes a will. If, therefore, it should be that a meaning
quite uncommon, or wholly unknown in the usage of the Scriptures, is to
be assigned to the use of the word here, why should it be assumed that
that unusual meaning should be that of making a will, and not
that of confirming a covenant?
(2.) If the apostle used the word \~diayhkh\~-- diatheke --in the sense
of a covenant in this passage, nothing is more natural than that
he should use the corresponding word \~diayemenov\~-- diathemenos--in
the sense of that by which a covenant was ratified. He wished to express
the idea that the covenant was alway ratified by the death of a
victim--a sacrifice of an animal under the law, and the sacrifice of the
Redeemer under the gospel-- and no word would so naturally convey that
idea as the one from which the word covenant was derived. It is
to be remembered, also, that there was no word to express that thought.
Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek furnished such a word; nor have we now
any word to express that thought, but are obliged to use circumlocution
to convey the idea. The word covenanter would not do it; nor the
words victim or sacrifice. We can express the idea only by some
phrase like this--" the victim set apart to be slain to ratify the
covenant." But it was not an unusual thing for the apostle Paul to make
use of a word in a sense quite peculiar
to himself. Comp. 2 Corinthians 4:17.
(3.) The word \~diatiyhmi\~ diatithemi--properly means, to place
apart, to set in order, to arrange. It is rendered appoint in
Luke 22:29; made and make, with reference to a
covenant, Acts 3:25; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16. It occurs nowhere else in
the New Testament, except in the passage before us. The idea of
placing, laying, disposing, arranging, etc, enters into the
word--as to place wares or merchandize for sale, to arrange a
contract, etc. See Passow. The fair meaning of the word here may
be, whatever goes to arrange, dispose, or settle the covenant, or to
make the covenant secure and firm. If the reference be to a compact, it
cannot relate to one of the contracting parties, because the death of
neither is necessary to confirm it. But it may refer to that which was
well known as an established opinion, that a covenant with God was
ratified only by a sacrifice. Still, it must be admitted that this use
of the word is not elsewhere found, and the only material question is,
whether it is to be presumed that the apostle would employ a word in a
single instance, in a peculiar signification, where the connexion would
not render it difficult to be understood. This must be admitted,
that he might, whichever view is taken of the meaning of this passage;
for, on the supposition that he refers here to a will, it is
conceded that he uses the word in a sense which does not once occur
elsewhere either in the Old Testament or the New. It seems to me,
therefore, that the word here may, without impropriety, be regarded as
referring to the victim that was slain in order to ratify a covenant
with God; and that the meaning is, that such a covenant was not
regarded as confirmed until the victim was slain. It may be added that
the authority of Michaelis, Macknight, Doddridge, Bloomfield, and Dr.
J.P. Wilson, is a proof that such an interpretation cannot be a very
serious departure from the proper use of a Greek word.
{1} "be" "be brought in"
Verse 17. For a testament. Such an arrangement as God enters into
with man. See the remarks on Hebrews 9:16.
Is of force. Is ratified, or confirmed--in the same way as a deed or
compact is confirmed by affixing a seal.
After men are dead. \~epi nekroiv\~. "Over the dead." That is, in
accordance with the view given above, after the animal is dead; or over
the body of the animal slain for sacrifice, and to confirm the covenant.
"For a covenant is completed or confirmed over dead sacrifices, seeing it is
never of force as long as the victim set apart for its ratification is
still living." MSS. Notes of Dr. J. P. Wilson. To this interpretation it
is objected, that "\~nekroiv\~--nekrois--means only dead men; but
men surely were not sacrificed by the Jews, as a mediating sacrifice in
order to confirm a covenant." Prof. Stuart, in loc. In regard to
this objection, and to the proper meaning of the passage, we may
remark,
(1,) that the word "men" is not in the Greek, nor is it necessarily
implied, unless it be in the use of the Greek word rendered dead. The
proper translation is, "upon, or over the dead." The use of the word
"men" here by our translators would seem to limit it to the making of a
will.
(2.) It is to be presumed, unless there is positive proof to the contrary,
that the Greeks and Hebrews used the word dead as it is used by other
people, and that it might refer to deceased animals, or vegetables, as
well as to men. A sacrifice that had been offered was dead; a tree that
had fallen was dead; an animal that had been torn by other wild animals
was dead. It is possible that a people might have one word to refer to
dead men, and another to dead animals, and another to dead vegetables; but
what is the evidence that the Hebrews or the Greeks had such words?
