Hebrews 9
The sphere of Christ’s
“more excellent ministry,” as the “Mediator of a
better covenant,” having been shown to be elsewhere than in
the earthly
tabernacle, the ministry itself is now contrasted with that
of the superseded
priesthood. With this view the latter is described, and
shown to express in
itself its own insufficiency and to point to a more
availing one to come.
1 “Then verily (or, now indeed) the first covenant also (or,
even
the first covenant) had
ordinances of divine service, and a worldly
sanctuary (rather its sanctuary of this world (τό τε ἅγιον
κοσμικόν –
to te hagion kosmikon – a worldly sanctuary). The definite article points to
the well-known one of the Mosaic
dispensation, which,
unlike the true one,
was in its bearings, as well as
locally and materially,
of this world only).
This sanctuary itself is now first
described in necessary
preparation for an
account of priestly ministrations
in it.
The Orderly Arrangements of the New covenant
(v.1)
Evidently a double meaning is possible to the adjective κοσμικόν
(sanctuary).
The sanctuary sheltered within the tabernacle was a
sanctuary of this world;
but is that all the writer means by the word he uses here?
Surely we must
remember the antithesis between cosmos and chaos.
The furniture of the
sanctuary was not a collection of objects placed anywhere
and anyhow.
There was as much symbolism in the order and relation of
these objects as
in the objects themselves. All worship and holy
service had to be according
to DIVINE REGULATIONS.
And as all
was κοσμικόν
in the visible,
symbolic, temporary sanctuary, so all must also be κοσμικόν in the sanctuary,
the true tabernacle.
SANCTUARY. The new
covenant has its sanctuary, even as the old, and
that sanctuary is to be found
wherever Christ is manifesting Himself to take
away sin. It is the presence of Christ that makes the holiest place
we know,
and there is no
making of a truly holy place without Him. In the old
covenant, everything was
gathered round the tables of the Law as a center.
They expressed the will of God.
And so now the center of our religious
life, around which all is to be
gathered in orderly relations, is to be found in
Christ — at once a High Priest
to enter into the true holy of holies, and
One to show the Law of God in
actual working, as something not too high
for human attainment. We are to worship and serve God through Christ,
and there is no other way whereby we
may become faultless in the
presence of His
glory.
SANCTUARY. What are we
doing in the way of orderly, well-considered
daily service? Is the lamp of
our life shining forth every day? Do we help to
spread a table for the varied
necessities of men, remembering that
whatsoever we do for them is
done for Christ, and whatsoever is done for
Christ is done for God? There is
to be a measure of order in our own
personal religious life —
repentance leading to faith, and faith opening up
the way to all that is holy,
pure, and Christ-like.
2 “For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was
the
candlestick, and
the table, and the shewbread; which is called the
sanctuary. 3 And after the second
veil, the tabernacle which is called
the Holiest of
all; 4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the
covenant overlaid
round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that
had manna, and
Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the
mercyseat; of which
we cannot now
speak particularly.” The tabernacle as a whole is first
spoken of; and then its two divisions, called respectively “the
first” and “the
second”
tabernacle. The account of them is from the Pentateuch, and
describes them as they originally were. In the then
existing temple there
were neither ark, mercy-seat, nor cherubim, though the
ceremonies were
continued as though they had been still there. The ark had
been removed or
destroyed in the sack by the Chaldeans, and was never
replaced (for the
Jewish tradition on the subject, see II Maccabees 2:1-8). Josephus says (‘
Jud.,’ 5:5. 5) that in the temple of his day there was
nothing whatever
behind the veil in the holy of holies; and Tacitus informs
us (‘Hist.,’ v 9)
that, when Pompey entered the temple, he found there
“vacuam sedem et
inania arcana.” A stone basement is said by the rabbis to
have occupied the
ark’s place, called “lapis fundationis.” In the “first
tabernacle,” called “the
holy place” the table of shewbread (with its twelve loaves in two
rows,
changed weekly) stood on the north side, i.e. the
right as one approached
the veil; and opposite to it, on the left, the
seven-branched golden
candlestick, or lamp-stand, carrying an oil-lamp on each
branch (Exodus
chapters 25., 37., 40.). Between them, close to the veil
stood the golden altar of
incense (ibid.); which, nevertheless, is not mentioned here
as part of the
furniture of the “first tabernacle,” being associated with
the “second,” for
reasons which will be seen. The “second veil” was that
between the holy
place and the holy of holies (Ibid. ch.36:35), the curtain
at the entrance
of the holy place (Ibid. v. 37) being regarded as the
first. The inner
sanctuary behind this second veil is spoken of as having
(ἔχουσα – echousa –
having) in the
first place “a golden censer,” as the word θυμιατήριον
–
thumiataerion – incense
instrument; censer - is translated in the Authorized
Version (so also in the Vulgate, thuribulum). But
it assuredly means the”
golden altar of incense,” though this stood locally outside
the veil. For
(1) otherwise there
would be no mention at all of this altar, which was so
important in the symbolism of the tabernacle, and so
prominent in the
Pentateuch, from which the whole description is taken.
(2) The alternative
view of its being a censer reserved for the use of the
high priest, when he entered behind the veil on the Day of
Atonement, has
no support from the Pentateuch, in which no such censer is
mentioned as
part of the standing furniture of the tabernacle, and none
of gold is spoken
of at all; nor, had it been so, would it have been placed,
any more than the
altar of incense, within the veil, since the high
priest required it before he
entered.
(3) Though the word itself,
θυμιατήριον, certainly means” censer,” and
not “altar of incense,” in the Septuagint, yet in the
Hellenistic writers it is
otherwise. Philo and Josephus, and also Clemens
Alexandrinus and Origen,
always call the altar of incense θυμιατήριον χρυσοῦν – thumiataerion
chrusoun – golden
censer; and the language of the Epistle is
Hellenistic.
(4) The wording does
not of necessity imply that what is spoken of was
locally within the veil: it is not said (as where
the actual contents of the
“first tabernacle” and of the ark are spoken of) wherein
(ἐν ᾗ - en hae –
in which), but
having (ἔχουσα), which need only mean having as belonging to it,
as connected with
its symbolism. It was an appendage to the holy of holies,
though not actually inside it, in the same way (to
use a homely illustration)
as the sign-board of a shop belongs to the shop and not to
the
street. It is, indeed, so regarded in the Old Testament.
See Exodus 40:5,
“Thou shalt set the altar of gold for
the incense before the ark of the
testimony;” also Ibid. ch.30:6, “Before
the mercy-seat that is over the
testimony;” and I Kings 6:22, “The
altar which was by the oracle,”
or,
“belonging to the oracle;” compare also Isaiah 6:6 and Revelation 8:3,
where, in the visions of the heavenly temple based upon the
symbolism of
the earthly, the altar of incense is associated with the
Divine throne. And it
was also so associated in the ceremonial of the tabernacle.
The smoke of
the incense daily offered on it was supposed to penetrate
the veil to the
holy of holies, and
on the Day of Atonement, not only was its incense
taken by the high priest within the veil, but also it, as
well as the mercy-seat,
was sprinkled with the atoning blood. Of the rest of the
things
described as belonging to the holy of holies, it is to be
observed that,
though none of them were in it when the Epistle was
written, yet all
(except the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod) were essential to
its
significance, as will be seen; and all, with these two
exceptions, were in
Solomon’s temple as well as in the original tabernacle. An
objection that
has been raised to the accuracy of the description, on the
ground that the
pot and the rod are not said in the Pentateuch to have been
placed inside
the ark, is groundless. They were to be laid up “before
the LORD”
(Exodus 16:33); “before the testimony” (Numbers
17:10); and “the
testimony” elsewhere means the tables of the Law (Exodus 25:16;
31:18; 40:20, etc.), which were within the ark. It was most
likely that they
would be kept for safe preservation in the same place with
the “testimony,”
before which they were
ever to be. Further, what is said (I
Kings 8:9
and II Chronicles 5:10) of there being nothing in the ark
but the two
tables of stone when it was moved into Solomon’s temple, is
no proof that
nothing else had been originally there. It seems, indeed,
rather to favor the
idea that there had been, as implying that something more
might have been
expected to be found there. The mercy-seat, as is well
known, was the
cover of the ark, over which the wings of the two cherubim
were spread.
The expression, “cherubim of glory,” probably has
reference to the
luminous cloud, significant of the Divine presence, which,
occasionally at
least (there is no sufficient ground for concluding it to
have been a
permanent manifestation), is said to have been seen above
them. The
cherubim, whatever their exact significance, are
represented as
accompaniments of the Divine glory (compare Isaiah 6 and
Ezekiel 1 and 10).
The Ark of the Covenant, a Symbol of
Redemptive Truth (vs. 4-5)
“The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold,
wherein… were
the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of
glory shadowing
the mercy-seat.”
Jewish solemnities were types of Christian truths and
relations. The furniture of their sacred courts possessed
symbolical
significance. Their religious institutions were parables of
spiritual and
saving truths. Deep significance of this kind attached to
the ark of the
covenant. We shall regard it as setting forth certain facts and features of
God’s redemptive relations with men. In it we discover:
RELATIONS WITH MEN. “The
ark of the covenant, wherein were the
tables of the
covenant.” The two tables containing
the ten commandments,
in accordance with Divine
directions, were deposited in the ark
(Exodus 25:16, 21; 40:20). Thus
Law was recognized and honored there:
Ø
As a sacred thing. The tables were in the most holy
place and in the
most venerated receptacle which
that place contained. Law is a
benevolent thing,
a holy thing. It is at the very center of all things.
In the material universe, in
human history, and in Divine redemption,
law is present everywhere, and
operative everywhere. It is of a
religions nature, of a Divine
nature.
Ø
As a permanent thing. Ceremonial laws pass
away; moral laws are
abiding. The “ten
words” given on Sinai in their essential characteristics
are as binding now
as they were under the earlier dispensation. Our
Lord endorsed and enforced them.
He said, “Thou shall love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy
mind,” (Matthew 22:37-40). The
everlasting continuance of law
is essential to the order and well-being of the universe of God. The
redemption which is by Christ
Jesus aims at the establishment of the Law
of God in blessed and perpetual
supremacy, and the inspiration and
confirmation in man of the
spirit and habit of cheerful
conformity to that
Law. There is law in heaven. The ark of the covenant is there. “And
there
was opened the
temple the ark of
his covenant” (Revelation 11:19).
Ø
As a witness against man. Man had broken this
holy Law. In his fallen
and sinful condition he could
not thoroughly keep it. Hence it bore
witness against him. The tables
of the covenant were also called “the
two tables of
testimony,” and they testified to the
transgressions and
failures of men. “By
the Law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)
And in this way the Law
witnessed to man’s need of mercy and
forgiveness and spiritual power.
RELATIONS WITH MEN.
The ark of the covenant was covered, and the
covering was called “the
mercy-seat.” The word which is here rendered
“mercy-seat” is
applied to our Savior: “Whom God hath
set forth to be a
Propitiation,” etc. (Ibid. v.25). There was a manifestation of grace:
Ø
In the mercy-seat itself. It was the lid of the
chest which contained the
tables of the Law. Those tables
testified against man, and the mercy-seat
hid, as it were, their testimony
from the eyes of the Holy One who dwelt
between the cherubim. The
mercy-seat covered and concealed the
accusing tables. Hence arose the
poetical view of forgiveness as a
covering of sin. “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is
covered.” (Ibid. ch. 4:7; Psalm 32:1)
Ø
In the symbolical atonement which was made upon the
mercy-seat.
The covering of the tables of
testimony was not in itself sufficient to
put away the guilt of the
people. For this atonement also was necessary.
Hence on the great Day of
Atonement the high priest was required to
sprinkle the blood of the
sin offerings upon the mercy-seat to “make an
atonement, because
of the uncleanness of the children of
because of their
transgressions in all their sins”
(Leviticus 16:11-16).
To the mercy-seat in
this aspect there is reference in several verses of
the Scripture, or at least the
verb used in these verses (kaphar) suggests
such a reference. “Our
transgressions, thou shalt purge them away”
(Psalm 65:3); “He,
being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity”
(Ibid. ch.78:38); “To make reconciliation for
iniquity” (Daniel 9:24).
In this the mercy-seat pointed to the Christ, the great Atonement,
the
true Propitiatory, “whom God set forth to be a Propitiation,
through
faith by His
blood” (Romans 3:24-26). Thus the manifestation of the
grace of God in His
redemptive relations with man was symbolized
in the covering of the ark
of the covenant. Moreover,
grace and Law
appear here as connected
and harmonious. Rightly understood, Law
itself is an expression of
Divine grace, and Divine grace aims
to
establish the
universal reign of Law, which is but another
word for the
reign of God. The mercy-seat was
“God’s throne
of GRACE
FOUNDED ON LAW! Here “mercy and
truth are
met together,
righteousness and peace have kissed each other.”
(Psalm 85:10)
GOD’S REDEMPTIVE RELATIONS WITH MEN. “Above it
cherubim of glory
overshadowing the mercy-seat.” We
regard the
cherubim as emblems of angelic
powers; and their position here suggests
that they are:
Ø
The solemn guardians of God’s holy Law. They kept constant
watch
over the “tables of testimony.” They are deeply interested in the
maintenance of moral
law. They “are in Scripture evermore
the
attendants, and bearers up, of
the throne of God.” When man
rebelled against the authority
of that throne, they were appointed
ministers for punishing the
transgressors (Genesis 3:24).
Ø
The interested students of God’s redemptive relations with
men. The
cherubim were represented as
looking intently and constantly upon
the ark of the covenant. “Toward
the mercy-seat shall the faces of
the cherubim be,” etc. (Exodus 25:20-21). “Which things the angels
desire to look
into” (I Peter 1:12). “Unto
the principalities and the
powers in the heavenly places is made known
through the Church
the manifold wisdom of God” (Ephesians 3:10).
Ø The willing
servants in promoting the successful issue of God’s
redemptive relations with men. “Are they not all
ministering spirits,
sent forth to do
service for the sake of them that shall inherit
salvation?” (see on ch.1:14).
REDEMPTIVE RELATIONS WITH MEN. “Cherubim of
glory.” They
were so called because they
appeared to bear up the visible symbol of the
presence of God, which in the
Old Testament is sometimes called “the
glory.” God promised to commune with His people “from
between the two
cherubim which are
upon the ark of the testimony” (Exodus
25:22).
“Moses heard the
voice of one speaking unto him from between the two
cherubim” (Numbers 7:89). God was said to “dwell between the
cherubim” (I Samuel 4:4; II Samuel 6:2; Psalm 80:1; 99:1). God
sometimes manifested His
presence here in a luminous cloud, which the
Jews called the Shechinah,
and here He was always thought of as present.
Jesus Christ our
Redeemer is the true Shechinah. He is “the Effulgence
of
the Father’s
glory, and the very Image of His substance.” (ch. 1:3) He is
the truest, the highest, the
fullest manifestation of God to man. And in
spiritual presence God dwells with His people now. The Holy Spirit is
present with
every godly soul. And Christians are
inspired by the mighty
and blessed hope that when this
life in the body ends, they will follow
their Forerunner within the veil
and see God “even as He is.” (I John
3:2)
Passing
Reference to the Symbolism of the Jewish Tabernacle (vs. 1-5)
The importance of the tabernacle is obvious, since
thirty-seven chapters in the Old
Testament are devoted to describe it and its services, and seven times it is said to
have been made according to the heavenly pattern; so much
so that when the
writer of this Epistle has to refer to what was typical in
the old economy,
he does not speak of the temple, but of the original
sanctuary. Moreover,
but for the tabernacle and its services, much of what is
most important in
the New Testament would be unintelligible — the veil,
mercy-seat, priest,
atonement, Lamb of God, etc. The tabernacle standing in its
sacred
enclosure in the midst of the vast encampment, with the
cloudy pillar
resting upon it, was the dwelling-place of Israel’s King.
At Sinai God and
Israel entered into solemn covenant. He was to be their
King, and they a
people peculiarly His own, and from that time He made His
visible abode
among them. But what was the purpose of the particular form
this abode
assumed? They were ignorant of Him, and in so low a
condition that
abstract truth was insufficient for their teaching; they needed heavenly
things in pictures.
The tabernacle, therefore, was doubtless designed in its
construction to meet this need. It would convey to them
very plainly that
God is real, one, theirs, holy, only approachable to man by
sacrifice. But
the New Testament throws additional light on this ancient
sanctuary, by
which its details are seen to be profoundly symbolic of New
Testament
truth, and Christians may better understand, because of it,
their position in
Christ. The Jewish tabernacle is the type of the Christian Church
I Corinthians 3:16-17; II Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:20-22). The
Church, founded on “the atonement money” (Scripture
name for the
hundred silver sockets which were the foundation of the
tabernacle); the
Church, habitation of God through the Spirit; the Church,
witness to the
world of the reality, character, and grace of God.
consisted of two apartments
separated by the veil, the inner one called “the
holy of holies.”
Ø The relation
of Jehovah to the Church, as seen in
the holy of holies.
Described in vs. 3-5. A symbol of
heaven, as in Apocalypse: “The
city
lieth four square,
and the length is as large as the breadth:”
(Revelation 21:16) - “And the city had no need of the sun, neither
of
the moon, for the
Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple
of it!” (Ibid.
v. 23) Most glorious place, seat and
throne of the King,
where celestial beings bow in
His presence! Most holy place, hidden
from human gaze, inaccessible
save through the atonement, inaccessible
yet so near;
only a veil between, which a breath might almost waft aside,
and which the
incense of prayer can penetrate! Most
blessed place, for
there our great High Priest ever
carries on His work on our behalf! How
well is the tabernacle a type of
this! There was the ark of the covenant,
and nothing more, save that the
walls and ceiling were draped with
curtains embroidered with
cherubic figures. What did this typify?
That:
o
God’s dealings with His people are based on Law. The tables of
stone, “tables of the covenant,” were the essential contents of
the
ark (the pot of manna and
the rod were not there originally, nor
were they found there when
the ark was placed in the temple).
God’s relation to man is
that of Sovereign; from His throne issue
the commands concerning
what man should be and do; and at
His feet lie ever the
requirements He makes of man.
o Provision has
been made for covering over the broken Law from the
sight of the King. The mercy-scat on the
ark, the golden slab on which
was sprinkled the sacrificial
blood on the Day of Atonement. “Mercy-
seat;” literally, “an expiatory
covering.” Looking down on his Law,
the King sees the
Sacrifice, and where He used to hear a testimony
of guilt, He now hears a
plea for mercy.
o The result
of this provision is the perfection of His people in His
presence. The
cherubim bowing before His glory with no fear but
that of reverence. The cherubim
set forth the highest creature
perfection — head of man, body
of lion, wings of eagle, feet of ox;
representing perfect
intelligence, strength, flight, obedience; picture
of man perfected, fallen humanity in its restored condition, eternal
fellowship with God
with completed powers. “We
have sinned,
and come short of
the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23) - that is the
broken Law. “Being justified
freely by His grace, through the
redemption that
is in Christ Jesus;” (Ibid. v.
24) - that is the
mercy-seat. “Whom He justified, them He also glorified;”
that is the cherubim.
Ø
The relation of the Church to Jehovah, as seen in the holy place.
(v. 2.) The golden altar, candlestick,
shewbread-table, occupied this
apartment. (Note, no mention of
the golden altar in the text, but in the
fourth verse the word “censer”
signifies anything that holds incense, and
probably should be rendered “altar,”
as we read of no censer belonging to
the holy of holies. It is not
said in v. 4 that this was within the holy of
holies, but only that it
belonged to it; it stood close to the veil, its incense
passed through the veil, its work was within whilst its form was without.)
These are also part of the type
of the Church; the Church below, as the
former the Church above. What do
they teach about the Church on earth?
Righteous mercy raising us to
perfection with Him. That is God’s part of
the covenant. What is ours?
o
The altar, that is,
the worship of the Church. Incense in Scripture a
type of prayer. The altar sprinkled
with atoning blood before incense
could be offered; the incense
rekindled daily by the holy fire; the
fragrant odor passing to the
mercy-seat, a sacrifice acceptable. What
a type of prayer
smoldering in the heart all through the day, kindled
morning and
evening, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
o
The candlestick, that
is, the work of the Church. “Ye are the light of
the world.” It is the world’s night. God lights His lamps, that
thereby
the world may see what it would
see of spiritual realities if it were
not night. “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 43:10)
o
The shewbread, that is, the
consecration of the Church. Bread
represents life. These twelve loaves, one for each tribe, set forth
the Divine demand
FOR THE DEDICATION OF ALL HIS
PEOPLE! He redeems us that we may be His. “For
to this end
Christ both died, and rose,” (Romans 14:9) “Truly our
fellowship is with
the Father” (I John 1:3); that is the attar.
“Ye were sometime
darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord;”
(Ephesians 5:8) that is the
candlestick. “I beseech you, brethren,
by the mercies of
God, that ye present your bodies a
living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Romans 12:1);
that is
the shewbread.
Ø
That the Church is the dwelling-place of God. The symbolism is
abolished; what is left? The
Christian Church, the spiritual temple,
which is to be in the world what
the tabernacle was in
once God dwelt in a consecrated
temple, now He dwells in
consecrated
lives; no more worshipped by sacred
forms, but by
devout hearts. Symbolism has given place to SPIRITUALITY!
Ø That the true
Church is that which embodies the teaching of the holy
and most holy places. Or, in other words, the true Christian. You
believe in what is done for you
within the veil, the God-ward aspect
of Christian life; but to that do you add the man-ward — worship,
service,
consecration?
Ø That the way
into the Church is symbolized in the types of the old
sanctuary. Between the entrance to the tabernacle and the gate of the
court, stood the brazen altar on
which rite sacrifices were offered, and
the brazen laver. No entrance to the Church BUT BY CHRIST’S
WORK AND THE HOLY
SPIRIT’S — the
ATONING BLOOD
and THE LAVER OF
REGENERATION!
6 “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went
always
into the first tabernacle,
accomplishing the service of God.”
Now these things
being thus ordained (Authorized Version, rather,
arranged or constituted;
it is the same word (κατεσκευάσθη
– kateskeuasthae
–
is constructed; made) as was used in v. 2, “there
was a tabernacle made;”
also in
ch. 3:3-4, of God’s “house;”
on which see supra), the priests
go in continually
into the first
tabernacle, accomplishing the services. (Observe that here,
where the ministrations are described, present tenses are
used; perhaps
because these ministrations were still going on when the
Epistle was
written.) The continual services in the “first tabernacle” were
(1) lighting the
lamps every evening, and trimming them every morning
(Exodus 27:21; 30:8; Leviticus 24:3);
(2) renewing the
twelve loaves of shewbread every sabbath (Leviticus
24:5-6);
(3) burning incense
on the golden altar twice daily, when the lamps were
trimmed and lighted (Exodus 30:7-8), at the time of the
morning and
evening sacrifice, the people meanwhile praying outside
(Luke 1:10).
7 “But into the second went the high priest alone once every
year, not
without blood,
which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the
holiest of all was not
yet made
manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:”
But into the
second the high priest alone, once in the
year, not without
blood, which he offereth for himself and for the
errors (literally, ignorances;
compare v. 2) of the people. For
the ceremonies
on the Day of Atonement, see Leviticus 16. They may be
summarized, in
their main characteristics, thus:
(1) The high priest
brought to the door of the tabernacle a bullock as a sin
offering for himself, and two goats as a sin offering for
the people; also a
ram as a burnt offering for himself, and a ram as a burnt
offering for the
people.
(2) After washing
and arraying himself in white linen garments (not the
ordinary official dress), he cast lots on the two goats
which were for the
people’s sin offering — one lot being “for the LORD,” the other
“for
Azazel (scapegoat)” - Leviticus 16:8 - that on which the former
lot fell
being for sacrifice,
the other to be set free.
(3) He sacrificed his
own sin offering, entered the holy place with the blood
thereof, filled a censer with burning coals from the golden
altar, went with
it within the veil, sprinkling incense on the coals, “that
the cloud of the
incense may cover the mercy-seat, that he die not” (Ibid. v. 13); took
also
the blood within the veil, and sprinkled the mercy-seat
therewith.
(4) He returned
outside the tabernacle, sacrificed the people’s sin offering,
i.e. the goat that was
“for
the LORD,” entered the holy place with its
blood, and proceeded as before; sprinkling also the altar
of incense, as well
as the mercy-seat, with the blood of both sacrifices, to “hallow
it from the
uncleanness of the children of
(5) He again
returned outside the tabernacle, laid his hands on the head of
the goat “for Azazel,” confessing over him “all
the iniquities of the children
of
wilderness, where he was to be let go. (Ibid. v. 21)
(6) He again entered
the tabernacle, where he put off his linen garments,
and left them there, and then, after washing again, and
putting on his
ordinary official dress, sacrificed his own and the
people’s burnt offering.
(7) The bodies of
the two sin offerings (the bullock and the slain goat)
were taken outside the camp, and there entirely consumed by
fire. The
points in this ceremonial here especially noted are:
a.
That the entrance
within the veil was only “once in the year,” i.e. on
one only day in the year; for on
that day the high priest entered more
than once. The meaning is that
ordinarily, except on that single day,
approach to the innermost shrine
was closed to all.
b.
That even on that day
the high priest alone entered; neither the
people, nor even the priesthood
generally, ever had approach
to the holiest of all.
c.
That even he could not
enter “without blood” (v. 7),
neither the
daily sacrifices nor all
the ordinary ceremonial of the Law availed
for his access: he must take with
him the blood of special sin
offerings, or he
still could not enter and live.
d.
This blood he offered “for himself and for the ignorances of the
people” (Ibid.), for himself,
since he too was “compassed with
infirmity,” (ch. 5:2) and required atonement (Ibid.), and also for
the people’s ignorances. There is a significance in this word. It was
not the sins done with a high
hand that had to be atoned for on that
day; these were either visited
by “cutting off,”or atoned for in ways
appointed for the purpose: it
was the less definite and undetected
sinfulness, infecting the whole
community, and remaining after
all ceremonial cleansing, so as
to debar them from coming “boldly
to the throne of
grace” (ch. 4:16), that was yearly
kept in
remembrance on
the Day of Atonement. Hence before
even
the high priest could enter and
not die, the mercy-seat over
“the testimony” which was within the ark must be enveloped
with the cloud of incense and
sprinkled with the blood which
“covereth sin” (the verb translated “make
atonement for” means
properly “cover”). The sin was still not taken away, only “covered”
for the time; for the holy of
holies after the ceremony remained
closed as before, and the same
rites had to be repeated at each
yearly entrance. All that was
expressed was an ever-recurring
need of atonement, not yet
effected truly, though symbolically
prefigured.