(3.) What is the meaning of this very word--\~nekrov\~ nekros-,in
Hebrews 6:1; 9:14, of this very epistle, when it is applied to
works--"dead works"--if it never refer to anything but men? Comp.
James 2:17,20,26; Ephesians 2:1,5; Revelation 3:1. In Ecclesiastes 9:4, it is applied to a
dead lion. I suppose, therefore, that the Greek phrase here will admit of
the interpretation which the "exigency of the place" seems to demand, and
that the idea is, that a covenant with God was ratified over the animals
slain ill sacrifice, and was not considered as confirmed until the
sacrifice was killed.
Otherwise. Since--\~epei\~. That is, unless this takes place it
will be of no force.
It is of no strength. It is not strong--\~iscuei\~--it is not
confirmed or ratified.
While the testator liveth. Or while the animal selected to confirm the
covenant is alive. It can be confirmed only by its being slain. A
full examination of the meaning of this passage (Hebrews 9:16,17)
may be found in an article in the Biblical Repository, vol. xx. pp.
51--71, and in Prof. Stuart's reply to that article. Bib. Repos.
xx. pp. 356--381.
{*} "testament" "covenant"
{+} "testator" "He that made it"
Verse 18. Whereupon. \~oyen\~--Whence. Or since this is a settled
principle, or an indisputable fact, it occurred in accordance with this,
that the first covenant was confirmed by the shedding of blood.
The admitted principle which the apostle had stated, that the
death of the victim was necessary to confirm the covenant, was the
reason why the first covenant was ratified with blood. If there
were any doubt about the correctness of the interpretation given
above, that Hebrews 9:16,17 refer to a covenant, and not a will,
this verse would seem to be enough to remove it. For how could the fact,
that a will is not binding until he who makes it is dead, be a
reason why a covenant should be confirmed by blood? What bearing would
such a fact have on the question, whether it ought or ought, not to be
confirmed in this manner. Or how could that fact, though it is universal,
be given as a reason to account for the fact that the covenant made by the
instrumentality of Moses was ratified by blood? No possible connexion can
be seen in such reasoning. But admit that Paul had stated, Hebrews 9:16,
Hebrews 9:17, a general principle that in all covenant transactions with
God the death of a victim was necessary, and everything is plain.
We then see why he offered the sacrifice and sprinkled the blood.
It was not on the basis of such reasoning as this: "The death of a
man who makes a will is indispensable before the will is of binding force,
THEREFORE it was that Moses confirmed the covenant made with our fathers
by the blood of a sacrifice; "but by such reasoning as this: "It is a
great principle that in order to ratify a covenant between God and his
people a victim should be slain, therefore it was that Moses ratified
the old covenant in this manner, and therefore it was also that the
death of a victim was necessary under the new dispensation." Here the
reasoning of Paul is clear and explicit; but who could see the force of
the former? Prof. Stuart indeed connects this verse with Hebrews 9:15,
and says that the course of thought is, "The new covenant of redemption
from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore,
\~oyen\~, the old covenant, which is a type of the new, was sanctioned by
the blood of victims." But is this the reasoning of Paul? Does he say that
because the blood of a Mediator was to be shed under the new
dispensation, and because the old was a type of this, that THEREFORE the
old was confirmed by blood? Is he not rather accounting for the shedding
of blood at all, and showing that it was necessary that the blood of
the Mediator should be shed, rather than assuming that, and from that
arguing that a typical shedding of blood was needful? Besides, on this
supposition, why is the statement in Hebrews 9:16,17 introduced? What
bearing have these verses in the train of thought? What are they but an
inexplicable obstruction?
The first testament. Or rather covenant-- the word testament being
supplied by the translators.
Was dedicated. Marg. Purified. The word used to ratify, to
confirm, to consecrate, to sanction. Literally, to renew.
Without blood. It was ratified by the blood of the animals that were
slain in sacrifice. The blood was then sprinkled on the principal objects
that were regarded as holy under that dispensation.
{1} "dedicated" "He that made it"
Verse 19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people.
When he had recited all the law, and had given all the commandments
entrusted Him to deliver, Exodus 24:8
He took the blood of calves and of goats. This passage has given great
perplexity to commentators from the fact that Moses, in his account of the
transactions connected with the ratification of the covenant with the
people, Exodus 24:3 mentions only a part of the circumstances here
referred to. He says nothing of the blood of calves and of goats; nothing
of water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop; nothing of sprinkling the book,
the tabernacle, or the vessels of the ministry. It has been made a
question, therefore, whence Paul obtained a knowledge of these
circumstances? Since the account is not contained in the Old Testament, it
must have been either by tradition or by direct inspiration. The latter
supposition is hardly probable, for
(1.)the information here can hardly be regarded as of sufficient
importance to have required an original revelation; for the illustration
would have had sufficient force to sustain his conclusion if the literal
account in Exodus only had been given, that Moses sprinkled the people;
but
(2.) such an original act of inspiration here would not have been
consistent with the object of the apostle. In that argument it was
essential that he should state only the facts about the ancient
dispensation which were admitted by the Hebrews themselves. Any statement
of his own about things which they did not concede to be true, or which
was not well understood as a custom, might have been called in question,
and would have done much to invalidate the entire force of the argument.
It is to be presumed, therefore, that the facts here referred to had been
preserved by tradition; and in regard to this, and the authority due to
such a tradition, we may remark,
(1.) that it was well known that the Jews had a great number of traditions
which they carefully preserved;
(2.) that there is no improbability in the supposition that many events in
their history would be preserved in this manner, since in the small
compass of a volume like the Old Testament it cannot be presumed that
all the events of their nation had been recorded;
(3.) though they had many traditions of a trifling nature, and many which
were false, (comp. See Barnes "Matthew 15:2",) yet they doubtless had many
that were true;
(4.) in referring to those traditions, there is no impropriety in
supposing that Paul may have been guided by the Spirit of inspiration in
selecting only those which were true; and
(5.) nothing is more probable than what is here stated. If Moses sprinkled
"the people;" if he read "the book of the law" then, (Exodus 24:7;) and
if this was regarded as a solemn act of ratifying a covenant with God,
nothing would be more natural than that he should sprinkle the
book of the covenant, and even the tabernacle and its various sacred
utensils. We are to remember, also, that it was common among the Hebrews
to sprinkle blood for the purpose of consecrating, or as an emblem of
purifying. Thus Aaron and his sons and their garments were sprinkled with
blood when they were consecrated to the office of priests,
Exodus 29:19-21; the blood of sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar,
Leviticus 1:5,11; 3:2,13; and blood was sprinkled before the veil of the
sanctuary, Leviticus 4:16,17; comp. Leviticus 6:27; 7:14. So Josephus
speaks of the garments of Aaron and of his sons being sprinkled with "the
blood of the slain beasts, and with spring water." "Having consecrated
them and their garments," he says, "for seven days together, he did the
same to the tabernacle, and the vessels thereto belonging, both with oil
and with the blood of bulls and of rams," Ant. B. iii. chap. viii. & 6.
These circumstances show the strong probability of the truth of what is
here affirmed by Paul, while it is impossible to prove that Moses did not
sprinkle the book and the tabernacle in the manner stated. The mere
omission by Moses cannot demonstrate that it was not done. On the phrase
"the blood of calves and of goats," See Barnes "Hebrews 9:12".
With water. Agreeably to the declaration of Josephus that "spring
water was used." In Leviticus 14:49-51, it is expressly mentioned that the
blood of the bird that was killed to cleanse a house from the plague of
leprosy should be shed over running water, and that the blood and the
water should be sprinkled on the walls. It has been suggested also,
(see Bloomfield,) that the use of water was necessary in order to prevent
the blood from coagulating, or so as to: make it possible to sprinkle
it.
And scarlet wool. Marg, Purple. The word here used denotes
crimson, or deep scarlet. The colour was obtained from a small insect
which was found adhering to the shoots of a species of oak in Spain and in
Western Asia, of about the size of a pea. It was regarded as the most
valuable of the colours for dyeing, and was very expensive. Why the wool
used by Moses was of this colour is not known unless it be because it was
the most expensive of colours, and thus accorded with everything employed
in the construction of the tabernacle and its utensils. Wool appears
to have been used in order to absorb and retain the blood.