The Holy Ghost
this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all (so the
Authorized Version, giving the idea correctly, though the
expression is simply
τῶν ἁγίων – ton hagion – of
the holiest, which might denote only the
holy
place, as in v. 2, if we there read ἅγια – hagia – holy
place and not ἁγία
(holy),
but is used for the holy of holies in vs. 24-25, and for
its heavenly antitype in
v. 13. This last, as
typified in the earthly sanctuary, is what is intended here)
hath not yet been made
manifest, while as the first tabernacle is yet standing
(or rather, has standing (ἐχούσης στάσιν
–
echousaes stasin – having standing);
has a place in the symbolical representation). The “first tabernacle” here spoken
of certainly does not mean the earthly one as opposed to
the heavenly, but what
the expression denotes throughout the chapter, the holy
place in distinction from
the holy of holies. How, then, is the continued existence
of this a sign that the
way to the heavenly holy of holies has not yet been made
manifest? Obviously
because it intervenes between the congregation and the holy
of holies of
the earthly tabernacle, debarring all approach to the latter,
and even hiding
it from their view. This debarring intervention signifies
that there is no
approach for them as yet to what the holy of holies
symbolizes. Further,
the ordinary ministry of the priests themselves did not
extend beyond this
“first
tabernacle:” this alone was the sphere of
the services which they
accomplished daily; and so the very fact of its existing
for this purpose
expressed that even their mediation was not availing for
access to the inner
mercy-seat. And that this was so is intimated with peculiar
significance by
the direction that, when the high priest alone entered
within the veil, none
even of them should be in the holy place at all, so as to
see beyond it: “And
there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation
when he goeth
in to make an atonement in the holy place” (Leviticus 16:17).
9 “Which was a figure for the time then present, in which
were offered
both gifts and
sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect,
as pertaining to
the conscience;” Which (ἥτις – haetis - which, with its usual force)
is a parable for
the time present (i.e. present as
regarded from the standpoint of the
old dispensation.
The Authorized Version, translating “then
present,” and using
past tenses throughout,
though departing from literalism, still gives, we conceive,
the idea
correctly); according to which (referring
to “parable,” if we adopt
the best-supported reading, καθ’
ἣν – kath’ haen – in which. The Textus
Receptus,
followed by the Authorized Version, has καθ ‘ον – kath hon – according to
which - referring
to “the time”) are offered both gifts
and sacrifices (compare
v.1),
which cannot, as
pertaining to the conscience,
make him that doth the service
(or, “the worshipper,” the idea not being confined to
the officiating priest;
compare ch.10:2, where τοὺς
λατρεύοντας - tous latreuontas - the
worshippers;
the ones offering
Divine service) perfect. The emphatic expression here is
κατὰ συνείδησιν
– kata
suneidaesin – according to; pertaining to the conscience.
The gifts and
sacrifices of the Law availed in themselves only for external
ceremonial
purification; they did
not reach, however typical, the sphere of
man’s inner consciousness; they could not bring about that SENSE OF
SPIRITUAL ACCORD WITH GOD which is spoken of in Jeremiah 31
as marking the new covenant (see below, vs. 13-14).
The Parabolic Function of the Tabernacle
Services (v. 9)
The tabernacle, with its contents and its institutions, was
one great parable
embracing and uniting many subordinate parables. A parable
looking
towards the time of the new covenant — the “present
time,” as the writer
calls it; or, as we might even more closely render it, the
impending season.
For in God’s economy
the new state of things is to be ever looked at as
IMPENDING! So Christ would have
us, who rejoice in His first advent, to be
ever making ready for His second one. And in the same way
the men of the
old covenant had to be on the lookout for the initiation of
the new.
Rejoicing in what Moses had given them, they looked eagerly
for what
Messiah had to give; and in the mean time Moses had given
them parables
through the eye, even as in after times Christ gave His
disciples parables in
words. Such mode was suitable for the time and the purpose.
What
parabolic teaching was there, then, in the tabernacle and
the things
connected with it?
family had its tent, and Jehovah’s
tent was in the midst of all, a center
of
unity, protection, and glory. Jehovah was the Companion of His people in
all their
pilgrimage and vicissitudes. It is
only as we recollect this that we
get at the full significance of
John’s expression concerning the Word
becoming flesh and tabernacling among
us, full of grace and truth (John
1:14). The glory that belonged to the tabernacle was thus a
parable of the
Incarnation
glory.
BETWEEN GOD AND MAN.
It was dangerous for a man to meddle in
Divine things according to his
own inclination and his own wisdom. Yet he
could not stand aside and
neglect Divine things altogether. Such a course
was equally dangerous with the
other. But if he would only submit to the
way of Jehovah’s
appointment, attending to every detail, and striving to
comprehend the
undoubted purpose in it, then he-was assuredly in the way
of safety. He was doing what God wanted him to do with the resources
then within his reach. And
though an obedience of this kind, an obedience
in certain external rites, could
not take away all trouble of conscience, yet
when a man comprehended that
Jehovah had even this in view, he would
feel that what he enjoyed not
now he would enjoy hereafter. Though the
blood of bulls and goats could
not put away sin and wash out the heart’s
deep defilement, yet the
blood-shedding was not in vain, if it intimated
the
coming of
something that would take away sin.
ritual of the tabernacle was nothing.
Save as it was parabolic and
provocative of hope and
aspiration, it could not be called other than a
waste of time. “What
mean ye by this service?” was a question which might
well be put to every Levitical
person every day. But when the service
of the
high priest looked forward to the sacrificial cleansing service of Christ in
perpetuity, and when the service of all the subordinate attendants
looked
forward to the daily obedience of Christians, faithful in little
things, then
assuredly the service of the
tabernacle gets lifted above a mechanical
routine. Under the old covenant,
a whole tribe, separated for ritual
observance, serving Jehovah in
formal religious ordinances, was thereby
serving, not only a nation, but
all mankind. Serving God in appearance,
the Levite served men in
reality. Now, under the new covenant, we serve
God in serving
men. The Christian, because he is a Christian,
has most
power of all men to serve his
brother man.
10 “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings,
and
carnal
ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”
Rendered in Authorized Version,” Which stood only in (μόνον ἐπὶ
- monon
epi – only in) meats and drinks and divers
washings, and carnal ordinances
[και
δικαιωμασιν
σαρκος – kai dikaiomasion sarkos – carnal ordinances –
Textus Receptus], imposed on them (ἐπικείμενα – epikeimena – imposed on
them; placed on; lie
on) until the time of reformation.”
This is a satisfactory
rendering of the Textus Receptus, ἐπὶ before “meats,”
etc., being taken in the
sense of dependence, and ἐπικείμενα necessarily
as agreeing with “gifts and
sacrifices” (δῶρά τε καὶ
θυσίαι – dora te kai thusiai – both gifts
and sacrifices)
in v. 9. But there are other
readings, though none, any more than that of the
Textus Receptus, to be decidedly
preferred on the mere ground of manuscript
authority. The best sense seems to
be given by that of δικαιώματα
(ordinances)
instead of και
δικαιωμασιν, so that we may render (ἐπὶ being taken in the sense
of addition), Being only (with meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal
ordinances, imposed until the time of
reformation. We thus have an obvious
neuter plural (δικαιώματα) for ἐπικείμενα to agree
with, and we avoid the
assertion that the “gifts and sacrifices” of the Law “stood only” in “meats,”
etc. This was not so; their essential part was blood-shedding (αἱματεκχυσίας
–
haimatekchusias – shedding of blood - v. 22) the other things here mentioned
were but accompaniments and
appendages. The “meats and drinks”
spoken of
may refer mainly to the distinctions between clean and
unclean viands, which
we know were made such a point of by the Jews of the
apostolic ago (compare
Colossians 2:16-23; Romans 14.; I Corinthians 8.; also Mark
7:15). The “diverse
washings” (βαπτισμοῖς – baptismois – dippings;
washings, baptizings)
may be taken to include both the ablutions of the priests
before sacrifice,
and those enjoined on the people in many parts of the Law
after ceremonial
defilement, which kind of washings had been further
multiplied variously
in the traditional law (compare Mark 7:3-4,8).
Arrangements of the First Covenant (vs.
1-10)
The Epistle to the Hebrews is the New Testament Leviticus.
In itself, the
book of the Jewish ritual is rather dry reading. “Nothing
can well be duller
or more dingy than the appearance of a stained-glass
cathedral window to
one who is looking on it from the outside of the building;
but, when you
enter and gaze at it from within, the whole is aglow with
beauty” (Dr.
W.M. Taylor). Now, from
this Epistle we learn to read Leviticus with the
bright gospel sunlight for a background, and we thus
discover how rich
that ancient Scripture is, in instruction regarding the
way of access to God,
and the means of fellowship with Him.
Divine palace, the symbol of
Jehovah’s residence among His ancient people.
There was a gracious presence of
God in
enjoy. Mention is made here of
the two chambers of the sacred tent, each
of which had a “veil”
covering the entrance, and of the principal articles of
furniture in these two chambers
respectively.
Ø
The holy place.
(v. 2.) This anterior apartment was oblong
in shape,
being thirty feet in length,
fifteen in width, and fifteen in height.
Three articles are named as
belonging to it.
o
The lamp-stand (candlestick): symbol of the spiritual
light
which Christ imparts to His
Church.
o
The table, with
o
the shewbread: symbol of the
spiritual meat provided by God
to strengthen for His
service.
Ø
The holy of holies. (vs.
3-5.) This innermost recess of the sanctuary,
separated from the outer chamber
by a richly wrought curtain, was the
dwelling-place of Jehovah. It
was a smaller apartment than the other,
measuring fifteen feet in
length, breadth, and height, and thus forming
a perfect square. Seven things
are named as belonging to it.
o
The golden censer. Whether we
understand by this the altar
of incense itself, which stood
in the holy place close to
“the second veil,” or
the actual censer which was carried from
the altar into the holy of
holies on the Day of Atonement —
in either case the symbol
is that of the heart’s devotion.
o
The ark. This was the most
sacred piece of furniture in the
tabernacle; indeed, the
purpose of the whole structure was
just to accommodate the
ark, as the central symbol of the
presence and
majesty of the covenant God of
o
The pot of manna: emblem of the true Bread from heaven,
which:
§
feeds the mind with truth,
§
the conscience with righteousness,
and
§
the heart with love.
o
Aaron’s staff: a type of the intransferable priesthood of Christ,
and a symbol of the
spiritual priesthood of believers.
o
The two tables of the Law: the revelation
to the Jews of
righteous will, which
should be written on the hearts of men.
o
The cherubim: representing the
angels, and surrounding the
luminous cloud of “glory” which
appeared above the ark.
o
The mercy-seat: the footstool of
God, and the propitiatory
lid of the ark; which,
sprinkled with atoning blood, covered
the sins of the people, by
concealing from the Divine eye the
Law which they had
violated. The Hebrew sanctuary in its
innermost symbolism thus
represented the wondrous scheme
of redemption. It shows us God’s throne of grace
standing upon His righteousness
(Psalm 85:10).
was open to the whole
congregation of
any time be ceremonially unclean,
only the sons of Aaron were allowed to
minister at the altar, or within
the sanctuary proper.
Ø The holy place
was for the daily ministration of the ordinary priests.
(v. 6.) Their duties were such
as these: They sprinkled the blood of the
sin offerings before the “second
veil;” they lighted and fed and trimmed
the seven lamps of the
candelabrum; they offered incense upon the
golden altar; they changed the
shewbread every sabbath day.
Ø The holy of
holies was for the annual ministration of the high priest
alone. (v. 7.) None of the ordinary priests ever dared to enter
the inner
sanctuary, or even to look into
it. And even the high priest could only do
so on one day in the year — on
the great annual fast day, the Day of
Atonement. In the course of that day, however, he went into the holy
of
holies at least three times:
sins; and,
o
thirdly, with the
blood of the goat, for the people’s sins.
He went in “not
without blood,” the presentation of the blood being
necessary to the completion
of the sacrifice.
us that the institutions of
Judaism were established by the Holy Spirit
Himself as a symbol of Old
Testament facts, and as a pre-figuration of the
privileges of the new covenant
spoken of in ch. 8:8-12. It was not
Moses who ordained the Levitical
ceremonial; it was the Holy Ghost. And
by this means the Spirit taught
the great truth that on the ground of nature
access to God is
barred for all sinful men; and that
even under the “first
covenant” of grace this blessing was only most imperfectly realized.
The
division of the sacred tent into
two apartments, and the exclusion of the
ordinary priests from the holy
of holies, illustrated the great defect of the
old covenant. The nature of the services, too, reflected its
imperfections.