And hyssop. That is, a bunch of hyssop intermingled with the wool, or
so connected with it as to constitute a convenient instrument
for sprinkling. Comp. Leviticus 14:51. Hyssop is a low shrub, regarded as
one of the smallest of the plants, and her me put in contrast with the
cedar of Lebanon. It sprung out of the rocks or walls, 1 Kings 4:33, and
was used for purposes of purification. The term seems to have comprised
not only the common hyssop, but also lavender and other aromatic plants.
Its fragrance, as well as its size, may have suggested the idea of
using it in the sacred services of the tabernacle. The appearance of the
hyssop is represented by the foregoing engraving.
And sprinkled both the book, This circumstance is not mentioned
by Moses, but it has been shown above not to be improbable. Some
expositors, however, in order to avoid the difficulty in the passage, have
taken this in connexion with the word \~labwn\~ -rendered, "he took"
"--meaning, "taking the blood, and the book itself;" but the more natural
and proper construction is, that the book was sprinkled with the blood.
And all the people. Moses says, "and sprinkled it on the people,"
Exodus 24:8. We are not to suppose that either Moses or Paul designs to
say that the blood was actually sprinkled on each one of the three
millions of people in the wilderness; but the meaning doubtless is, that
the blood was sprinkled over the people, though in fact it might have
fallen on a few. So a man now standing on an elevated place, and
surrounded by a large assembly, if he should sprinkle water over them from
the place where he stood, might be said to sprinkle it on the people,
though in fact but few might have been touched by it. The act would be
equally significant whether the emblem fell on few or many.
{a} "blood" Matthew 26:28
Verse 20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament. Of the covenant.
See Barnes "Hebrews 9:16,17". That is, this is the blood by which the
covenant is ratified. It was the means used to confirm it; the sacred
and solemn form by which it was made sure. When this was done, the
covenant between God and the people was confirmed --as a covenant
between man and man is when it is sealed.
Which God hath enjoined unto you. In Exodus 24:8, "which God hath
made with you. The language used by Paul, "which God hath
enjoined" -- \~eneteilato\~-- commanded--shows that he did not regard this as
strictly of the nature of a covenant, or compact. When a compact is made
between parties, one does not enjoin or command the other, but it is a
mutual agreement. In the transactions between God and man, though called
\^HEBREW\^ Berith--or \~diayhkh\~--diatheke--the idea of a covenant
or compact is so far excluded that God never loses his right to
command or enjoin. It is not a transaction between equals,
or an agreement; it is a solemn arrangement on the part of God which
he proposes to men, and which he enjoins them to embrace; which they are
not indeed at liberty to disregard, but which, when embraced, is
appropriately ratified by some solemn act on their part. Compare
See Barnes "Hebrews 8:6".
{a} "blood" Matthew 26:28
Verse 21. He sprinkled--both the tabernacle. This circumstance is not
stated by Moses. On the probability that this was done,
See Barnes "Hebrews 9:19". The account of setting up the tabernacle occurs
in Exodus 40. In that account it is said that Moses anointed the
tabernacle with the holy anointing oil, Hebrews 9:9-11. Josephus (Ant. B.
III. ch. viii. & 6) says that he consecrated it, and the vessels thereto
belonging, with the blood of bulls and of rams. This was undoubtedly the
tradition in the time of Paul, and no one can prove that it is not
correct.
And all the vessels of the ministry. Employed in the service of God.
The altar, the laver, (Exodus 40:10,11,) the censers, dishes, bowls,
etc., which were used in the tabernacle.
{b} "Moreover" Exodus 29:12,36
Verse 22. And almost all things. It is a general custom to purify
everything by blood. This rule was not universal, for some things were
purified by fire and water, (Numbers 31:22,23,) and some by water
only, Numbers 31:24; Leviticus 16:26,28. But the exceptions to the general rule
were few. Almost everything in the tabernacle and temple service was
consecrated or purified by blood.
And without shedding of blood is no remission. Remission or
forgiveness of sins. That is, though some things were purified by fire and
water, yet when the matter pertained to the forgiveness of sins, it was
universally true that no sins were pardoned except by the shedding of
blood. Some impurities might be removed by water and fire, but the
stain of sin could be removed only by blood. This declaration referred, in
its primary meaning, to the Jewish rites; and the sense is, that under
that dispensation it was universally true that in order to the forgiveness
of sin blood must be shed. But it contains a truth of higher order and
importance still. It is universally true that sin never has been,
and never will be forgiven, except in connexion with and in virtue of
the shedding of blood. It is on this principle that the plan of
salvation by the atonement is based, and on this that God in fact bestows
pardon on men. There is not the slightest evidence that any man has ever
been pardoned except through the blood shed for the remission of sins. The
infidel who rejects the atonement has no evidence that his sins are
pardoned; the man who lives in the neglect of the gospel, though he has
abundant evidence that he is a sinner, furnishes none that his sins are
forgiven; and the Mohamadin and the heathen can point to no proof that
their sins are blotted out. It remains to be demonstrated that one
single member of the human family has ever had the slightest evidence of
pardoned sin, except through the blood of expiation. In the Divine
arrangement there is no principle better established than this, that all
sin which is forgiven is remitted through the blood of the atonement;
a principle which has never been departed from hitherto, and which never
will be. It follows, therefore,
(1.) that no sinner can hope for forgiveness except through the blood of
Christ;
(2.) that if men are ever saved they must be willing to rely on the merits
of that blood;
(3.) that all men are on a level in regard to salvation, since all are to
be saved in the same way; and
(4.) that there will be one and the same song in heaven--the song of
redeeming love.
{c} "blood" Leviticus 17:11
Verse 23. The patterns of things in the heavens. The tabernacle and
its various utensils. See Barnes "Hebrews 8:5".
\\Be purified with these\\. With water and blood, and by these ceremonies.
\\But the heavenly things themselves\\. The heavenly tabernacle or
sanctuary into which Christ has entered, and where he performs the
functions of his ministry. The use of the word purified here applied
to heaven, does not imply that heaven was before unholy, but it
denotes that it is now made accessible to sinners; or that they may come
and worship there in an acceptable manner. The ancient tabernacle was
purified or consecrated by the blood of the victims slain, so that men
might approach with acceptance and worship; the heavens by purer blood
are rendered accessible to the guilty. The necessity for "better
sacrifices" in regard to the latter was, that it was designed to make
the conscience pure, and because the service in heaven is more holy
than any rendered on earth.
\\With better sacrifices than these\\. To wit, the sacrifice made by
the offering of the Lord Jesus on the cross. This infinitely
surpassed in value all that had been offered under the Jewish
dispensation.
Verse 24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with
hands. Into the temple or tabernacle. The Jewish high priest alone
entered into the most holy place; and the other priests into the
holy place. Jesus, being of the tribe of Judah, and not of Levi,
never entered the temple proper. He had access only to the courts
of the temple, in the same way as any other Jew had.
See Barnes "Matthew 21:12". He has entered into the true temple--heaven
of which the earthly tabernacle was the type.
Which are the figures of the true. Literally, the antitypes
\~antitupa\~. The word properly means that which is formed after a model,
pattern, or type; and then that which corresponds to something, or
answers to, it. The idea here is, that the type or fashion--the true
figure or form--was shown to Moses in the Mount, and then the
tabernacle was made after that model, or corresponded to it. The true
original figure is heaven itself; the tabernacle was an antitype of
that--or was so formed as in some sense to correspond to it. That is,
it corresponded in regard to the matters under consideration--the most
holy place denoted heaven; the mercy-seat and the shekinah were symbols
of the presence of God, and of the fact that he shows mercy in heaven;
the entrance of the high priest was emblematical of the entrance of the
Redeemer into heaven; the sprinkling of the blood there was a type of
what the Redeemer would do in heaven.
Now to appear in the presence of God for us. As the Jewish high
priest appeared before the shekinah, the symbol of the Divine Presence
in the tabernacle, so Christ appears before God himself in our behalf
in heaven. He has gone to plead for our salvation; to present the
merits of his blood as a permanent reason why we should be saved,
See Barnes "Romans 8:34"; See Barnes "Hebrews 7:25".
{a} "appear" Romans 8:34
Verse 25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often. The Jewish
high priest entered the most holy place with blood once every year. In
this respect the offering made by Christ, and the work which he
performed, differed from that of the Jewish high priest. It was not
needful that he should enter the holy place but once. Having entered
there, he permanently remains there.
With the blood of others. That is, with the blood of calves and goats.