The rites of Judaism cleansed
the body from ceremonial defilement; but
they could not wash
the soul from sin. They involved,
indeed, a continual
remembrance of sins, rather than
a putting away of sins forever. And yet,
notwithstanding this, the
tabernacle-worship was a bright promise and
prophecy of the “opening of the
kingdom of heaven to all believers” at the
time of rectification foretold
by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
11 “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to
come, by a
greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to
say, not of this
building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and
calves,
but by His own
blood He entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained eternal
redemption for us.” But Christ having come (παραγενόμενος –
paragenomenos – being
come; coming along - compare Matthew 3:1; Luke
12:51)
a High Priest (or, as High
Priest) of the good
things to come, through the greater
and more perfect tabernacle,
not made with hands, that is to say, not of this
creation (κτίσεως – ktiseos – creation;
building), nor
yet through the blood of
goats and calves, but through His own blood,
entered in once for all (ἐφάπαξ
–
ephapax – once
for all) into
the holy place, having obtained
(εὑράμενος –
heuramenos – obtained;
finding, not necessarily antecedent to εἰσῆλθεν –
eisaelthen – He
entered) eternal redemption. On the futurity
expressed (here and
ch. 10:1) by “the good things to come” (the reading μελλόντων – mellonton –
impending – being preferred to γενομένων
–
genomenon - to come), see under
ch.1:1 (ἐπ. ἐσχάτου
τῶν ἡµερῶν τούτων
- ep
eschatou ton haemeron touton –
in these last days) and ch.2:5 (τὴν
οἰκουµένην τὴν µέλλουσαν
– taen
oikoumenaen
taen mellousan – literally
the inhabited earth the impending). Here, certainly, the
period of the earthly tabernacle having been the temporal standpoint in all the
preceding verses, futurity with regard
to it may, without difficulty, be understood;
and hence “the good things” may still be
regarded as such as have already come in
Christ. On the other hand,
there is no difficulty in regarding them as still future.
For the full and final result of even Christ’s perfected
high priesthood is not yet
come. But what is “the greater and
more perfect tabernacle,” through
which He entered the heavenly holy of holies? It seems
evidently, in the first
place, to be connected with εἰσῆλθεν
(He entered), being regarded as the antitype
of that “first tabernacle” through which
the high priests on earth had passed in
order to enter within the veil; διὰ - dia – through; by - having here a
local, not
an instrumental, sense. The instrumental sense of the same
preposition in the next
clause (διὰ
δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵµατος
– dia
de tou idiou haimatos – but by His own blood)
is not against this
view. In English, “through His own blood
He entered through the
tabernacle” presents no difficulty,
though “through” is used in two
different senses.
But what is exactly meant by the tabernacle through which Christ has passed?
Bearing in mind what was
said under ch.8:2 of the prophetic visions of a heavenly
temple — corresponding to the earthly one — and that the
epithet
ἀχειροποίητος
–
acheiropoiaetos – made without hands - is applied
also (v. 24)
by implication to the counterpart of the holy of holies,
and also the expression
(ch.4:14), “having
passed through the heavens (διεληλυθότα
τοὺς οὐρανούς –
dielaeluthota
tous ouranous – One having passed through the heavens),” we may
regard it as denoting the heavenly region beyond this
visible sphere of
things (οὐ ταύτης τῆς
κτίσεως – ou tautaes taes ktiseos – not of
this building;
not of this creation), intervening between the latter and the immediate presence,
or “face,” of God. Thus “through the
greater and more perfect tabernacle” of this
verse answers to “having passed through the heavens” of
ch.4:14; and “entered
once for all into the holy place” of v. 12 to “entered into heaven itself” (the very
heaven) of v. 24. Thus also the symbolical acts of the Day of Atonement
are
successively, and in due order, fulfilled. As the high
priest first sacrificed
the sin offering outside the tabernacle, and then
passed through the holy to
the holy of holies, so Christ first offered Himself in this
mundane sphere of
things, and then passed through the heavens to the heaven
of heavens.
Thus, the former (τὰ
ἅγια – ta hagia – holy
place) is that eternal heaven of God
Himself (αὐτὸν
τὸν οὐρανόν – auton ton
ouranon – the heaven itself) which is
His own self-manifested eternal glory (John 17:5), and
existed before all worlds;
the latter (ἡ
σκηνὴ - hae skaenae – a tabernacle) is the heaven of the
blessed, in which He shines upon His creatures in ‘the
light of love’ — ‘the
temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven’ of Revelation 15:5,
which the apocalyptic seer beheld filled with incense-smoke
from ‘the glory
of God, and from His power.’ There
are other views of what is meant by
“the greater and more perfect tabernacle.” The most notable, as being that
of Chrysostom and the Fathers generally, is that it means
Christ’s human
nature, which He assumed before passing to the throne of
the Majesty on
high. This view is suggested by His having Himself spoken
of the temple of
His body (John 2:21), and calling it, if the “false
witnesses” at his trial
reported him truly, ἀχειροποίητον
–
acheiropoiaeton – not made by hands -
(Mark 14:58); by the expression (John 1:14), “The
Word was made flesh, and
tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν – eskaenosen - tabernacled) among us;” by Paul’s
speaking of the
human body as a tabernacle (II Corinthians
5:1, 4); and by
ch. 10:19-20,
where
the “veil”
through which we have “a new and living way
into the
holy
place through the blood of Jesus” is said to
be His flesh. There is
thus
abundant ground for thinking of Christ’s body as signified by a
tabernacle;
and the expression
in (Ibid.) goes some way to countenance such an interpretation
here. The
objection to it is that it seems neither suggested by the context nor
conformable to the
type of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. For, if the
human body of
Christ assumed at His birth is meant, He entered into that before,
not after, His
atoning sacrifice; and if we think rather of His glorified body, in
what sense in
accordance with the type can it be said that He entered
through it?
We should rather say that He ascended with it to the right
hand
of God. The
further points of contrast between Christ’s entrance and that
of the earthly
high priests are:
(1) The
instrumental medium was not the blood of goats and calves
(specified here as
having been the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement),
but His own blood; He was both
Priest and Victim.
(2) He entered, not yearly, but ONCE FOR ALL there was no need of
continual
repetition. And the conclusion is drawn that the redemption He
thus
wrought is
consequently COMPLETE and ETERNAL! The first of
these
contrasts is enlarged on from vs. 13-24; the second denoted by ἐφάπαξ (once
for all) is taken up at
v. 25. On the word (λύτρωσιν – lutrosin - redemption:
in some other passages apolutrosis – redemption;
deliverance)
it is to be
observed that it means, according to its etymology, release obtained
by payment of a ransom (λύτρον
– lutron - ransom), and thus in
itself involves
the doctrine of atonement according to the orthodox view. It
is true that in many
Scripture passages it is used (as also λυτροῦσθαι
–
lutrousthai – he would
redeem – Luke 24:21 and λυτρωτὴνς – lutrotaens –
deliverer
– Acts 7:35) in a more general sense to
express deliverance only,
but never where the redemption of mankind by Christ is spoken of. In such
cases the λύτρον (ransom) is often
distinctly specified, as in Matthew 20:28
and Mark 10:45, “His life;” in I Timothy 2:6 and Titus 2:14, “Himself;” in
Ephesians 1:7;
Colossians 1:14; I Peter 1:19, “His blood;” compare
also infra,
v. 14. As to how the availing power of the atonement is to be
understood, more
will be said under the verses that follow.
The
Preeminent Priesthood (vs. 11-12)
“But
Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come,” etc. Our
Lord is here
represented as the preeminent High Priest in three respects.
Ø
The temple in
which He ministers is itself preeminent. He has
“entered in once
for all into the holy place.” He ministers in
the
true holy of
holies, of which the Jewish one was only a figure.
He is not in the
symbolized, but in the veritable and immediate
presence of God. “A minister of
the sanctuary, and of the true
tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.” (ch. 8:2)
“Christ entered not into a holy place
made with hands, like
in pattern to the
true; but into heaven itself, now to appear
before the face of
God for us.” (v. 24)
Ø
The access to this
temple is preeminent. The
Jewish high priest
entered the holy
of holies through the holy place. Our Lord passed
into the true holy
of holies “through
the greater and more perfect
tabernacle, not
made with hands.” It seems to us that “the greater
and more perfect
tabernacle”cannot mean either:
o
our Lord’s human
body or His human nature; or
o
His holy life,
“His perfect inward fulfillment of the Law;” or
No interpretation
of this part of our text is without its difficulties;
but that which
seems to us to be the true one is, that He passed
through the visible
heavens as through an outer sanctuary into the
inner sanctuary of “heaven itself.” Our “great High Priest hath
passed through the
heavens” (ch.4:14), and “sat down on the
right
hand of the
Majesty on high.” (ch. 1:3)
The outer sanctuary of the
Jewish temple was “made
with hands,” small and imperfect; but the
heavens which
Christ passed through were created by the Divine fiat,
and they are IMMEASUREABLY
VAST and UNSPEAKABLY
blood of goats and
calves, but through His own blood, He entered in ONCE
FOR ALL into the holy
place.” The entering in through blood refers
to the
blood which the
high priests took into the holy of holies to “make an
atonement” (compare Leviticus 16:14-16). Christ is represented as
entering
the heavenly
sanctuary through blood. Not literally, but figuratively, must
we accept this. He
complied with the condition of entrance into the perfect
sanctuary as our
great High Priest. He made atonement for sin previous to
His appearing “before the face of God for us.” But, unlike the
Aaronic high
priests, he needed
not to make atonement for Himself. For us and for all
men He made the
preeminent atonement — the perfect atonement. How?
Ø
By the sacrifice
of the highest life. Not
animal, but human life. Not a
sinful or
imperfect human life, but a pure, holy, perfect one. He gave
His own life — the
undefiled, the highest, the sublimest, the
supremely
beautiful life — as an ATONEMENT for the sin of the
Ø
By the voluntary
sacrifice of the highest life. Christ
did not die as an
unwilling Victim.
He freely gave Himself for us. “I lay down my life,
that I may take
it again. No one taketh it away from me,”
etc. (John
10:17-18). “Through His own
blood,” which was willingly shed for us,
He effected human redemption,
and then ascended to His mediatorial
Ø
He has obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION for us.
Man was in
bondage. Wicked powers had enslaved him. He was the
thrall of
corrupt passions
and sinful habits; “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14);
“the slave of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:20); the “bond-servant of
corruption.” (II Peter
2:19) Christ redeemed man from this
bondage.
He paid our ransom
price. “Ye were not redeemed with
corruptible
things, with
silver or gold; but with precious
blood, as of a lamb
without blemish
and without spot, even the blood of
Christ.” (I Peter
1:18-19) He is the great Emancipator. He “proclaims
liberty to the
captives, and the
opening of the prison to the bound.” (Luke 4:18)
He delivers
from the condemnation, from the guilt, from the defilement,
and from
the sovereignty of sin. “If the Son shall make you free, ye
shall be free
indeed.” (John
8:36) And
this
redemption is ETERNAL!
Its benefits
endure forever. It introduces man into everlasting liberty
and light, and starts
him upon a career of endless progress and
Ø
He is “a High Priest of
the good things to come.” These
good things are
the blessings of
the gospel age, the privileges which Christians now enjoy.
Under the former
covenant they were in the future; now they are a present
possession. They
who lived during that dispensation had the figures of
gospel blessings; we have the very
blessings themselves. But there is more
than that here.
Christ is a High Priest of good things yet to come. There
are blessings
which we hope for in the future, and shall obtain through
His glorious
priesthood. We look forward to the time when we shall
enter upon “the inheritance
incorruptible, and undefiled,” etc.
(I Peter
1:4-5). The blessings which flow to man from
His priesthood
are INEXHAUSTIBLE
and INFINITE. Through Him there will
ever be “good things to
come” for those who by faith are interested
in His gracious and
blessed mediation.
The Eternal
Redemption (v. 12)
One cannot but be
struck with the occurrence three times within four
verses of the word
“eternal.” There is:
The change from
the old covenant to the new was also an escape from the temporary
to the abiding. In
the old covenant there had to be a constant succession of things,
each lasting for a
little time, and then by the nature of it giving way, and needing
something new to
fill its place. “Now,” the writer of this Epistle seems to say, “all
good things have
become eternal.” And first there is THE ETERNAL
REDEMPTION. By contrast, then, we have to think of:
redemption and
ransom happily an unfamiliar one to us. But there was a
time when people
perfectly comprehended the continual risk to themselves
and their property
from the attacks of strong robber-tribes, who would
take a man away
and keep him in captivity till his friends provided a
ransom. And that ransom
did only for the special occasion; there might
come another
captivity which would need its own ransom. So it was with
the services of
the old covenant. At no time was Israel allowed to think
that enough of
beasts had been slain on the altar. No sooner was one
accumulation of
defilement cleansed away than another began to appear.
And thus, also, no
sooner did the priest wipe away the blood of one beast
than he began to
make ready for shedding the blood of another. The task
was endless, and
no satisfaction or peace came out of it, save the
satisfaction of
knowing that if this redemption had not been attended to,
things would have
been infinitely worse.
all into the holy
place, and there He remains in perpetual and profoundly
fruitful mediation
between God and man. How different from the Jewish
priest, slaying
his victim, and then before long asking for another! The
whole conditions
of sacrifice and obedience are altered. Under the old
covenant the
people themselves had to provide the sacrifices; but now
Jesus comes, providing the
sacrifice Himself, not asking us to do
anything
save to accept,
humbly and gratefully, THE COMPLETENESS OF
HIS OWN
SERVICE! We
cannot provide an eternal redemption for
ourselves. All we can do is
to escape for the
time, and tomorrow we must
face tomorrow’s
dangers. What a grand thing to understand in
our very
hearts that JESUS IS
EMPHATICALLY THE REDEEMER! We are
not ungrateful for
the temporary redemptions of
life, and the minor redeemers;
but we must ever take
care lest, in our natural solicitude for these matters, we
neglect THE ETERNAL
REDEMPTION OF THE ETERNAL REDEEMER!