This is a second point in which the work of Christ differs from that of
the Jewish high priest. Christ entered there with his own blood.
See Barnes "Hebrews 9:12".
Verse 26. For then must he often have suffered. That is, if his
blood had no more efficacy than that which the Jewish high priest
offered, and which was so often repeated, it would have been necessary
that Christ should have often died.
But now once. Once for all; once in the sense that it is not to be
repeated again--\~apax\~.
In the end of the world. In the last dispensation or economy; that
under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. See the phrase
fully explained See Barnes " :"; See Barnes "Acts 2:17";
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 10:11", See Barnes "Isaiah 2:2".
Hath he appeared. He has been manifested in human form.
To put away sin.
(1.) To remove the punishment due to sin, or to provide a way of pardon;
and
(2.) to remove the stain of sin from the soul. See Barnes "Hebrews 9:2".
By the sacrifice of himself. See Barnes "Hebrews 1:3";
See Barnes "Hebrews 2:14"; See Barnes "Hebrews 7:27".
Verse 27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die. Or, "since it
is appointed unto men to die once only." The object of this is to
illustrate the fact that Christ died but once for sin, and that is done
by showing that the most important events pertaining to man occur
but once. Thus it is with death. That does not, and cannot occur
many times. It is the great law of our being, that men die but once, and
hence the same thing was to be expected to occur in regard to him
who made the atonement. It could not be supposed that this great law
pertaining to man would be departed from in the case of him who died to
make the atonement, and that he would repeatedly undergo the pains
of death. The same thing was true in regard to the judgment. Man is to
be judged once, and but once. The decision is to be final, and is not to
be repeated. In like manner, there was a fitness that the great
redeemer should die but once, and that his death should, without being
repeated, determine the destiny of man. There was a remarkable oneness
in the great events which most affected men; and neither death, the
judgment, nor the atonement could be repeated. In regard to the
declaration here, that "it is appointed unto men once to die," we may
observe,
(1,) that death is the result of appointment, Genesis 3:19, It is not
the effect of chance, or hap-hazard. It is not a "debt of nature." It is
not the condition to which man was subject by the laws of his creation. It
is not to be accounted for by the mere principles of physiology. God could
as well have made the heart to play for ever as for fifty years. Death is
no more the regular result of physical laws than the guillotine and the
gallows are. It is, in all cases, the result of intelligent
appointment, and for an adequate cause.
(2.) That cause, or the reason of that appointment, is sin.
See Barnes "Romans 6:23". This is the adequate cause; this explains the
whole of it. Holy beings do not die. There is not the slightest proof that
an angel in heaven has died, or that any perfectly holy being has ever
died, except the Lord Jesus. In every death, then, we have a demonstration
that the race is guilty; in each case of mortality we have an affecting
memento that we are individually transgressors.
(3.) Death occurs but once in this world. It cannot be repeated, if we
should desire to have it repeated. Whatever truths or facts, then,
pertain to death; whatever lessons it is calculated to convey, pertain to
it as an event which is not to occur again. That which is to occur but
once in an eternity of existence acquires, from that very fact, if
there were no other circumstances, an immense importance. What is
to be done but once, we should wish to be done well. We should make all
proper preparation for it; we should regard it with singular interest. If
preparation is to be made for it, we should make all which we expect
ever to make. A man who is to cross the ocean but once--to go away
from his home never to return--should make the right kind of preparation.
He cannot come back to take that which he has forgotten; to arrange that
which he has neglected; to give counsel which he has failed to do; to ask
forgiveness for offences for which he has neglected to seek pardon. And so
of death. A man who dies, dies but once. He cannot come back again to make
preparation, if he has neglected it; to repair the evils which he has
caused by a wicked life; or to implore pardon for sins for which he had
failed to ask forgiveness. Whatever is to be done with reference to
death, is to be done once for all before he dies.
(4.) Death occurs to all. "It is appointed unto men"--to the race. It is
not an appointment for one, but for all. No one is appointed by name to
die; and not an individual is designated as one who shall escape. No
exception is made in favour of youth, beauty, or blood; no rank or station
is exempt; no merit, no virtue, no patriotism, no talent, can purchase
freedom from it. In every other sentence which goes out against men,
there may be some hope of reprieve. Here there is none. We cannot meet an
individual who is not under sentence of death. It is not only the poor
wretch in the dungeon, doomed to the gallows, who is to die --it is the
rich man in his palace; the gay trifler in the assembly room; the friend
that we embrace and love; and she whom we meet in the crowded saloon of
fashion, with all the graces of accomplishment and adorning. Each one of
these is just as much under sentence of death as the poor wretch in the
cell, and the execution on any one of them may occur before his. It is,
too, for substantially the same cause, and is as really deserved. It is
for sin that all are doomed to death; and the fact that we must
die should be a constant remembrance of our guilt.
(5.) As death is to occur to us but once, there is a cheering interest in
the reflection that when it is passed it is passed for ever. The dying
pang, the chill, the cold sweat, are not to be repeated. Death is not to
approach us often--he is to be allowed to come to us but once. When we
have once passed through the dark valley, we shall have the assurance that
we shall never tread its gloomy way again. Once, then, let us be willing
to die--since we can die but once; and let us rejoice in the assurance
which the gospel furnishes, that they who die in the Lord leave the world
to go where death in any form is unknown.
But after this the judgment. The apostle does not say how long
after death this will be, nor is it possible for us to know, Acts 1:7;
Matthew 24:36. We may suppose, however, that there will be two periods in
which there will be an act of judgment passed on those who die.
(1.) Immediately after death, when they pass into the eternal world, when
their destiny will be made known to them. This seems to be necessarily
implied in the supposition that they will continue to live, and to be
happy or miserable after death. This act of judgment may not be formal and
public, but will be such as to show them what must be the issues of
the final day; and as the result of that interview with God, they will be
made happy or miserable until the final doom shall be pronounced.
(2.) The more public and formal act of judgment, when the whole world will
be assembled at the bar of Christ, Matthew 25. The decision of that day
will not change or reverse the former; but the trial will be of such a
nature as to bring out all the deeds done on earth, and the sentence which
will be pronounced will be in view of the universe, and will fix the
everlasting doom. Then the body will have been raised; the affairs of the
world will be wound up; the elect will all be gathered in, and the state
of retribution will commence, to continue for ever. The main thought
of the apostle here may be, that after death will commence a state of
retribution which can never change. Hence there was a propriety that
Christ should die but once. In that future world he would not die to make
atonement, for there all will be fixed and final. If men, therefore,
neglect to avail themselves of the benefits of the atonement here, the
opportunity will be lost for ever. In that changeless state, which
constitutes the eternal judgment, no sacrifice will be again offered for
sin; there will be no opportunity to embrace that Saviour who was rejected
here on earth.
{b} "appointed" Genesis 3:19
{c} "after this" Exodus 12:14
Verse 28. So Christ was once offered. As men are to die but once, and
as all beyond the grave is fixed by the judgment, so that his death there
would make no change in the destiny, there was a propriety that he
should die but once for sin. The argument is, there is one probation
only, and therefore there was need of but one sacrifice, or of his dying
but once. If death were to occur frequently in the existence of each
individual, and if each intermediate period were a state of probation,
then there might be a propriety that an atonement should be made with
reference to each state. Or if beyond the grave there were a state of
probation still, then also there might be a propriety that an atoning
sacrifice should be offered there. But since neither of these things is
true, there was a fitness that the great Victim should die but once.
To bear the sins of many. To suffer and die on account of their sins.
See Barnes "Isaiah 53:6", See Barnes "Isaiah 53:11";
See Barnes " :". The phrase does not mean
(1.) that Christ was a sinner--for that was in no sense true. See
Hebrews 7:26. Nor
(2.) that he literally bore the penalty due to transgression--for that is
equally untrue. The penalty of the law for sin is all which the law
when executed inflicts on the offender for his transgress loud and
includes, in fact, remorse of conscience, overwhelming despair, and
eternal punishment. But Christ did not suffer for ever, nor did he
experience remorse of conscience, nor did he endure utter despair. Nor
(3.) does it mean that he was literally punished for our sins.
Punishment pertains only to the guilty. An innocent being may suffer
for what another does, but there is no propriety in saying that he is
punished for it. A father suffers much from the misconduct of
a son, but we do not say that he is punished for it; a child suffers
much from the intemperance of a parent, but no one would say that it was a
punishment on the child. Men always connect the idea of criminality
with punishment; and when we say that a man is punished, we suppose at
once that there is guilt. The phrase here means simply, that Christ
endured sufferings in his own person which, if they had been inflicted on
us, would have been the proper punishment of sin. He who was innocent
interposed, and received on himself what was descending to meet
us, and consented to be treated as he would have deserved if he had
been a sinner. Thus he bore what was due to us; and this in Scripture
phrase is what is meant by bearing our iniquities.