If we are safe in vital union with Him, then what are
all other captivities and all
13 “For if the blood
of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer
sprinkling the
unclean (κεκοινωµένους
– kekoinomenous – ones having been
contaminated;
the unclean – compare Matthew 15:11, etc.; Acts
21:28),,
sanctifieth to the
purifying (literally, unto the purity, καθαρότητα
– katharotaeta –
purifying; cleanness)
of the flesh:” In addition to the sin offerings
of the Day of
Atonement, mention
is here made of the red heifer, whose ashes were
to be mixed
with water for the
purification of such as had been
ceremonially defiled by contact
with dead bodies
(for account of which see Numbers
19.). They are classed together
because both were general sin offerings for the whole congregation,
representing the
idea of continual and unavoidable defilements notwithstanding
all the daily
sacrifices; the
difference between them being that the ashes were reserved
for use in known
cases of constantly recurring defilement, the sin offerings
on the Day of
Atonement were for general sin and defilement, known or
unknown. But
neither, in themselves, could from their very nature avail for
more than outward
ceremonial cleansing — “ the purity of
the flesh.” This,
however, they did
avail for; and, if so, what must the cleansing power of
Christ’s offering be? Its deeper efficacy shall appear from consideration of
14 “How much more
shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God, purify your
conscience from dead
works to serve the living God?” As
in vs. 11-12
Christ’s entrance
was contrasted with that of the high priest, so here
is the sacrifice
itself, in virtue of which He entered, similarly contrasted.
The points of
contrast to which attention is drawn are these:
(1) It
was the
blood, not of beasts that perish, but of Christ Himself
— the
Christ, the Hope
of Israel, whose Divine prerogatives have been set forth
(2) He offered Himself.
His offering was a voluntary self-oblation, not the
blood-shedding of
passive victims.
(3) His
offering was realty “spotless” (ἄµωµον
– amomon – without blemish) in the
sense of sinless — the only sense that can satisfy Divine
justice — symbolized only
by the absence of material blemish in the
ancient sacrifices.
(4) And
this He did “through the eternal Spirit.”
This expression, which
comes first in
order, has an important bearing on the meaning of the whole
passage, and calls
for especial consideration. Be it observed, first, that the
words are “the eternal
Spirit,” not “the Holy Spirit.” It is not the
usual
designation of the
Third Person of the Holy Trinity. (The reading ἅγιου –
hagiou – holy - for αἰωνίου – aioniou – eternal; eonian - has not much
authority
in its favor, and
is, besides, much more likely to have been substituted
than the other.)
What, then, is
meant by “the eternal Spirit,” through which
Christ offered Himself
spotless? There are three notable texts in which the Spirit in Christ is
opposed to the
flesh:
Romans 1:3, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα τοῦ
ὁρισθέντος
υἱοῦ
θεοῦ
ἐν
δυνάμει,
κατὰ
πνεῦμα
ἁγιωσύνης,
ἐξ
ἀναστάσεως
νεκρῶν
– tou
genomenou ek
spermatos David kata sarka tou horisthentos huiou Theou en dunamei
kata pneuma hagiosunaes ex
anastaseos nekron – which was made of the seed of
David
according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the
spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. I Timothy 3:16,
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι – ephanerothae en sarki, edikaiothae
en pneumati – was
manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit. I
Peter 3:18,
θανατωθεὶς
μὲν
σαρκί,
ζῳοποιηθεὶς
δὲ
πνεύματι
– thanatotheis men sarki,
zoopointheis de
pneumati – being put to death in flesh, but quickened by the
spirit. In all these passages the Spirit
is that Divine element of life in Christ,
distinct from the
human nature which He assumed of the seed
of David, in virtue
of which He rose from the dead. In us men, too, according to Paul,
there is the
πνεῦµα – pneuma –
spirit - as well as σαρξ
– sarx – flesh - and ψυχὴ -
psuche – soul -
(sometimes πνεῦµα and σαρξ alone are spoken
of) — the higher principle of life
within us, in virtue of which
we can have communion with God and be
influenced
by His Holy
Spirit. Any
act of acceptable sell oblation that we might be capable of
would be done
through the spirit that is in us,
to which the flesh is subdued.
Corresponding to
this in Christ was “the eternal Spirit” — a truly
Divine spiritual
Personality, conjoined with His assumed humanity.
Through this He overcame death,
it being impossible that He should be
holden of it (Acts 2:24); through this, too He
offered Himself a willing sacrifice, submitting
to the full penalty of human sin in
obedience to the
Father’s will. Thus is prominently brought to view the
spiritual aspect
of the atonement. Its especial virtue is said to lie, not in the
mere suffering or
the mere physical blood-shedding and death upon the
cross, but in its
being a voluntary act of perfect obedience on the part of
Him who was the
Representative of man, and in whom “the eternal
Spirit”
triumphed over the
weakness of humanity. The agony in the garden (see
under v. 7, etc.)
is illustrative of this view of the virtue of the atonement.
There we perceive “the eternal
Spirit” in the Savior completely victorious
over natural human
shrinking. The same view appears in the reference to
Psalm 40 in
ch.10., where “Lo, I come to do thy
will, O God”
expresses the
essential principle of the availing sacrifice (see below on
ch. 10:5, etc.).
Hence follows what is said next of the effect of
such a sacrifice
as this was — to purify, not the flesh, but the conscience
(συνείδησιν
– suneidaesin - conscience), meaning “man’s inner
consciousness”
with regard to God
and our relations to Him. It belonged essentially to the
spiritual sphere
of things, and in that sphere (as was not the case with the
old sacrifices)
must be, and is felt to be, its availing power. It was, in fact,
just such a
sacrifice as man’s conscience, if enlightened, feels to be due to
God. Man, as he is
now, cannot make it; but in the “Son of man” he sees it
made, and thus
finds at last the idea of a true atonement fulfilled. In the
expression, “dead
works,” there may be an intended allusion to the dead
bodies from
the pollution of which especially the “ashes of an heifer”
purified; and in “to
serve” (εἰς
τὸ λατρεύειν – eis to latreuein – into
the
to be
offering divine service) there is an evident reference to
the legal type.
As the legal sin
offering purified the flesh from the contamination of
contact with the
dead, so that the Israelites, thus cleansed, might offer
acceptable
worship, so Christ’s
offering of Himself fulfils what was thus
typified; it purifies the “conscience” from the contamination of “dead
works,” so that we may offer our bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable
unto God, which is
our λογικὴν
λατρείαν
– logikaen latreian – reasonable;
logical,
Divine service - (Romans
12:1). On νεκρῶν ἔργων
–
nekron ergon –
dead works,
see under ch.6:1. Here, the idea of general pollution
pervading the
whole congregation having been prominent in what
precedes, we may,
perhaps, take the expression as denoting all human
works whatever
“done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His
Spirit,” all being
regarded as tainted with sin, and so dead for the purpose
of justification.
The purification from them which is spoken of involves (be
it further
observed) both justification through atonement and sanctification
through grace: the
first, since, otherwise, the very meaning of the old sin
offerings would
not be fulfilled; the second, as denoted by the concluding
clause, “to
serve the living God”. The
second is the necessary sequence of the
first. Believers are not only “cleansed from their
former sins,” but also put into
a position for
offering an acceptable service. In the life of Christ in whom
they live, and who
ever liveth to make intercession for them, they can
henceforth “serve the living God.” There is
involved, in fact (to return to
the account of the
new covenant in Jeremiah 31.), both:
·
a writing of the
Law upon the heart.
Superiority
of the New Covenant (vs. 11-14)
The advent of the
Messiah has removed the defects suggested by the
Mosaic ritual. He has obtained for the true Israel those great spiritual
blessings which “the first covenant” was powerless to
bestow. These verses
indicate various
elements of superiority. The new covenant has provided
“Christ,” the
Anointed. He has been divinely ordained,
equipped, and
accredited. He is
a better High Priest than Aaron, because the Minister of a
better
dispensation. The “good things” denote the blessings of the new
covenant; and
these are described as “to come,” because they had been
always premised
and expected in connection with the advent of the
Messiah. How
joyful the tidings to our guilty, sin-deflowered, distracted
world, that its true Priest
has “come”! He has assumed our nature; He has
lived and died; He has risen and ascended; He has “entered in once for all”
Hebrews had,
doubtless, many excellences. It was a costly erection. Its
arrangements were
“a parable” (v. 9) which instructed the Jews in
spiritual truth.
The ark was an emblem of the Divine majesty. The cherubic
figures were “cherubim of
glory,” for Jehovah dwelt in symbol between
them. Yet, after
all, the Jewish tabernacle was only an earthly structure. It
was “made
with hands.” But our High Priest ministers in “the greater and
more perfect
tabernacle.” The place of His priestly service is the highest
heavens. The true tabernacle
is “not
of this creation;” it is in the unseen —
in the immediate
presence of Jehovah. And the work of Christ there is to
interpose and
intercede for His people. Every act of saving power results
directly from the
expression of His will, as our Advocate at the bar of God.
result of
satisfaction rendered to Divine justice. We are not saved by
receiving Christ’s
doctrine, or by observing a Christian ritual, or by
following Christ’s
example, or by imbibing moral influence from Him as a
Teacher and
Martyr. Christ saves us “by the sacrifice of Himself.” As He
laid down His life
for us, and as “the blood is the life” (Deuteronomy
12:23). He is said to have “entered into the holy place”
“through
His
own blood.” How much richer and more powerful is this blood than that
which was shed
upon the brazen altar of the tabernacle! The latter contained
only the principle
of brute life. But Christ’s is:
Ø
Human blood.
Our High Priest is a real man,
woman-born — our own
mother’s Son. He
is “bone
of our bone, and flesh of our flesh.” So He
yielded Himself up
intelligently and voluntarily as our Sacrifice.
Ø
Holy blood.
Jesus “offered
Himself without blemish unto God” (v. 14).
His earthly life
was absolutely faultless. He is the only perfect specimen
of humanity that
has ever lived upon earth — the one “Son of man”
who did not share in
HUMAN
CORRUPTION and
Ø
Heavenly blood.
The Man Christ Jesus had an “eternal Spirit” (v. 14);
i.e. He
possessed the Divine nature. He is personally and literally God.
And it is His
Deity that gives to His death its marvelous significance.
No creature-blood
could atone for our sins; but the sacrifice of Christ
is of infinite
value, because there resides in Him “the power of an
concedes that the
Levitical sin offerings did purify. One purpose of their
appointment was
that they might effect legal or ceremonial cleansing. “The
blood of goats and
bulls,” which was presented for the
collected guilt of
Israel once a
year, consecrated the Jew ceremonially to the worship and
service of
Jehovah. In like manner the sprinkling of “the ashes of a red
heifer,” mixed with water, removed legal defilement from the
person who
had touched a dead
body (Numbers 19:2-9). But the blood of Christ
purifies from a
deeper pollution. It cleanses the “conscience.” It is the
God-provided
solvent for the stains of sin. It can
“Cleanse the stuff’d bosom of
that perilous stuff
This blood
purifies from “dead works” — those deeds which are done by
dead souls, and
which, however excellent some of them may appear when
viewed in
themselves, are yet of no avail to recommend to the Divine
favor. Under the
new covenant the conscience is cleansed so thoroughly
that the service
of God becomes a constant joy to the believer’s soul. The
Divine statutes
become his “songs,” and he learns to “run in the way of
God’s
commandments.” (Psalm 119:32)
of the Christian
salvation are indicated in these verses. Those had not been
“made manifest” under the old covenant.
Ø
Perfect access
to God. The subject of
access is the nerve-thought of this
whole section of
the treatise. The worshipper under the new covenant,
being cleansed
through the “one
offering” of Christ, is admitted into the
immediate presence
of Jehovah. He stands within the “second veil,” that
veil being now “rent
in twain” (Matthew 27:51; Romans 5:1-2).
Ø
Full freedom to
serve God. (v. 14.) A
guilt-stained soul can perform
only “dead works;” but the spirit that is
washed in the blood of Christ’s
atonement begins
immediately to be of use to its Redeemer. Our High
Priest has shed His
blood, not only to render us safe, but to make us holy;
not only to
deliver us from God’s wrath, but from our own wickedness.
So soon as Christ
destroys “the body of sin” within us, we discover that
it is our “reasonable
service” to present our persons “a living sacrifice.”
Ø
The gift of eternal
life. (v. 12.) The gospel salvation redeems
both
soul and body, finally and for
ever. It saves, not only from the curse
of the Law, but
from all evil. “Eternal redemption” expresses the
sum total of the
benefits which accrue from Christ’s mediation, and
includes the
consummation of the plan of grace in the heavenly
world. It denotes “the salvation
which is in Christ Jesus,
Ceremonial
and Spiritual Cleansing (vs. 13-14)
teaches the moral
defilement of man. Both under the Mosaic and under the
Christian
dispensation the impurity was moral. But in the earlier
dispensation the
external and ceremonial uncleanness was made most
conspicuous. A very
small thing led to this defilement. If a man unwittingly
walked over a
grave, or touched a dead human body, he was accounted
unclean seven days
(compare Numbers 19:11-22). This was designed as a
parable of
spiritual uncleanness. It was intended to lead men to feel the
contamination of
sin. So in the Christian economy it is
the internal and
moral impurity
that is exhibited, and the need of spiritual cleansing that is
insisted upon. SIN
IS A CORRUPTING, DEFILING AND
SEPARATING
THING! .
THE
GREAT NEED IS A CLEAN
us two methods,
that of the Mosaic economy and that of the Christian,
the ceremonial and
the spiritual.
ü
Both involved
sacrifice as an essential element.
But in other
respects these methods were widely different. Let us notice
Ø In the earlier
dispensation.
o
The sacrifices
were of animal life. “The blood of goats and
of bulls, and the
ashes of a heifer.”
o
The application
of the sacrifices was external or corporeal.
The use of the
blood of goats and bulls was external and
visible (Leviticus
16.). The use of the ashes of the red heifer
was external and
corporeal (Numbers 19.). Both the sacrifices
themselves and the
application of them came within the region
Ø In the Christian
dispensation.
§
It was the
sacrifice of a human life. “The blood of
§
It was the
sacrifice of a holy human life. “Christ
offered Himself
without blemish unto God”
(compare
ch.7:26-27; I Peter 1:18-19).
§
It was the
sacrifice of the
holy human life of a
Divine Person. “The blood of Christ, who through
the eternal
Spirit offered Himself without
blemish unto
God.” By
“the
eternal Spirit” we
understand, not
the Spirit of the Father dwelling
in Christ, nor the
Holy Spirit given without measure
to Christ, but the
Divine Spirit of the Godhead
which Christ
Himself had, and was in His inner
personality. Our
Lord’s Divine nature acquiesced
in the redemptive
plan and purpose, and contributed
to its
fulfillment. It was the blood of Christ; of the
whole and
undivided Christ,
who was both God
and man. For though a Divine nature could not
bleed and die, a
Divine person could. This distinction
is to be kept in
mind: for, the person being one, the
acts and
sufferings of each nature are the acts and
sufferings of the
same person, and are spoken of
interchangeably. His blood, though not the
blood of God, yet was the blood
of Him that was
God. The chief
value of our Savior’s sacrifice was
not in the
physical life which was offered,
although that was
perfect, but in the spirit in which
it was offered, He
shed His blood for us in the spirit
of uttermost and
perfect obedience to the
Divine Father, and
of willing sacrifice for the
accomplishment of
human salvation. And this spirit of
obedience and
self-sacrificing love was eternal;
not a transient mood
or a temporary feeling, but His
eternal
disposition. The sacrifice of Christ, could only
be offered in the
power of eternal spirit.
Only
the eternal
spirit of absolute love,
holiness, wisdom, and compassion
was capable of
enduring that sacrificial death.
o
The application
of this sacrifice is spiritual. Its efficacy can
be realized only by
faith. The redemptive power of the death
of Christ is a
spiritual force, and must be spiritually
appropriated. We
realize it by the exercise of
faith in Him
(Romans 3:24-26).
Ø The sacrifices of
the Jewish ritual were efficacious in producing
ritualistic purity.
Doubtless there were persons who,
regarding these
sacrifices as
types of a far higher sacrifice, and these cleansings as
figures of a spiritual
cleansing, derived spiritual and saving benefits
through them. To these benefits the text does not refer,
but to the
national and
ceremonial use of these institutions. They “sanctified
unto the
cleanness of the flesh.” (v. 13) By means of
them
ceremonial
impurity was removed, the separation consequent
upon that impurity was brought to an end, and the
cleansed
person was
restored to the congregation of Israel.
Ø The sacrifice of
Christ is far more efficacious in producing spiritual
purity.
“How much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse your
conscience?” etc. By “conscience” in this place we do not
understand any one
faculty of our spiritual nature, but our entire
moral
consciousness in relation to God, our religious soul.
“Dead works” are those which are regarded as meritorious in
themselves, and
apart from the disposition and motive which
prompted them.
They do not proceed from a heart alive by
faith and love. No
living spiritual sentiment breathes through them.
And their
influence on the soul is not inspiring, but depressing.
They have no
fitness for quickening spiritual affections and powers,
but for crushing
and killing them. They, moreover, tend to defile man’s
religious
nature. As the touching of a corpse, or the
bone of a dead
body, or treading
upon a grave, defiled a man under the Mosaic Law,
so the contact of
these dead works with man’s soul contaminates it.
The moral
influence of the blood of Christ cleanses away this
contamination (compare I John 1:6-9). The holy and infinite love of
God manifested in
the death of Christ for us, when it is realized
by us, burns up
base passions and impure human affections and
unholy desires. It acts within us as
a fervent and purifying fire.
And it inspires
the soul for true spiritual service. It “cleanses the
conscience from
dead works to serve the living God.” The
word
used to express
this service indicates its religiousness. It denotes in
the New Testament
the priestly consecration and offering up of the
whole man to the
service of God. . . the willing priestly offering of
one’s self to God.
It does not signify service which is limited to
religious duties,
but the performance of every duty and
all duties in a
religious spirit. The whole life is consecrated to the
living God, and
all its occupations become exalted into a Divine service
(compare I
Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17). “How much more,”
then, “shall the blood of Christ?”
etc. In the ceremonial cleansings the
connection between
the means and the end was merely symbolical
and arbitrary; but
in
the redemptive influences of the gospel there is a
beautiful and
sublime fitness for the accomplishment of their end.
The infinite
righteousness and love manifested in the great self-
sacrifice of the
Savior are eminently adapted to redeem and purify
man’s soul from sin, and to inspire and invigorate him for
the
willing service
of the living God. Our text corrects two errors
concerning the
sacrifice of Christ.
o
It corrects the
error of those who make the essence of that
sacrifice to
consist in the physical sufferings and death
of our Lord.
God has no delight in mere pain, or
blood-
shedding, or death. In themselves these things cannot be
pleasing to God.
It was the spirit in which Christ suffered
and died that made
His death a Divine sacrifice and a
mighty power of
spiritual redemption.
o
It corrects the
error of those who depreciate the expression
of the Divine spirit
of self-sacrifice in the life and death of
our Lord.
It was morally
necessary that He should give
Himself as a
sacrifice for us, in order that
the mighty
influence of the
Divine righteousness and love might be
brought to bear
upon us and redeem us. “Behooved it not
the Christ to
suffer these things?” “Thus it behooved
the
Christ to
suffer,” etc. (Luke 24:26, 46-47).
Christ a Self-Presented Offering to
Purify the Consciences of Men
reminds his readers
of a kind of cleansing already practiced by them, and
believed to be
efficacious for its purpose. From their point of view, they
had no difficulty
in believing that something was really done when defiled
people were
sprinkled with the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a
heifer. Whatever
had communicated the defilement was thus removed — in
a mysterious way,
it is true, and so that there might be no visible sign; but
still there was
the feeling and the faith that things were really made
different. If, then, it was
so easy to believe that the sacrifice of brute-life
produced such
results, what profound and permanent results might not be
expected to flow from
the cleansing application of the blood of Christ? For
in the one, case
it was the blood of a brute beast poured out and then done
with for ever, available for only
one occasion, and needing for the next
occasion that
another beast should be slain. But here is the
shedding of the
blood of Christ,
THE CONTINUOUS AND ACCURATE PRESENTATION
OF CHRIST’S OWN
LIFE BY CHRIST HIMSELF! Surely the writer here
is thinking of something
more than the shedding of the blood of Christ’s
natural life on
the cross. He is thinking of what Christ
is doing behind the veil,
on the eternal,
invisible scene. The work, whatever it is, is the work done by
Christ through an
eternal Spirit. He is continually pouring
forth His life to
cleanse the
consciences of believers. Christ’s death was a passing into the holy
of holies, to go
on with the deep realities of which the holiest offerings of the
old covenant were
only feeble symbols. The writer of the Epistle, therefore,
wanted his readers
to appropriate the ineffably great results of what Christ
by faith. Indeed,
all the good that could come through any cleansing
ceremony of the
old covenant came by faith — often superstitious enough,
no doubt, and
having little or no result in the improvement of character;
but still it was
faith. Faith
was the element keeping these ceremonials in
existence from
generation to generation. If nothing more,
there was at least
the faith that something
dreadful would happen if the ceremonials were
discontinued. If, then, men
will only labor to keep themselves in living
connection with the
ever-loving Christ, whose life is all the more fruitful
since He vanished
from the eye of sense, what great things they may
expect! Belief in Christ
is Christ’s own instrument for cleansing the heart,
so that there may
not any more go out of it the things that defile a man.
What wonder that
before he closes his Epistle the writer should be so
copious in extolling the
triumphs of faith, and enforcing the need of it
in all the
relations of Christian life!
15 “And for this
cause He is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means
of death (literally,
death having taken place), for the redemption of the
transgressions
that were under the first testament, they which are called
may receive the
promise of the eternal inheritance.” Here
the view of the gospel
as a new διαθήκης
– diathaekaes – covenant - (introduced first in Hebrews 7:22,
nd enlarged on in
ch. 8:6-13) is again brought in. For the word is still διαθήκης,
though here, for reasons that will
appear, rendered “testament” in the Authorized
Version. The connecting thought here is —
It is because of Christ’s sacrifice having
been such as has been
described, that He is the Mediator of that new and better
covenant; it
qualified Him for being so. A sacrifice, a death, was required
for giving it
validity (vs. 16-23), and the character of His sacrifice implies
a better covenant
than the old, even such a one as Jeremiah foretold.
Further, the
purpose of His death is said to be “for the redemption of the
transgressions that
were under the first covenant.” For in the
passage of
Jeremiah the
defect of the first covenant was based on the transgression of
its conditions by
man, while under the new one, such transgressions were
to be no more
remembered. But this could not be without atonement for
them; the whole
ceremonial of the Law signified this; and also that such
atonement could
not be except by death. The death of Christ satisfied this
requirement; and so the new covenant could come in. So far the course
of
thought is clear.
Nor is there difficulty in understanding the purport of v. 18, etc.,
taken by itself,
where the “blood-shedding” that inaugurated
the
first covenant is
regarded as typical of that of Christ in the inauguration of
the new one. But
there is a difficulty about the intervening verses (vs.16-17),
arising from the
apparent use of the word διαθήκη in a new sense, not
otherwise
suggested — that of testament rather than covenant. The verses
are, as given in
the Authorized Version.
The Eternal
Inheritance (v. 15)
which was
connected with the old covenant. This land could only be called
an inheritance in
a typical sense, for the satisfactions which Israel was
taught to expect
did not come in reality. For as the blood of bulls and goats
could not take away
sin, so neither
could any mere terrestrial possession
ever satisfy a
human spirit. This land was but the
standing-ground for a
time, the place of
discipline and revelation. It is always necessary to show
by a sufficient
experience and consideration the inadequacy of earthly
things for those
whose proper kinship is with heaven; and the more clearly
this inadequacy
appears, the more clearly will it appear that somewhere
there must be
something entirely satisfying. The earthly inheritance proved
to Israel a
constant scene of struggle, temptation, and loss; and if, by some
happy period of
lull, an Israelite had something that might not untruly be
called
satisfaction out of his inheritance, yet the day came when he had to
leave it. (“For we brought nothing into this world and it is certain
we can
carry nothing
out.” -
I Timothy 6:7) The
inheritance was a more abiding
thing than the
possessor. Thus, in any message of
comfort from God to His
people, it could
not fail to be pointed out that the best of earthly possessions
fall far short of
what a loving God intends for His separated and obedient
inheritance may
well be considered in a twofold aspect. It may be
considered as
something within us, and also as something without. The
Israelite
possession of the land of Canaan would have deserved something
nearer the name of
reality if
only the Israelite had been first of all in
possession of himself.
But
he was at the mercy of his lusts and selfish
inclinations. Real
self-possession means
heart-submission to God. If we
would enter on the
real and satisfying inheritance, God must first of all
enter upon His
proper inheritance in us. Self-control, which suggests
something like the
caging of a wild beast, must be exchanged for self-
surrender. (Why? Because
we end up like the man in Luke 11:24-25-
“When the unclean
spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through
dry places,
seeking rest and finding none, He saith,
I will return
unto my house
whence I came out. And when he cometh,
he
findeth it
swept and garnished. Then goeth he and
taketh to him
seven other
spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in,
and dwell
there: and thee last state of that man is
worse than the
first.” - So much for self-help! CY –
2014) But
when Christ
redeems and
cleanses us effectively, then are we ready for that eternal
inheritance, which
is also external. Christ only can redeem us from present
limitations and
corruptions, and how great those limitations and corruptions
are we have as yet
no sufficient perception. It is noteworthy how the
λύτρωσις (redemption) of v. 12 is strengthened into the ἀπολύτρωσις
(redemption;
deliverance ) of v. 15. We shall enter on
an eternal inheritance,
suited to the
spirit of man — an infinite, inexhaustible possession; where
every one will have
exceeding abundance, from which he can never be
parted, and of
which he will never grow tired. In comparison with that
reality, the most
real things of this world will thin away into dreams.
In comparison with
ITS
EVERLASTINGNESS, the everlasting hills
16 “For where a
testament is, there must also of necessity be (φέρεσθαι
–
pheresthai – to be bringing - a
word of which the exact meaning is not clear;
some interpret “be
brought in, or proved,” some “be understood, implied )
the death of the
testator. (τοῦ
διαθεµένου - tou diathemenou – of the
testator; of
the one being covenanted - equivalent to “him that made it”).
17 For a testament is
of force after men are dead (ἐπὶ
νεκροῖς – epi
nekrois – on; over dead
ones): otherwise it is of no strength at all while
the testator
liveth.” (or, for doth it ever avail while he that
made it liveth?
, ἐπεὶ µήποτε
– epei maepote – since not at any time: compare ch.10:2;
Romans 3:6; I
Corinthians 14:16; John 7:26; Luke 3:15). Now, the word
διαθήκη itself
undoubtedly may bear the sense of “testament.” Its general
meaning is “
disposition,” or “settlement;” and it may denote either compact
between living
persons, or a will to take effect after the testator’s death. In the
verses before us
it appears to be used specifically in the latter sense. For they
express general
propositions, which are not true of all covenants, but are true
(according to
their most obvious sense) of all testaments. Further, this sense is
distinctly
applicable to the new διαθήκη regarded as the
dying Christ’s bequest
to His
Church. Hence, but for the context, we
should naturally so understand it
in these verses.
The difficulties attending this sense are:
(1) The
word is not used in this specific sense before or afterwards in this
Epistle or in
Jeremiah 31., which is the basis of the whole argument, or
elsewhere, apparently,
either in the Old Testament or the New.
(2) The
sense does not suit the case of the old διαθήκη,
which was a
covenant between
the living God and His people; and there is no intimation
of two senses
being intended in the two cases: indeed, in the passage
before us, the
same sense seems to be distinctly implied, since the blood-
shedding which
inaugurated the old is at once (in v. 17) spoken of as
answering to the
death which inaugurated the new, as though death
inaugurated both
in the same sense.
(3) The
word, in the sense of covenant (equivalent to the Hebrew berith),
is common in the
Septuagint, expressing an idea familiar to Jews and Jewish
Christians, while
testamentary dispositions were, as far as we know,
unfamiliar to the
Hebrews; and, though the Roman testamentary law may
have come into use
when the Epistle was written, it is thought unlikely that
the writer,
addressing Hebrews, would have referred to it in illustration of
a Divine
dispensation, or, if he had, have used a word so well known to
them in its
traditional sense.
(4) Christ
is called (as well as in v. 15; ch.12:24
and 13:20) the Mediator
(µεσίτης
– mesitaes – mediaton)
of the new διαθήκη:
but a testament does
not require a
Mediator, nor, if it has one, can the same person be both
mediator and testator.
If, however, the sense of testament should seem
inevitable here,
we may explain as follows. Though the word has been used
so far in a general sense, yet the writer, on the suggestion of θανάτου γενοµένου –
thanatou
genomenou – by means of death;
of death becoming; occujring - in
v. 15, passes in
thought at v. 16 to the specific sense of testament, as
suiting the case
of Christ, the language he uses being sufficient for carrying
his readers with
him in the transition. Further, though the old διαθήκη
was not in itself
a testament, yet it was typical of that which was; its whole
ceremonial
foreshadowed the future Testator’s death, and so, in a typical
sense, it might
also itself be called one. Consequently, in v. 18, the
inaugurating
sacrifices of the old dispensation are regarded as representing
the death of the
testator; for they prefigured Christ, through whose death
the “eternal
inheritance” is bequeathed to man. (In accordance with this
view, the Vulgate
renders διαθήκη testamentum throughout the
Epistle,
even when the old
dispensation is referred to.) As to ὁ διαθέµενος
–
ho diathemenos - the testator,
it is, according to this view, ultimately
God the
Father in the new διαθήκη, as well as in
the old, though, of course, the
Godhead could not
die. But the
Father having placed the whole inheritance
destined for
mankind in the hands of Christ as Mediator,
in His human
death the testator
died. And thus one of the difficulties above mentioned
may be met, viz.
that of Christ
being regarded both as Testator and
Mediator. Christ was, in fact, both — Testator, in that, being one with
God, He bequeathed
through His death the kingdom appointed unto Him by
the Father;
Mediator, in that it was through His incarnation only that the
“eternal
inheritance” willed to us by the Father could be
transmitted in the
way of testament.
So in effect Chrysostom explains. Apposite to this view
of the subject are
his own words (Luke 22:29), “And I appoint
(διατίθεμαι
– diatithemai – appoint; am covenanting) unto
you a kingdom,
as my Father
appointed (διέθετό - dietheto – appointed; covenanted)
unto me.” Here we have the same verb (διατίθεμαι) as is used in the
Epistle. And
though, in the passage from Luke, the idea of a
testamentary appointment
is not necessarily implied, yet it is naturally
suggested where
Christ is speaking on the eve of, and with reference to, His
death. There is,
however, another view according to which the idea of a testament
does not come in
at all, the word διαθήκη retaining here,
as elsewhere, its usual
sense of covenant.
The position is that, though the propositions of vs. 16-17 are
not true
of all covenants, yet there is a sense in which they are true
of any covenant
between God and
man; which is the only kind of covenant that the writer has in
view, or that his
readers would be led to think of by the previous reference to
Jeremiah 31., or
by the associations of the word διαθήκη as used in the
Old Testament. The
sense in which the propositions are true of such a
covenant is thus expressed
by Ebrard: “Whenever sinful man will enter into
a covenant with
the holy God, the man must first die — must first atone for
his guilt by death
(or must put in a substitute for himself).” This principle is
expressed (it is
alleged), not only by the sacrifices that inaugurated this
covenant of the
Law, but also wherever a covenant between God and man
is spoken of in
the Old Testament; e.g. in the covenant with Abraham
(Genesis 15:18,
and Genesis 22.). In the case of covenants between
man and man (as
between Abraham and Abimelech, and between Jacob
and Laban) there
was no need of slain victims, whoso life had to be given
for that of one of
the contracting parties; but there is always expressed
such need in the
case of a covenant between God and man.
Further, the
expression, διαθήκη
γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς
βεβαία –
diathaekae gar epi nekrois
bebaia – for a
testament is of force after men are dead, is, according to
this view,
illustrated by
Psalm 50:5, where the Septuagint has τοὺς
διατιθεμένους
τὴν
διαθήκην
αὐτοῦ
ἐπὶ
θυσίαις
– tous
diatithemenous taen diathaekaen autou
epi thusiais – those who
have made with me a covenant of sacrifice –
(in the Vulgate, qui
ordinant testamentum ejus super sacrificiis). The same
preposition ἐπὶ
is
used in both passages, and ἐπὶ
θυσίαις
(of
sacrifice) is supposed
to express the
same idea as ἐπὶ
νεκροῖς (after men are dead). This passage from
the psalm is
certainly much to the point in support of the
view before us, serving
moreover to meet
in some degree one principal
objection to it, viz. that it requires
ὁ
διαθέµενος (one who
makes) to be understood of the
human party to the
covenant, and not
of its Divine Author. Such is
not the most obvious application
of the word, nor
the one sanctioned by the quotation from
Jeremiah, or by other
references to the Divine covenant (see supra, ch.8:10, and also
Genesis 15:18;
Deuteronomy 5:2-3;
Luke 12:29; Acts 3:25; as well as Exodus 24:8, quoted
below (v. 20),
where διέθετό
(appointed;
covenanted), not ἐνετείλατο
– eneteilato –
enjoined;
directs, is the word in the Septuagint But such is the
application in
Psalm 50:5, and
may be considered, therefore, not untenable. The
writer may, indeed,
have had the expression in the psalm in his mind when
he wrote the
verses before us. It appears from what has been said that
difficulties
attend both the views that have been above explained. It is not
here attempted to
decide between them.
18 “Whereupon neither
the first testament was dedicated without blood.”
Here the blood of slain
victims, which had been essential for the first inauguration
of the old διαθήκη
(covenant), is referred to as
expressing the principle of vs. 16-17,
viz. that there
must be death for a διαθήκη (in whatever sense the word
may be
intended, whether
as a testament or as a covenant between God and man) to take
effect. Whichever
view we take of the intended import of the word, the
reference is
equally apposite in support of the introductory proposition of
v. 15; which is to
the effect that Christ’s death (θανάτου
γενοµένου),
fulfilling the
symbolism of the old inaugurating sacrifices, qualified him as
19 “For when Moses
had spoken every precept to all the
people according to
the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the
goats, with water
anti scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both
the book itself
and all the people, 20 Saying, This is
the blood of the
covenant (Authorized
Version - testament) which God enjoined unto you
(strictly, to you-ward;
i.e. enjoined to me for you). The reference is to Exodus
24:3-9, where the
account is given of the inauguration of the covenant
between God and
the Israelites through Moses. He “came and told the
people all the
words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the
people answered
with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD
hath said will we
do.” And then he wrote all the words of
the LORD in a
book, and builded
an altar under the mount, and sacrifices were offered,
and half of the
blood was sprinkled on the altar, and the words were read
from the book, and
again the people undertook to observe them, and the
other half of the
blood was sprinkled on the people, and so the covenant
was ratified. The
essential part of the whole ceremony being the “blood-
shedding,” it is of no
importance for the general argument that the account
in Exodus is not
exactly followed. The variations from it are these:
(1) The
mention of goats as well as calves or bullocks — of water — of
the scarlet wool
and hyssop — and of the sprinkling of the book, instead of
(2) The
words spoken by Moses are differently given, τοῦτο
– touto –
this is – being
substituted for ἰδοὺ
-
idou – look, ὁ θεός
– ho
Theos – the God –
for Kύριος – Kurios – Lord; Yahweh,
and ἐνετείλατο (enjoined) for διέθετό
(has made) as
in v. 17. On these variations we may
observe that the mention of
goats may have been suggested to
the writer’s mind by the ceremonies of the
Day of Atonement, previously alluded to; and it is not inconsistent with the
account in Exodus,
where the victims used for the “burnt offerings”
are not
specified, only
the bullocks for “peace offerings.”
Nor is there
inconsistency in the
other additions to the ceremonial. The scarlet wool and
hyssop were the
usual instruments of aspersion (a bunch of the latter being
apparently bound
by the former to a stick of cedar; compare Exodus 12:22;
Leviticus 14:50;
Numbers 19:6, 18). It may have been usual to mix
water with the
blood used for aspersion, if only to prevent coagulation (see
Lightfoot on John
19:34), though in some cases certainly also with a
symbolical meaning
(compare Leviticus 14:5, 50); and, if the book was, as it
was likely to be,
on the altar when the latter was sprinkled (Exodus
24:6-7), it would
itself partake of this sprinkling, and, being thus
consecrated, would
be then taken from the altar to be read from to the
people and to
receive their assent, previously to the sprinkling of
themselves with
the moiety of the blood reserved. Probably the whole
account, as here
given, was the traditional one at the time of writing (see
below, on v. 21).
With regard to the slightly altered form of the words
spoken by Moses,
it is an interesting suggestion that the writer may have
had in his mind
our Lord’s corresponding words in the institution of the
Eucharist,
beginning in all the accounts with τοῦτο, and being thus
worded: in Luke
22:20, Τοῦτο
τὸ
ποτήριον
ἡ
καινὴ
διαθήκη
ἐν
τῷ
αἵματί
μου,
τὸ
ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν
ἐκχυνόμενον - Touto to potaerion hae kainae diathaekae
en to haimati
mou, to huper humon ekchunomenon – This cup is the new
testament in
my blood, which is shed (poured out) for you:
and in Matthew
26:28 and Mark
14:24, Τοῦτό
ἐστιν
τὸ
αἷμά
μου,
τὸ
τῆς
καινῆς διαθήκης,
τὸ
περὶ
πολλῶν
ἐκχυνόμενον
– Touto
estin to haima mou, to taes kainaes
diathaekaes to
peri pollon ekchunomenon – This is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed (poured out) for many, Matthew adding εἰς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν
– eis
aphesin hamartion – for the
remission of sins. That Christ in
these words
referred to those of Moses is obvious, speaking
of
His own
outpoured blood as
the antitype of that wherewith the old
διαθήκη was
dedicated; and it
is likely that the writer of the Epistle would
have
Christ’s
21 “Moreover he
sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the
vessels of the
ministry.” This
refers to a subsequent occasion, the tabernacle
not having been
constructed at the time of the inauguration
of the covenant, —
probably to the
dedication of the tabernacle,
enjoined Exodus 40., and described
Leviticus 8. It is
true that no sprinkling of the
tabernacle or its furniture with
blood is mentioned
in the Pentateuch; only the
anointing of them with oil
(Leviticus 8:10). But
the garments of Aaron and his sons are said on that
occasion to have been sprinkled with the blood as well
as with the anointing oil
(Ibid. v.30), and
Josephus (‘Ant.,’ 3:8. 6) says that this blood-sprinkling
was extended also
to the tabernacle and its vessels. Here, as well as in v. 19, our
writer may be
supposed to follow the traditional account, with which there
is still nothing in
the Pentateuch inconsistent. Be it observed again that the
force of the
argument does not depend on these added details, but on the
general principle,
abundantly expressed in the original record, which is
assorted in the
following verse.
22 “And almost (rather,
we may almost say that) all things are by
(according to) the Law purified
with blood; and without shedding of
blood there is no
remission.” The essentiality of blood, which is “the life
of all flesh,” for atonement and
consequent remission, is emphatically
asserted in Leviticus 17:11 (“For the life of the flesh is in the
blood: and
I have given it to
you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls:
for it is the
blood that maketh atonement for the soul!”)
which expresses
the principle of
the whole sacrificial ritual. The idea seems to be that THE
LIFE OF MAN IS
FORFEIT TO DIVINE JUSTICE (compare Genesis 2:17),
and so blood, representing life, must be
offered instead of his life for atonement.
The Death of Jesus the Seal of the New
Covenant (v. 22)
In this passage
there is allusion to an ancient, cherished custom of making a
covenant over a
slain animal. In the light of this custom probably we must
explain Genesis 15.
There Abram is represented as dividing a heifer, a goat,
and a ram, and
when darkness came a smoking furnace and a burning lamp
passed between the
pieces. Then follows the significant statement that in
the same day
Jehovah made a covenant with Abram. The idea in the
English version of
a testament and a testator is not so much misleading as
meaningless, for
there is no reason at all why a testament should be
referred to, but
every reason why the writer should go on expounding and
illustrating the
new covenant as compared with the old. To us, of course,
the custom here
mentioned is hardly intelligible, but the mention of it
would throw a
great deal of light on the subject at the time the reference
was made. The
custom may even have been still in vogue, and human
customs have ever
been subordinated to Divine ends. Hence we have here
a special aspect
of the death of Christ. It is presented
as:
MAN,
The very existence of Christ is a covenant between the Divine and
the human. The
glorious things that were in Christ because of the Divine
Spirit dwelling in
Him are promised to us by their very presence in Christ.
All the good
things coming to Christ because of His humanity are equally
offered to us
because of our humanity; and all that Christ did in His(
humanity makes us responsible
for doing the same. The promises of
God
are yea and amen
in Christ Jesus. We may also add that the obligations of
man are defined
and settled in Christ Jesus. Thus there is a covenant, and
we may well look
on the death of Christ as giving that covenant shape in a
formal
transaction. For
there God gave His well-beloved Son to death, THE
PLEDGE OF ALL
THAT HE IS WILLING TO GOVE! And Jesus
surrendered
Himself to death, giving the greatest proof of obedience and
devotion which a
human being can give. Christ’s death becomes our death,
the pledge of an
individual covenant on our part, if only we choose to enter
into it. The death of Christ points out a solemn duty and a large
expectation.
And if the death
of Christ is a seal of the covenant, how much is the
significance of
that seal added to by the resurrection and the ascension
into glory! (While out of context, I really like the
teaching of Acts 17:31 –
(“Because
He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the
world in
righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof
He hath given
assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him
Ratification
by Blood (vs. 15-22)
Here the writer
pauses in his argument regarding the superiority of Christ’s
sacrifice to the sacrifices
of the Law, and directs attention to an important
point of
similarity between the old covenant and the new. This passage is a
serious crux. It
has perplexed the most eminent commentators. The great
question is,
whether διαθήκη should be
translated “covenant” or
“testament:” in vs. 16 -17. For ourselves, we have come to the
conclusion that as
this Greek word does not bear the meaning of
“testament”
or “will”
in any other part of Scripture,
and as it is
unquestionably
used in the sense of “covenant” in the immediate context
(ch. 8:6-13), as
well as in vs. 15, 18-20 of this very passage, we
are compelled, in
spite of opposing considerations, to attach to the word
the sense of “covenant” in vs. 16-17 also. Moses did
not make a will
at Mount Sinai,
the provisions of which could only be carried into effect
after his death.
Neither did Christ speak of a will when He instituted the
Lord’s Supper in
the upper room — using the words of Moses. The one
reference
throughout the paragraph before us is to a covenant, or rather to
the two covenants
which are being compared and contrasted in this section
of the treatise. It is most
unfortunate that the two great parts into which
Holy Scripture
is divided should be designated among the English-speaking
nations by the
word “testaments,” which is
confessedly a mistranslation.
Rather, the Hebrew
oracles ought to have been called “The Book of the
Old Covenant;” and
the Christian Scriptures “The Book of the New
DEATH OF VICTIMS.
“For where a covenant is, there must
of necessity
be the death of
the ratifying victim. For a covenant is of force where there
hath been death;
for doth it ever avail while the ratifying victim liveth?”
(vs. 16-17). The Hebrew
word for a covenant means primarily “a
cutting;” the
reference being to a common custom among the ancients of
dividing into two
the animals slain for the purpose of ratification, that the
contracting
parties might pass between the pieces (Genesis 15:9-10, 17;
Jeremiah
34:18-19). It is certain that in the oldest times of Scripture
history, covenants
were sealed by means of sacrifice. God’s
covenant with Noah
(Genesis ch.8:20-9:17), and His covenant with
Abraham (Ibid.
ch.15:9-21), were thus ratified. And it is probable that
the prevalent
custom among both Jews and Gentiles of confirming
contracts in this
manner originated in the Divine appointment of animal
sacrifice as a
type of the atonement of Christ.
(vs. 18-22.) This
old covenant, made at Mount Sinai, comprised the Ten
Commandments and
the body of laws contained in Exodus chapters 21- 23.
These laws were
called “The Book of the Covenant.” They were the first
rough outline of
the Mosaic code which Jehovah gave to His people. In
Exodus 24:3-8
there is a description of the ceremonial which is here
referred to. The
awe-stricken people were gathered before an altar erected
at the foot of the
mountain. The book of the covenant was read over to
them. Twelve young
men, acting as priests, shed the blood of certain
propitiatory
victims. Then Moses sprinkled half of the blood upon the altar
and upon the book
of the covenant, and the other half upon the assembled
multitude. Some of
the circumstances of the ceremonial which are aluded
to in v. 19 are
not mentioned in the narrative of Exodus; but the writer of
our Epistle refers
to them as matter of well-known and thoroughly
authenticated
Hebrew tradition. This solemn ratification of the Sinaitic Law
shows that God and the
sinner can only be made “at one” through a
covenant of
blood; and
thus, the words spoken by Moses when he
sprinkled the blood
(v. 20) were adopted by the Savior in instituting the
Lord’s Supper
(Matthew 26:28), to signify the confirmation of the
“new” and “eternal covenant”
through
the shedding of His own blood.
But, besides this,
the tabernacle and its furniture were dedicated with the
sprinkling of
blood; and blood continued to be used in connection with
nearly all the
rites of which the tabernacle was the center (vs. 21-22).
The ceremonial Law
was, in fact, one vast system of blood-symbols. The
crimson streams
never ceased to flow upon the brazen altar; blood was put
upon the altar of
incense; the holy of holies itself was sprinkled with it.
There was blood
everywhere; — no access to God EXCEPT BY BLOOD!
The Jews were thus
taught, with solemn and continual iteration, that the
forgiveness of
sins can only be obtained by means of A SUBSTITUTIONARY
OF CHRIST.
(v. 15.) This death was at once a sacrifice for sin and a
covenant offering.
The blood of Jesus has done for the new covenant, in
sealing it, what
the blood of the Mosaic sacrifices did for the old. His death
as the ratifying
Victim took place “of necessity.” It was necessary, not
certainly because
of the ancient custom of sealing covenants by sacrifice;
rather, God had appointed
sacrifice, and employed it in His gracious
communications
with His ancient people, in order to prefigure thereby the
true meaning and
purpose of the death of Christ. The
necessity of the
atonement was
neither hypothetical, nor governmental, nor a necessity of
expediency. It arose out of
the nature of God, as infinitely holy, just, and
righteous. “For this cause”
that by
His death He has paid A FULL
RANSOM FOR SIN
- “He is the Mediator of a new
covenant” — of that
better economy
promised long before by Jeremiah (Hebrews 8:8-13). The
sacrifice of
Christ is of such transcendent efficacy that it has availed to
wash away the guilt
of all God’s people who lived under the former
imperfect
covenant; as well as to secure for all saints, whether Jewish or
Christian, THE INESTIMABLE
GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE!
We should avail
ourselves of the benefits of the new covenant and CONSECRATE
OUR LIVES TO THE
SERVICE OF OUR REDEEMER!
Forgiveness
through Sacrifice (v. 22)
“Without shedding
of blood is no remission.” This is as true in
Christianity
as it was in
Judaism. The text suggests:
section of the
Epistle is the sad fact that men are sinners, needing
forgiveness of sin
and cleansing of soul. Men endeavor by
various methods
to get rid of this
fact of sin. Some attribute what the Bible calls sin to
defective social
arrangements. Men, say they, are parts of a very imperfect
and faulty
organization, and their errors are to be charged against the
organization, not
against the individuals composing it. Others denominate
sin “misdirection”
or mistake, thus trying to eliminate the element of will and
moral
responsibility. Others speak of it as “imperfect
development.” Others
charge all
personal wrongdoing upon the force of temptation, or the
pressure of
circumstances, ignoring the fact that solicitation is not
compulsion. With
these theories, how are we to account for the self-
reproaches which
men heap upon themselves after wrong-doing — for the
fact that men do blame
themselves for wrong-doing? We feel that we have
sinned, that we
are morally free and responsible individually, that we have
broken a holy law,
that we deserve punishment. The penitent heart cries,
“Against thee, thee
only, have I sinned,” (Psalm 51:4); “God be merciful
to me the sinner.” (Luke 18:13) It is a terrible fact that sin is in the
world,
that we
individually are sinners.
is consciously
guilty before God; everywhere his heart cries out for
reconciliation
with Him, and forgiveness from Him. Altars, sacrifices,
pilgrimages,
penances, all witness to this. Evidences of this deep need are
Ø
the consciousness
that we have offended God,
Ø
the dread of the
stroke of His just wrath,
Ø
the aching want of
His forgiveness,
these things we
have felt. Who
shall roll away the burden of our guilt?
Who will give us
peace? (“O wretched man that I am! Who shall
deliver me from
the body of this death? I thank God
through Jesus
Christ our
Lord!” -
Romans 7:24-25 – CY – 2014) Oh, very deep
is this need, and
wide as the world!
remission.” Under the Mosaic economy atonement for sin was made and
ceremonial
cleansing obtained by the shedding and the sprinkling of blood.
And the text
teaches that forgiveness
of sin is attainable, but ONLY
THROUGH THE
SHEDDING OF BLOOD What is the reason for this
condition? The
sacred Scriptures assert that “the blood
is the life”
(Deuteronomy
12:23). “The life of the flesh is in the
blood: and I have
given it to you
upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls:
for it is the
blood that maketh an atonement for the soul”
(Leviticus 17:11).
Now, life is our most
precious possession. “All that a man hath will he
give for his life.” (Job 2:4) Thus
the “shedding of
blood’ is equivalent to
the giving of the
life. And to say that we are “redeemed by the precious
blood of Christ” (I Peter 1:19) is to express the truth that we are redeemed
by the sacrifice
of His
pure and precious and perfect life. But why should
forgiveness of sin
rest upon this condition of sacrifice? How the atonement
of the death of
Christ is related to the Divine Being and government we
know not. But in
relation to man and the forgiveness of sin we may without
presumption offer
one or two observations. Forgiveness cannot be granted
at the sacrifice of LAW AND MORAL
ORDER! “The Law is holy, and
the commandment
holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12) Man must
be brought to
recognize this, or to pardon him would be to license wrong-
doing. A forgiveness
which did not respect and honor the law and order
of God would sap the
foundations of His government, blight His universe,
and prove an
injury to man himself. (This is what the Progressive Movement
in the United
States is trying to do, for “If the foundations be destroyed,
WHAT CAN THE
RIGHTEOUS DO?” (Psalm 11:3) It is amazing how
many people today,
knowingly, or unwittingly, espouse this! – CY – 2014)
How shall the Law
be maintained and
honored and man be forgiven? GOD
HAS SUPPLIED THE
ANSWER! He gave his only begotten Son to shed
His blood and give
up His life for us sinners, as a grand declaration
that Law
is holy and
righteous and good, and must be
maintained, and that the
Lawgiver is the
righteous and loving Father, who is willing to forgive all
men who turn from
sin and trust the Savior. Through the death
of Christ
God proclaims the
wickedness of sin, the goodness,
beauty, and majesty
of Law, and His
own infinite righteousness and
love. “Apart
from shedding
of blood there is no
remission.” This is not an arbitrarily imposed
condition
of forgiveness of sin. The necessities
of the case demand it. It is gracious
on the part of God so clearly to
declare it. And He who declares it has Himself
provided for its fulfillment. “Herein is love,
not that we loved God, but
that He loved us,
and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins!”
(I John 4:9-10); “God commendeth
His own love toward us, in that
while we were
sinners, CHRIST DIED FOR US!” (Romans 5:8).
Forgiveness of
sin through the shedding of blood, the salvation of the
sinner through
the sacrifice of the Savior, IS THE DIVINE AND
ONLY TRUE METHOD! The atonement of the cross is a comprehensive
force in the
actual redemption of THE WORLD FROM EVIL!
blood has been
shed, Jesus the Christ has offered up His most precious life
as a sacrifice for
sin, the Divine condition of forgiveness is fulfilled, and
forgiveness is now
WITHIN THE REACH OF EVERY MAN! . It is freely
offered to all
men, and upon conditions which render it AVAILABLE TO
EVERY MAN!. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man
his thoughts, and
let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy
upon him, and to
our God, for He will abundantly pardon! ”
(Isaiah 55:7).
“Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16:31)
“If we confess our
sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness!” (I John 1:9).
Ø
There is no
forgiveness for us apart from Jesus Christ. Our works
cannot merit it.
Presumptuous trust in the mercy of God, as though
He were regardless
of law and order, will not meet with it. Future
obedience as an atonement for past sins cannot secure it. APART