See Barnes "Isaiah 53:4".
And unto them that look for him. To his people. It is one of the
characteristics of Christians that they look for the return of their
Lord, 1 Timothy 2:13; 2 Peter 3:12; comp. See Barnes "1 Thessalonians 1:10". They fully
believe that he will come. They earnestly desire that he will come,
2 Timothy 4:8; Revelation 22:20. They are waiting for his appearing,
1 Thessalonians 1:10. He left the world and ascended to heaven, but he will again
return to the earth, and his people are looking for that time as the
period when they shall be raised up from their graves; when they shall be
publicly acknowledged to be his, and when they shall be admitted to
heaven. See Barnes "John 14:3".
Shall he appear the second time. He first appeared as the Man of
sorrows to make atonement for sin. His second appearance will be as the
Lord of his people, and the Judge of the quick and the dead,
Matthew 25:31; see See Barnes "Acts 1:11". The apostle does not say when
this would be, nor is any intimation given in the Scriptures when it
will occur. It is, on the contrary, everywhere declared that this is
concealed from men, (Acts 1:7; Matthew 24:36;) and all that is known
respecting the time is, that it will be suddenly, and at an unexpected
moment, Matthew 24:42,44,50.
Without sin. That is, when he comes again he will not make himself a
sin-offering; or will not come in order to make atonement for sin. It is
not implied that when he came the first time he was in any sense
a sinner, but that he came then with reference to sin, or that the
main object of his incarnation was to "put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself" When he comes the second time, it will be with reference to
another object.
Unto salvation. That is, to receive his friends and followers to
eternal salvation. He will come to save them from all their sins and
temptation; to raise them from their graves; to place them at his right
hand in glory, and to confirm them in the everlasting inheritance which he
has promised to all who truly love him, and who wait for his appearing.
In view of this anticipated return of the Redeemer, we may remark---
(1.) There is a propriety that the Lord Jesus should thus return.
He came once to be humbled, despised, and put to death; and
there is a fitness that he should come to be honoured in his own
world.
(2.) Every person on earth is interested in the fact that he will return,
for "every eye shall see him," Revelation 1:7. All who are now in their
graves, and all who now live, and all who will hereafter live, will behold
the Redeemer in his glory.
(3.) It will not be merely to gaze upon him, and to admire his
magnificence that they will see him. It will be for greater and
more momentous purposes--with reference to an eternal doom.
(4.) The great mass of men are not prepared to meet him. They do not
believe that he will return; they do not desire that he should appear;
they are not ready for the solemn interview which they will have with him.
His appearing now would overwhelm them with surprise and horror. There is
nothing in the future which they less expect and desire than the second
coming of the Son of God; and in the present state of the world his
appearance would produce almost universal consternation and despair. It
would be like the coming of the flood of waters on the old world; like the
sheets of fire on the cities of the plain, or as death now comes to
the great mass of those who die.
(5.) Christians are prepared for his coming. They believe in it;
they desire it; they are expecting it. In this they are distinguished
from all the world besides; and they would be ready to hail his
coming as that of a friend, and to rejoice in his appearance as that
of their Saviour.
(6.) Let us, then, live in habitual preparation for his advent.
To each one of us he will come soon; to all he will come suddenly.
Whether he come to remove us by death, or whether in the clouds
of heaven to judge the world, the period is not far distant when we
shall see him. Yes, our eyes shall behold the Son of God in his
glory! That which we have long desired--a sight of our Saviour,
who died for us--shall soon, very soon, be granted unto us. No
Christian begins a week or a day in which there is not a possibility
that before its close he may have seen the Son of God in his glory;
none lies down upon his bed at night who may not, when the morning dawns
upon this world, be gazing with infinite delight on the glories of the
great Redeemer in the heavens.
{a} "Christ" 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 3:5
{b} "many" Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 26:28
{c} "look" Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 3:12
{d} "appear" Acts 1:11
{e} "unto salvation" Isaiah 25:9
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP