Hebrews 9

CHAPTER 9

Hebrews 9:1. ἡπρώτη] Elz.: ἡπρώτησκηνή. But the addition σκηνή is condemned as a gloss by the fact of its being wanting in all the uncial MSS., in many cursives, in Syr. utr. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It.

Vulg., with Gregory Thaumaturgus, Cyril, Chrys. Damasc. Theoph. Photius, al. On the ground, too, of internal evidence it is to be rejected, since, on the one hand, the coherence with Hebrews 8:13, and through that with Hebrews 8:7 ff., leads to διαθήκη as the main idea to be supplemented; and, on the other hand, the expression ἡπρώτησκηνή, Hebrews 9:1, would be made to denote something quite different from that which the same expression denotes in Hebrews 9:2. For, while in Hebrews 9:2 the outer division of the tabernacle is indicated thereby, in Hebrews 9:1 only the first or Old Testament, earthly tabernacle, in opposition to the New Testament, heavenly one, thus something entirely dissimilar, could be intended by this expression.

Hebrews 9:2. After ἄρτων, B, Basmur. add καὶτὸχρυσοῦνθυμιατήριον, and in return omit the words χρυσοῦνθυμιατήριονκαί, Hebrews 9:4. Violent intentional transposition, with a view to the removal of the archaeological difficulty.

Instead of ἅγια, Lachm. writes ἅγια. ἁγίων, after A (αγιααγιων) D* E, It. But ἅγιαἁγίων is a mere slip on the part of the copyist, occasioned by Hebrews 9:3, and is to be rejected as devoid of sense.

Hebrews 9:5. Χερουβίμ] A: Χερουβείμ, B D*** (and so Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8): Χερουβείν, D* à: Χερουβίν. In the case of the LXX., too, the MSS. are wont equally to vary as regards the final syllable of the word.

Instead of the Recepta δόξης, Griesb. and Scholz have erroneously placed in the text κῆςδόξης. The article has against it all the uncial MSS. and other witnesses.

Hebrews 9:9. In place of the Recepta καθʼ ὅν (D*** E K L, min. It. Copt. Sah. Basm. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph.), Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Delitzsch, Alford have, rightly preferred the reading καθʼ ἢν, in accordance with A B D* à, 17, 23* 27, al., Vulg. Slav. codd. Damasc. Oecum. (comment.). Already approved by Mill, Prolegg. p. 1046, and placed by Griesb. upon the inner margin. The καθʼ ὅν, as affording an easier mode of appending to that which precedes, is a later correction of the more difficult and ill-understood καθʼ ἥν.

Hebrews 9:10. The Recepta reads: καἰδικαιώμασισαρκός. But καί is wanting in A D* à* 6, 17, 27, 31, al., with Cyr. (twice) in Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. al.; and in place of δικαιώμασι, A B à, ten cursives, Cyril., and many versions have δικαιώματα, while in D* It.

Sahid. there is found δικαίωμα. Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford have therefore adopted δικαιώματασαρκός, which was already approved by Grotius, Mill, Prolegg. p. 1355, and Bengel, and recommended by Griesb. Delitzsch and Reiche likewise give it the preference. This reading is in reality to be regarded as the original one. For it is more easily explicable that δικαιώματα should, on account of the foregoing datives, be changed into δικαιώμασι, and joined on to them by means of καί, than that the καίδικαιώμασι, if it already existed, should, on account of the closing word ἐπικείμενα, be converted into δικαιώματα.

Hebrews 9:11. In place of the Recepta τῶνμελλόντων, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after B D* It. Syr. utr. (yet the Syr. Philonex. has the Recepta in the margin) Arab. petropol. and some codd. of Chrys.: τῶνγενομένων. Defended by Ebrard. But the reading is not in keeping with the carefully chosen diction of our author, and its sense: “High Priest of the good things which have arisen,” does not commend itself. It is manifestly a transcriber’s error, occasioned by the presence of the foregoing παραγενόμενος.

Hebrews 9:12. εὐράμενος] D* (E?), 27, 44, 80, al., and some Fathers: εὑρόμενος.

Hebrews 9:13. Elz.: ταύρωνκαὶτράγων. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, to be transposed into τράγωνκαὶταὑρων, in accordance with the decisive authority of A B D E à, Cyr. Theodoret, Bede, Syr. Copt. Basm. It. Vulg. al.

Hebrews 9:14. πνεύματοςαἰωνίου] D* à*** many cursives, Copt. Basm. Slav. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Didym. (?) Damasc. al.: πνεύματοςἁγίου. Interpretative gloss.

In place of the Recepta συνείδησινὑμῶν, Bengel, Knapp, Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 2, Alford read more suitably, in accordance with A D* K, 44, 47, 67, al., Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. al. Athan. Cyr. Chrys. (comment.) Theodoret, Theoph.: συνείδησινἡμῶν. Recommended likewise by Griesb., and already placed in the text in the Edd. Complut. Genev. Plant.

To the mere θεῷζῶντι in the Recepta, Lachm., with A, 21* 31, 66 (in the margin), Copt. Slav. Chrys. (comment.) Macar. Theoph., has added the words καὶἀληθινῷ. These words are, however, to be deleted. They are a gloss from 1 Thessalonians 1:9.

Hebrews 9:17. μήποτε] D* à* and Isidor. Pelus. iv. 113 (… οὕτωγὰρεὗρονκαὶἐνπαλαιοῖςἀντιγράφοις): μὴτότε.

Hebrews 9:18. Instead of οὐδʼ in the Recepta, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, to write οὐδέ, in accordance with A C D E L, 4, 44, 52, Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.

ἡπρώτη] D* E* It.: ἠπρώτηδιαθήκη. Exegetical gloss.

Hebrews 9:19. Elz.: κατὰνόμον. But the better attestation by A C D* L à*** 21, 47, 71, al., Copt. Basm. Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theoph. requires the reading preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tiseh. 1, and Alford: κατὰτὸννόμον.

In like manner is the article τῶν wanting in the Recepta before τράγων to be added, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with the weighty authority of A C D E (D E, Aeth.: τῶντράγωνκαὶτῶνμόσχων) à* 80, al. mult. It. Vulg. Theodoret, ms.

So, in place of the Recepta ἐῤῥάντισε here and Hebrews 9:21, we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with all the uncials, to write ἐράντισεν.

Hebrews 9:24. The order of the words followed by Lachm. in the stereotype edition, as well as recently by Tisch. in the ed. 7 and Hebrews 8 : εἰσῆλθενἅγια, rests only upon the testimony of A à, 37, 118. In the larger edition of Lachm., therefore, this has rightly given place to the Recepta ἅγιαεἰσῆλθεν.

Better attested than the Recepta ὁΧριστός is the mere Χριστός (A C* D* à, al. [Cod. B in its original form extends only to συνείδησιν, Hebrews 9:14]), preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford.

Hebrews 9:26. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, Delitzsch: νῦνδέ. Better Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with A C L (?) à, 37, 39, 40, Orig. Chrys.: νυνὶδέ.

ἁμαρτίας] A à, 17, 73. Lachm.: τῆςἁμαρτίας. Against C D*** E K L, almost all the min. Orig. (once) al. mult.

Hebrews 9:28. οὔτωςκαί] Elz. has only αὕτως. Against decisive witnesses (all the uncial mss., most min., many translations and Fathers).

After εἰςσωτηρίαν, Lachm. in the stereotype edition had added, with A, 31, 47, al., Syr. Philonex. Slav. codd. Damasc., the words διὰπίστεως. Rightly, however, has he deleted them in the larger edition. The addition is a complementary gloss, which has against it the testimony of C D E K L à, many min. versions, and Fathers, and betrays its character as a gloss by its changing position (Arm. 27, 31, 57, 61, al., have it before εἰςσωτηρίαν).

Hebrews 9:1-14

Hebrews 9:1-14. The author has in chap. 8 insisted upon the fact, as a second main particular of the superiority of Christ as a high priest over the Levitical high priests, that the sanctuary in which He ministers is a more excellent one, namely, the heavenly sanctuary. He has made good this proposition by the consideration that no place would be found for Christ, as regards priestly service, in the earthly sanctuary; and then has proceeded to show the naturalness of the fact that He accomplishes His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, by the proof that He is the Mediator of a better covenant. This train of thought is still pursued in the beginning of chap. 9, in that attention is now finally called to the fact that in the arrangement of the Mosaic sanctuary itself, and the order of the priestly service corresponding thereto, there lies an indication on the part of God that Mosaism is not itself the perfect religion, but only an institution preparatory thereto (Hebrews 9:1-8). With this, however, is then connected, by means of one of those sudden transitions of which the author is so fond, the reference to the further truth, that, indeed, the Levitical sacrifices also, since they belong to the domain of fleshly ordinance, are not able really to atone; whereas the sacrifice presented by Christ, by means of His own blood, possesses, by virtue of an eternal Spirit, everlasting power of atonement (Hebrews 9:9-14), and thus a third main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ is introduced, the development of which occupies the author as far as Hebrews 10:18.

Hebrews 9:2-5

Hebrews 9:2-5. Unfolding of the collective idea τὸἅγιονκοσμικόν, as regards its several essential component parts. That the author has before his mind the Jewish sanctuary in its original form, i.e. the Mosaic tabernacle, is evident alike from the expression σκηνή, as from the use of the aorist κατεσκευάσθη. That, however, he likewise thinks of this original disposition as still preserved in the temple of his day, is manifest partly from the present λέγεται immediately following, partly from the proposition: τούτωνδὲοὕτωςκατεσκευασμένων … εἰσίασιν, Hebrews 9:6.

σκηνὴγὰρκατεσκευάσθηἡπρώτη] for a tent was prepared (set up), namely, the first or anterior one (the fore-tent). σκηνή stands first as the general notion, and only acquires its nearer definition by the ἡπρώτη afterwards brought in, without, however, our having, with Beza, Bloomfield, and others, to place a comma after κατεσκευάσθη. That σκηνὴἡπρώτη is not to be combined immediately in one, as expressing the signification: “the fore-part of the tent” (so Valckenaer, who compares in ultimis aedibus, and the like; also Delitzsch), is shown—although such acceptation presents no grammatical difficulty—by the corresponding σκηνὴἡλεγομένηἅγιαἁγίων, Hebrews 9:3, whence it follows that the author is regarding the two divisions of the tent separated by the veil in front of the Most Holy Place as two tents.

πρώτη] not temporal, but local.

κατεσκευάσθη] namely by Moses, at the behest of God (comp. Hebrews 8:5).

ἐνᾗἥτελυχνία] sc. ἐστίν (not ἦν, Alford, Kurtz, against which λέγεται and Hebrews 9:6 are decisive): in which there is the candlestick (or lamp-stand). Comp. Exodus 25:31-39; Exodus 37:17-24; Bähr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd. I., Heidelb. 1837, p. 412 ff. In the temple of Herod, too, there was, according to Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5. 5, only one lamp-stand in the Holy Place, while in the temple of Solomon there were ten of them present; comp. 1 Kings 7:49; 2 Chronicles 4:7.

καὶἡτράπεζακαὶἡπρόθεσιςτῶνἄρτων] and the table and the setting forth of the bread (or loaves), i.e. wherein is found the table, and the sacred custom is observed of placing thereon the shew-bread. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 590. Wrongly do Vatablus, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bloomfield, and others explain ἡπρόθεσιςτῶνἄρτων as hypallage or antiptosis for οἱἄρτοιτῆςπροθέσεως. Yet more unwarrantably do Valckenaer (and similarly Heinrichs) maintain that ἡτράπεζακαὶἡπρόθεσιςτῶνἄρτων is equivalent to ἡτράπεζατῶνἄρτωντῆςπροθέσεως.

According to Tholuck, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, and Moll, πρόθεσις is, like the Hebrew מַעֲרֶכֶת, to be taken concretely, strues panum. But πρόθεσις never has the passive signification of strues. On the matter itself, comp. Exodus 25:23-30; Exodus 26:35; Exodus 37:10-16; Leviticus 24:5-9; Bähr, l.c. p. 407 ff.

ἥτις] sc. σκηνὴἡπρώτη. Not conjoined with the mere ἥ, because the fact alleged is something which is familiar to the readers.

ἅγια] Holy Place (קֹדֶשׁ). So (as neuter plur.), not, with Erasmus, Luther, Er. Schmid, Mill, Whitby, Heinrichs, and others, ἁγία (as fem. sing.), have we to accentuate the word. It stands opposed to the ἅγιαἁγίων, Hebrews 9:3, and denotes the Holy Place, or the outer portion of the tabernacle, in opposition to the Most Holy Place, or the more secluded, inner portion of the same. Likewise with the LXX. and with Philo, the plural τὰἅγια in this sense is interchanged with the singular τὸἅγιον.

ἅγια, however, not τὰἅγια, is placed, because the author was less concerned about mentioning the definite name coined for the expression thereof, than about bringing out the signification which this name has.

Hebrews 9:3

Hebrews 9:3. Μετά] after or behind. Of local succession (Thucyd. vii. 58, al.), in the N. T. only here.

τὸδεύτερονκαταπέτασμα] the second veil (פָּרֹכֶת). For before the Holy Place, too, there was a veil (מָסָךְ). On the former, comp. Exodus 26:31 ff.

σκηνή] sc. κατεσκευάσθη.

ἅγιαἁγίων] Most Holy Place. Periphrasis of the superlative (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 231), and translation of קֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים.

Hebrews 9:4

Hebrews 9:4. Θυμιατήριον] is either interpreted as altar of incense or as censer. The latter, and indeed as a golden censer, which was employed by the high priest on the great day of atonement, is thought of by Luther, Grotius, de Dieu, Calov, Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Whitby, Schulz, Böhme, M‘Lean, Stuart, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, Bisping, Alford, M‘Caul, and others, after the precedent of the Peshito, Vulgate (turibulum), and Theophylact. The altar of incense, on the other hand (מִזְבֵּחַ הַקְּטֹרֶת or מִזְבֵּחַ הַוָּהָב), of which mention is made as a constituent part in the Mosaic tabernacle, Exodus 30:1-10; Exodus 37:25-28; Exodus 40:5; Exodus 40:26, as a constituent part in the temple of Solomon, 1 Kings 7:48, 2 Chronicles 4:19, and as a constituent part in the Herodian temple (Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5), is understood in the case of the Latin translation in D E (altare), as well as by Oecumenius (ad Hebrews 9:7), Calvin, Justinian, Piscator, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Gerhard, Brochmann, Mynster (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 342 ff.), Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrהerbr: p. 489 f., Obs.), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Conybeare, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. Instances from the classical writers in favour of either reference, see in Bleek, II. 2, p. 480 f.

That a censer is intended may be urged from the language of the LXX., since with them for the indication of the altar of incense the expressions: τὸθυσιαστήριονθυμιάματος (Exodus 30:1; Exodus 30:27; Leviticus 4:7), τὸθυσιαστήριοντῶνθυμιαμάτων (1 Chronicles (1Chr. 7:49) 1 Chronicles 6:49, 1 Chronicles 28:18; 2 Chronicles 26:16; 2 Chronicles 26:19), τὸθυσιαστήριοντὸχρυσοῦν (Exodus 40:5; Exodus 40:26, al.), τὸθυσιαστήριοντὸ (ὂν) ἀπέναντικυρίου (Leviticus 16:12; Leviticus 16:18); and, where the altar intended is clear from the context, merely τὸθυσιαστήριον (Leviticus 16:20, al.), are regularly employed, and only in unimportant MSS. of the same θυμιατήριον presents itself in some few passages as a variation of reading. To this usage of the LXX., however, is to be opposed the equally important fact of the usage of Philo and Josephus, according to which, at their time, τὸθυμιατήριον was quite the ordinary appellation of the altar of incense. Comp. Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres. p. 511 sq. (with Mangey, I. p. 504): τριῶνὄντωνἐντοῖςἁγίοιςσκευῶν, λυχνίας, τραπέζης, θυμιατηρίου; De vita Mos. p. 668 (II. p. 149): Ἅμαδὲτούτῳἐδημιουργεῖτοκαὶσκεύηἱερά, κιβωτός, λυχνία, τράπεζα, θυμιατήριον, βωμός. Ὁμὲνοὖνβωμὸςἵδρυτοἐνὑπαίθρῳκ.τ.λ.; Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5 : καὶτὸμὲνπρῶτονμέρος … εἶχενἐναὐτῷτρίαθαυμασιώτατακαὶπεριβόηταπᾶσινἀνθρώποιςἔργα, λυχνίαν, τράπεζαν, θυμιατήριον Antiq. iii. 6, 8 : μεταξὺδὲαὐτῆς (τῆςλιχνίας) καὶτῆςτραπέζηςἔνδον … θυμιατήριον, ξύλινονμὲνκ.τ.λ., al. Of the altar of incense, accordingly, the expression must be understood in our passage. For the manner in which the χρυσοῦνθυμιατήριον is mentioned, as a parallel member to τὴνκιβωτὸντῆςδιαθήκης, shows that the former must be an object of equally great importance as the latter.

But, since that is so, something as non-essential as a golden censer cannot be meant, but only the altar of incense, which formed an essential constituent part of the tabernacle. Besides, there is nowhere any mention in the O. T. (not Leviticus 16:12 either) of a particular censer, which had been set apart for the service on the great day of atonement. About the existence of such a censer at the time of the Mosaic tabernacle, which the author after all has mainly before his mind, nothing is known with certainty. Only from the Mishna, tract. Joma, iv. 4,[89] do we learn something about it.

Moreover, according to tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4, this censer was first fetched out of the storehouse, carried by the high priest into the Most Holy Place, and upon the completion of the service again carried forth therefrom; even as it would be a priori improbable in the highest degree that such instrument should be kept within the Holy of Holies. For, according to Leviticus 16:12-13, the high priest was first to enter with incense into the Most Holy Place, in order that through the cloud thereof the glory of God, enthroned above the cover of the ark of the covenant, might become invisible to him, to the end that he died not. And yet ἔχουσα compels us to think of an abiding place of the θυμιατήριον; to explain ἜΧΟΥΣΑ of the mere appertaining of the θυμιατήριον to the Most Holy Place as an object of use for the latter, as is usually done by the one class of expositors (but also by some advocates of the opposite view, as Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, Owen, Mynster, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Conybeare, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 490, Obs.; Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and Woerner, with an appeal to הַמִּזְבֵּהַ אֲשֶׁר־לֵדְּבִיר, 1 Kings 6:22), is—inasmuch as the author sharply separates from each other in his description the two main divisions of the O. T. sanctuary, as well as the objects peculiar to each of these divisions, by means of ΜΕΤᾺΔΈ, Hebrews 9:3, and thus ἜΧΟΥΣΑ, Hebrews 9:4, unmistakably corresponds to the ἘΝᾟ, Hebrews 9:2—altogether arbitrary.

If, then, we understand ΘΥΜΙΑΤΉΡΙΟΝ of the altar of incense, as we are compelled to do, there arises the archaeological difficulty that this altar had its standing-place not in the Most Holy Place, as is here presupposed by the author, but, on the contrary, in the Holy Place (Exodus 30:1 ff.). This point of inconsistency with historic truth is to be admitted, and therefrom the conclusion to be drawn, that the author did not himself live in the vicinity of the Jewish sanctuary, but had drawn his knowledge with regard to the same only from the Scriptures of the O. T., whence the possibility of an error is explicable. In favour of this possibility, Bleek rightly urges the following considerations: first, that Exodus 26:35 there are mentioned as standing within the Holy Place only the table and the candlestick, but not the altar of incense also. Then, that where the standing place of this altar is actually spoken of, the form of expression chosen certainly, by reason of its indefiniteness, admitted of misconstruction. So Exodus 30:6: ΚΑῚΘΉΣΕΙςΑὐΤῸἈΠΈΝΑΝΤΙΤΟῦΚΑΤΑΠΕΤΆΣΜΑΤΟς, ΤΟῦὌΝΤΟςἘΠῚΤῆςΚΙΒΩΤΟῦΤῶΝΜΑΡΤΥΡΊΩΝ; ibid.

Exodus 40:5: καὶθήσειςτὸθυσιαστήριοντὸχρυσοῦνεἰςτὸθυμιᾶνἐναντίοντῆςκιβωτοῦ; Hebrews 9:26: ἀπέναντιτοῦκαταπετάσματος; Leviticus 4:7; Leviticus 16:12; Leviticus 16:18: ἐναντίον or ἀπέναντικυρίου. Finally, that in the Mosaic law the altar of incense was brought into peculiar significance in connection with the solemnity of the atonement, since on this day it was sprinkled and cleansed by the high priest with the same blood which the high priest had carried into the Most Holy Place (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16:18 f.).

χρυσοῦν] since the emphasis rests on it, is prefixed. The article, however, is wanting, because the sense is: a golden altar, namely, the altar of incense, in distinction from the brazen altar existing in the court, namely, the altar of burnt-offering.

καὶτὴνκιβωτὸντῆςδιαθήκης] and the ark of the covenant; comp. Exodus 25:10 ff; Exodus 37:1-9.

ΠΕΡΙΚΕΚΑΛΥΜΜΈΝΗΝΠΆΝΤΟΘΕΝΧΡΥΣΊῼ] overlaid on every side (within and without; comp. Exodus 25:11) with gold (plating of fine gold). According to 1 Kings 8, the ark of the covenant was also brought into the temple of Solomon. On the destruction of this temple by the Chaldeans it was lost, and the second temple was without an ark. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5 : Ἔκειτοδὲοὐδὲνὅλωςἐναὐτῷ, ἄβατονδὲκαὶἄχραντονκαὶἀθέατονἦνπᾶσιν, ἁγίουδὲἅγιονἐκαλεῖτο.

ἐνᾗστάμνοςχρυσῆἔχουσατὸμάννακ.τ.λ.] wherein was a golden pot with the manna, and Aaron’s rod which had budded, and the tables of the covenant. ἘΝᾟ does not refer back to ΣΚΗΝΉ, Hebrews 9:3 (Ribera, Justinian, Pyle, Peirce, and others),—for to the ἘΝᾟ, Hebrews 9:4, the ὙΠΕΡΆΝΩΔῈΑὐΤῆς, Hebrews 9:5, forms an opposition,—but it refers to ΚΙΒΩΤΌς. On the pot of manna, comp. Exodus 16:32-34; on Aaron’s rod, Num. 17:16–26 (Numbers 18:1-11); on the tables of the covenant, Exodus 25:16; Deuteronomy 10:1-2. According to 1 Kings 8:9, there was nothing more in the ark of the covenant, at the time of its removal into the temple, than the two tables of the law; and according to Exodus 16:33, Num. 17:25 (Numbers 18:10), the two first-mentioned objects were not to have their place within, but before the ark of the covenant. The same opinion, however, which the author here expresses as to the place of the preservation of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, is found likewise with later Rabbins, as with R. Levi Ben Gerson at 1 Kings 8:9 and at Numbers 17:10, and Abarbanel at 1 Kings 8:9. See Wetstein on our passage.

[89] Omnibus diebus reliquis suffitum facturus de altari accepit in turibulo argenteo … hoc vero die in aureo.

Hebrews 9:5

Hebrews 9:5. The author turns from the objects to be found within the ark of the covenant to that which is above the same.

ὑπεράνωδὲαὐτῆς] sc. τῆςκιβωτοῦ.

Χερουβίμ] comp. Exodus 25:18 ff; Exodus 37:7 ff.; Winer, Bibl. Realwörterb. I. 2 Aufl. p. 262 ff.; Bähr, Symbolik des Mob. Cultus, Bd. I. p. 311 ff. There existed two of them, of fine gold, one at each end of the cover or lid of the ark of the covenant, upon which, with faces turned towards each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their outspread wings. In the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God enthroned (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16), and from this place God would speak to Moses (Exodus 25:22; comp. Numbers 7:89).

Χερουβίμ is here treated as a neuter, as likewise generally with the LXX., with whom the masculine οἱΧερουβ. occurs but rarely (e.g. Exodus 25:20; Exodus 37:7). The neuter is not, however, to be explained by the supposition that πνεύματα is to be supplied to it in thought (comp. Drusius on our passage), but from the fact that the cherubim were regarded as ζῶα. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 6. 5, where the Mosaic cherubim are described as ζῶαπετεινά, μορφὴν, δʼ οὐδενὶτῶνὑπʼ ἀνθρώπωνἑωραμένωνπαραπλήσια. Comp. also Ezekiel 10:15: καὶτὰΧερουβὶμἦσαντοῦτοτὸζῶον, ὃἴδονκ.τ.λ. Ibid. Hebrews 9:20.

The cherubim are called Χερουβὶμδόξης. That may mean cherubim of glory or brightness, to whom glory or brightness is proper (so Camerarius, Estius, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, Kuinoel, al.), or the cherubim which pertain to the divine glory, the כְּבֹוד יְהֹוָה, i.e. who are the bearers of the divine glory (so the majority). Grammatically the former is easier (on account of the absence of the article before δόξης). But the latter is to be preferred as yielding a more appropriate thought, and the omission of the article is to be justified from the usage of the LXX. Exodus 40:34; 1 Samuel 4:22; Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 10:18, al.

κατασκιάζοντατὸἱλαστήριον] which overshadow the propitiatory (or mercy-seat). κατασκιάζειν in the N. T. only here. Comp. συσκιάζειν, Exodus 25:20; σκιάζειν, Exodus 37:9; 1 Chronicles 28:18. A more choice verb than περικαλύπτειν, 1 Kings 8:7. τὸἱλαστήριον (כַּפֹּרֶת), the cover of the ark of the covenant, which on the great day of atonement was sprinkled with the sacrificial blood for the expiation of the sins of the people. Comp. Leviticus 16:14 f.

περὶὧν] goes back not merely to the cherubim (Ebrard, p. 294), but also to all the objects before enumerated.

οὐκἔστιν] it concerns us not, or: is not the place, or: is impossible. Comp. 1 Corinthians 11:20. Of the same meaning as the more definite οὐκἔξεστιν. With Kurtz to supply τόπος is inadmissible.

κατὰμέρος] in detail. The author does not design to set forth the typical significance of every single object enumerated; the indication of the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Jewish sanctuary is that which he at present aims at, and to this task he now addresses himself in that which immediately follows, comp. Hebrews 9:8.

Hebrews 9:6-7

Hebrews 9:6-7. After the collective expression τὸἅγιονκοσμικόν, Hebrews 9:1, has been analyzed into its single constituent parts, Hebrews 9:2-5, and a recapitulatory reference has been made to the total result of this given analysis by means of τούτωνοὕτωςκατεσκευασμένων,—the opposition to μέν, Hebrews 9:1, being formally introduced by δέ, and then receiving its more precise material defining by means of the statement, Hebrews 9:8, which is attached in a grammatical respect as a subsidiary clause,—the discourse advances to the development of the further general idea, which is placed in the forefront, Hebrews 9:1, but has hitherto remained unnoticed, the twofold expression δικαιώματαλατρείας.

From the present εἰσίασιν, as from προσφέρει, Hebrews 9:7 (comp. also Hebrews 9:8 f.), it follows that the Mosaic cultus was still continuing at the time when the author wrote. The participle perfect, κατεσκευασμένων, however, denotes that which is extending out of the past into the present, and is still enduring in the present (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 254). The present hereby indicated can, of course, only be that in which the author himself is living and writing. The endeavour to explain it of a present into which the author only mentally places himself, is as little warranted grammatically as is the asserting, with Hofmann, that the present in which the discourse here moves is “not a past, nor actual, nor something still continuing, but that set forth in the word of God, where it is to be read how the sanctuary erected by Moses was constituted, and what priests and high priests do in the same;” or with Mangold (in Bleek’s Einleit. in das N. T. p. 617), to find the Scripture picture of the tabernacle drawn in our passage as a “purely ideal magnitude, which by no means guarantees the actual continued existence of the temple worship.” For, in order to render possible suppositions of this kind, the conjoining of the presents with a participle aorist would have been indispensably necessary. From the form of discourse chosen: τούτωνοὕτωςκατεσκενασμένων (“in that these objects have been in such wise regulated”), in union with the present tenses εἰσίασιν and προσφέρει, it therefore follows of necessity that the author, although here entering only upon the presentation of the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary, nevertheless thinks of these two main divisions, together with all that appertains to them,—which he has just now enumerated,—as still preserved in being, thus also as still present in the Jewish temple of his day; by which supposition, it is true, he becomes involved in contradiction with the historic reality, inasmuch as alike the ark of the covenant as the vessel of manna and Aaron’s rod were wanting in the second temple.

Vid. supra ad Hebrews 9:4. With very little reflection does Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 491, Obs.) object to this conclusion, that “with just the same right one might infer from the present in Hebrews 13:11 that the author supposed the Israelites of his time to be still dwelling in a camp.” The passage Hebrews 13:11 has nothing whatever in common with ours, since it is here a question of the combination of a participle perfect with verbs in the present. That, too, which Delitzsch sets against it, that the τούτωνοὕτωςκατεσκευασμένων, pointing back to κατεσκευάσθη, Hebrews 9:2, certainly shows that the author has the Mosaic period before his mind, utterly collapses, inasmuch as the participle perfect, and not the participle aorist, has been employed. Phrases, however, like those met with in Delitzsch: that the author was writing for just such readers as would not have given him credit for an ignorance like this, are peremptory decisions, for which the result is already fixed before the investigation, and consequently intimidations of the grammatical conscience.

ἡπρώτησκηνή] as Hebrews 9:2, the fore-tent or Holy Place.

διὰπαντός] continually, i.e. day by day. Opposite ἅπαξτοῦἐνιαυτοῦ, Hebrews 9:7.

οἱἱερεῖς] opposite μόνοςὁἀρχιερεύς, Hebrews 9:7.

τὰςλατρείαςἐπιτελοῦντες] performing the religious actions. Daily, morning and evening, an offering of incense was presented, and daily were the lamps of the sacred candlestick placed in readiness and kindled. Comp. Exodus 30:7 ff.

Hebrews 9:7

Hebrews 9:7. Ἡδευτέρα] sc. σκηνή, the Most Holy Place.

ἅπαξτοῦἐνιαυτοῦ] once in the year, i.e. only on a single day of the year, namely, on the tenth of the seventh month (Tisri), on the great solemnity of atonement. The supposition that the high priest on this day more than once entered the Most Holy Place is not excluded by the expression, and the disputed question as to how many times this took place has no bearing on our passage. That the high priest was obliged to enter the Most Holy Place at least twice on this day, follows from Leviticus 16:12-16. That he entered into it as many as four times is the teaching of the Talmud (tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4) and Rabbins.

μόνοςὁἀρχιερεύς] sc. εἴσεισι.

προσφέρει] is not to be explained, as by Calov and others, of the sacrifices outside of the Most Holy Place. For in this case we should have to expect the aorist. It is employed of the blood of the victim before slain, which blood the high priest carries into the Most Holy Place, and here in the Most Holy Place presents to God (the Socinians, Grotius, Bleek).

ὑπὲρἑαυτοῦκαὶτῶντοῦλαοῦἀγνοημάτων] for himself and the transgressions of the people. To make ἑαυτοῦ likewise depend upon ἀγνοημάτων (for his own sins and those of the people: Vulgate, Luther (?), Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Storr, Stuart, Paulus, and others), is, although the thought is not thereby altered (comp. Hebrews 7:27), grammatically false; because in that case the article τῶν could not have been wanting before ἑαυτοῦ.

ἀγνοημάτων] see at Hebrews 5:2, p. 198.

Hebrews 9:8

Hebrews 9:8. Now follows (apparently as a subordinate thought) the main consideration, with a view to which the author has been led more fully to describe the ἅγιονκοσμικόν and the δικαιώματαλατρείας of Hebrews 9:1.

τοῦτοδηλοῦντοςτοῦπνεύματοςἁγίου] the Holy Ghost indicating this very thing (following).

τοῦτο] has the emphasis, and acquires its development of contents by means of μήπωπεφανερῶσθαι … στάσιν.

τοῦπνεύματοςἁγίου] The arrangement of the sanctuary and priesthood prescribed by God to Moses is thought of by our author as carried into effect by Moses under the assistance and guidance of the Holy Ghost; the idea expressed in that arrangement might therefore very easily be represented as an indication designed by the Holy Ghost.

μήπωπεφανερῶσθαιτὴντῶνἁγίωνὁδόν, ἔτιτῆςπρώτηςσκηνῆςἐχούσηςστάσιν] that the way of the sanctuary is not yet manifested, so long as the fore-tabernacle still exists.

τῶνἁγίων] is erroneously apprehended by the Peshito and Schulz (comp. also Zeger) as masculine. It is neuter. Does not, however, as Hebrews 9:2, denote the Holy Place, but, as Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:24-25; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 13:11 (comp. also τὸἅγιον, Leviticus 16:16-17; Leviticus 16:20, al.), the Most Holy Place, and that not the earthly one (Kurtz),—for that would be a trifling statement; whereas surely τοῦτοδηλοῦντοςτοῦπνεύματοςἁγίου prepares the way for a deeper truth, vid. infra,—but the heavenly reality, the throne of the Godhead.

ἡτῶνἁγίωνὁδός signifies the way to the Most Holy Place. Comp. Matthew 10:5: εἰςὁδὸνἐθνῶν; Jeremiah 2:18: τῇὁδῷΑἰγύπτου, al.; Kühner, II. p. 176, Obs. 4; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 176.

ἔχεινστάσιν further means: to have existence, to exist. We have not, however, with Böhme, to import into it a secondary reference to firmness or legal validity, and ἡπρώτησκηνή is not the one first in point of time, i.e. the earthly, Jewish sanctuary in opposition to the heavenly (Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Semler, Baumgarten, Bloomfield, al.), still less the tabernacle in opposition to the later temple (Peirce, Sykes), but the fore-tabernacle or Holy Place, in opposition to the interior tabernacle or Most Holy Place. The thought is: by the ordering that the Most Holy Place, the presence-chamber and place of manifestation of God, might not be entered, save on one single day of the year, and by the high priest alone, while the daily Levitical service of the priests is accomplished in the Holy Place, and thus approach to the former debarred and shut off by the latter, the Holy Ghost proclaims that so long as the Levitical priesthood, and consequently the Mosaic law in general, continues, the immediate access to God is not yet permitted; that thus, in order to the bringing about and rendering possible of a full and direct communion with God, the Old Testament covenant-religion must first fall, and the more perfect one brought in by Christ (Hebrews 9:11) must take its place. Comp. Matthew 27:51, as also Josephus, Antiq. iii. 3. 7 : τὴνδὲτρίτηνμοῖραν [τῆςσκηνῆς] μόνῳπεριέγραψετῷθεῷδιὰτὸκαὶτὸνοὐρανὸνἀνεπίβατονεἶναιἀνθρώποις.

Hebrews 9:9-10

Hebrews 9:9-10 are closely, indeed, connected grammatically with that which precedes, but, logically regarded, introduce the third and last main point of the disquisition on the high-priestly superiority of Christ over the Levitical high priests. For after (1) it had been shown that Christ, as regards His person, is exalted above the Levitical high priests (Hebrews 4:14 to Hebrews 7:28), and then afterwards (2) it was proved that likewise the sanctuary in which He ministers surpasses in sublimity the Levitical sanctuary (Hebrews 8:1 to Hebrews 9:8), it is now further stated (3) that the sacrifice also which He has offered is more excellent than the Levitical sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9 to Hebrews 10:18).

Hebrews 9:10

Hebrews 9:10. Μόνονἐπὶβρώμ. καὶπόμ. καὶδιαφ. βαπτισμοῖςδικαιώματασαρκὸςκ.τ.λ.] which, together with meats and drinks and divers washings, are only fleshly ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation. Apposition to δῶράτεκαὶθυσίαι, μὴδυνάμεναικ.τ.λ., Hebrews 9:9.

μόνον] belongs to δικαιώματασαρκός, but is placed in advance of this on account of the addition ἐπὶβρώμασινκ.τ.λ.; and ἐπί expresses the accession to something already present (Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 367b), or the existence externally side by side. Comp. e.g. Hom. Od. vii. 120: ὄγχνηἐπʼ ὄγχνῃγηράσκει, μῆλονδʼ ἐπὶμήλῳ; Thucyd. ii. 101: ὑποσχόμενοςἀδελφὴνἑαυτοῦδώσεινκαὶχρήματαἐπʼ αὐτῇ.

Otherwise is it explained by others, in that they take μόνονἐπί in close combination, give to ἐπί the signification “in reference to,” and place both words still in relation to Hebrews 9:9. They then regard μόνονἐπὶκ.τ.λ. either as nearer definition to προσφέρονται (so, substantially, Vatablus, Schlichting, and others), or as opposition to κατὰσυνείδησιντελειῶσαι (so Schulz, Ebrard, al.). But against the first supposition the material ground is decisive, that the presentation of sacrifices in reality had reference by no means exclusively to the expiation of offences against the ordinances regulative of food and lustrations; against the second, the linguistic ground that ἀλλʼ ἐπὶβρώμασινμόνονκ.τ.λ. must have been written instead of μόνονἐπὶβρώμασινκ.τ.λ. Yet others take μόνονἐπὶκ.τ.λ. in close conjunction with τὸνλατρεύοντα, Hebrews 9:9. So perhaps already the Vulgate (perfectum facere servientem solummodo in cibis), then Luther (“him that does religious service only in meats and drink,” etc.), Estius, Corn. a Lapide, Olearius, Semler, Ernesti, Ewald, Hofmann, and others. But the additional words would too greatly drag, the thought resulting would be incommensurable with κατὰσυνείδησιντελειῶσαι, and the formula λατρεύεινἐπίτινι in the sense indicated without example.

The βρώματακαὶπόματα are interpreted by Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Heinrichs, Maier, and others of the sacrificial meals; by Bleek and de Wette, of the partaking of the paschal supper in particular. But the mention of these practices would be, here at any rate, something too special, and the words Hebrews 13:9 can furnish no standard for the interpretation of our passage. More correctly, therefore, is it thought in general of the meats and drinks permitted, as of those forbidden, in the Mosaic law. Comp. Colossians 2:16; Romans 14:17. With regard to drinks, there are in the Mosaic law prohibitions only for special cases; comp. Numbers 6:3; Leviticus 10:9; Leviticus 11:34. Comp. however, also Matthew 23:24; Romans 14:21.

καὶδιαφόροιςβαπτισμοῖς] Comp. Exodus 29:4; Leviticus 11:25; Leviticus 11:28; Leviticus 11:32; Leviticus 11:40; Leviticus 14:6-9; Leviticus 15:5 ff; Leviticus 16:4; Leviticus 16:24 ff.; Numbers 8:7; Numbers 19:17 ff., al.

δικαιώματασαρκός] ordinances of the flesh, i.e. ordinances that relate to the flesh, and thus bear the impress of the earthly and transitory.

μέχρικαιροῦδιορθώσεωςἐπικείμενα] imposed (only) until the time of reformation. The καιρὸςδιορθώσεως is the epoch of the promised New and more excellent Covenant (Hebrews 8:8 ff.), which has begun with the appearing of Christ.

διόρθωσις] only here in the N. T.

ἐπικείμενα] Oecumenius: βάροςγὰρἦνμόνοντὰἐντῷνόμῳ, καθώςφασινοἱἀπόστολοι. Comp. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:28.

Hebrews 9:11-12

Hebrews 9:11-12. Antithesis to Hebrews 9:9-10. What the religion of the Mosaic covenant was unable to effect, that has been accomplished by Christ.

παραγενόμενοςἀρχιερεὺςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν] having appeared as High Priest of the good things to come. The verb in the same sense as Matthew 3:1, 1Ma 4:46; synonymous with ἀνίστασθαι, Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 7:15. Strangely misapprehending the meaning, Ebrard: παραγενόμενος is to be looked upon as an “adjectival attribute” to ἀρχιερεύς, and the thought is, “as a present High Priest,”—an acceptation which is incompatible with the participle of the aorist.

High Priest of the good things to come (comp. Hebrews 10:1) is Christ called, inasmuch as these good things are the consequence and result of His high-priestly activity. They are the blessings of everlasting salvation, which the author, Hebrews 9:12, sums up in the expression αἰωνίαλύτρωσις; and they are called future, inasmuch as they are proper to the αἰὼνμέλλων (Hebrews 6:5), or the οἰκουμένημέλλουσα (Hebrews 2:5), and the full enjoyment of them will first come in at the consummation of the kingdom of God, to be looked for with the return of Christ.

διὰτῆςμείζονοςκαὶτελειοτέραςσκηνῆςκ.τ.λ.] through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, which is not made with hands—that is to say, not of this world. The words belong to εἰσῆλθενεἰςτὰἅγια, Hebrews 9:12, and διά is used in the local sense: “through” (not instrumentally, as the διά, Hebrews 9:12). To join the words to that which precedes, and find in them an indication of that by means of which Christ became ἀρχιερεὺςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν (Primasius, Luther, Dorscheus, Schulz, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, pp. 409, 412 f., 2 Aufl.,—which latter will accordingly also take the διά, Hebrews 9:12, in both cases along with ἀρχιερεὺςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν; otherwise, however, in the Comm. p. 337,

Moll, and others), is erroneous, because by virtue of οὐδέ, Hebrews 9:12, the existence of an already preceding link in the nearer definition of εἰσῆλθενεἰςτὰἅγια is presupposed.

But to interpret the σκηνή through which Christ has entered into the Most Holy Place as the body of Christ, or His human nature (so, on account of Heb 10:20, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Clarius, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, Owen, Bengel, Peirce, Sykes, Ernesti, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Friederich, Symbolik des Mos. Stiftshütte, Leipz. 1841, p. 296 ff., and others; also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 415, 2 Aufl., who, however, will have us think of the glorified human nature of Christ), or as the holy life of Christ (Ebrard), or as the (militant) church upon earth (Cajetan, Corn. a Lapide, Calov, Wittich, Braun, Wolf, Rambach, Michaelis, ad Peirc., Cramer, Baumgarten), or, finally, as the world in general (Justinian, Carpzov), is inconsistent with the point of comparison suggested by the comparatives μείζονος and τελειοτέρας in accordance with the foregoing disquisition, in general is opposed to the connection with Hebrews 9:1-10, and has against it the antithesis in which τὰἅγια, Hebrews 9:12, stands to σκηνή, Hebrews 9:11, as also the addition οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως.

The lower spaces of the heavens are intended—corresponding to the πρώτησκηνή of the earthly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:2; Hebrews 9:6; Hebrews 9:8)—as the preliminary stage of the heavenly Holy of Holies. Comp. Hebrews 4:14: διεληλυθότατοὺςοὐρανούς.

μείζονοςκαὶτελειοτέρας] sc. than the Mosaic σκηνή.

οὐχειροποιήτου] Comp. Hebrews 8:2: ἣνἔπηξενὁκύριος, οὐκἄνθρωπος, Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24; Mark 14:58; 2 Corinthians 5:1.

οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως] not belonging to the earthly created world (the earth) lying before one’s eyes (ταύτης). Wrongly Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, Bengel, Kuinoel, Friederich, l.c. p. 296, and others: not of this kind of building, sc. the same as the earthly sanctuary; or: as earthly things in general.

Hebrews 9:12

Hebrews 9:12. Οὐδέ] nor. Οὐδέ is written by the author, misled by the foregoing notes of negation: οὐχειροποιήτου and οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως, whereas, properly, καὶοὐ ought to have been written, since that which is introduced by οὐδέ is parallel, not to the negative expressions further characterizing the σκηνή, but to the preceding διά.

δἰαἵματοςτράγωνκαὶμόσχων] by (by means of) blood of goats and calves, by which the entrance of the earthly high priests into the Most Holy Place was made possible on the great day of atonement. Comp. Leviticus 16:14-15.

διὰδὲτοῦἰδίουαἵματος] the Levitical high priest entered the Most Holy Place not merely by means of the blood of animals, he entered at the same time with this blood (Hebrews 9:7). The author, however, has respect, with reference to the Levitical high priest also, only to the former notion, since only this, and not at the same time the latter, was suitable for application to Christ (Schlichting). If he had desired that the notion of the μετά should also be supplied in thought in our passage (Kurtz), he would have known how to express likewise this “somewhat gross material conception” (Bleek II.).

ἐφάπαξ] once for all. Corresponds to the following αἰωνίαν.

εἰςτὰἅγια] into the inner sanctuary of heaven.

αἰωνίανλύτρωσινεὑράμενος] having obtained (by His sacrificial death) eternal redemption. Incorrectly do Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, and Moll take εὑράμενος as something coinciding in point of time with εἰσῆλθεν. If it had been so intended, the participle present would have been placed instead of εὑράμενος.

εὑρίσκεσθαι signifies: to find (for oneself), obtain. The λύτρωσις became Christ’s peculiar possession, thus—since He Himself, as the Sinless One, needed it not—to make it over to those who believe in Him.

This λύτρωσις is the ransoming, i.e. redemption from the guilt and punishment of sin, and it is called αἰωνία, eternal, or of indefeasible validity, in opposition to the sacrifices of the O. T. priests, which had to be renewed every year, since they were designed each for the [typical] expiation of the sins of a single year.

The feminine formation αἰωνία in the N. T. only here and 2 Thessalonians 2:16.

Hebrews 9:13-14

Hebrews 9:13-14. Justification of αἰωνίανλύτρωσινεὐράμενος, Hebrews 9:12, by an argument a minore ad majus. With the quantitative augmentation, however, expressed by εἰ … πόσῳμᾶλλον, there is at the same time blended a qualitative augmentation by means of πρὸςτὴντῆςσαρκὸςκαθαρότητα and τὴνσυνείδησινἡμ. κ.τ.λ., in such wise that the two following thoughts are enfolded the one in the other:—(1) If even the blood of animals works cleansing … how much more the blood of Christ? (2) If that effects the purity of the flesh, this effects purity of conscience.

καὶσπόδοςδαμάλεως] and ashes of an heifer. According to Numbers 19, those who by contact with a dead body had become defiled, must be sprinkled with a mixture of water and the ashes of a spotless red heifer wholly consumed by fire, of which the ashes were preserved in a clean place without the camp (with the so-called מֵי־הַנִּדָּה, Numbers 19:9; Numbers 19:13; Numbers 19:20-21; LXX.: ὕδωρῥαντισμοῦ), in order to become clean again.

ῥαντίζουσατοὺςκεκεοινωμένους] sprinkling those who have been defiled. Free mode of expression for: with which (ashes) those who have been defiled are sprinkled.

τοὺςκεκοινωμένους] belongs, since ῥαντίζουσα most requires an express addition of the object, to this verb (Erasmus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, al.), not to ἁγιάζει (Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Schulz, al.), which latter stands absolutely: works sanctification.

πρὸςτὴντῆςσαρκὸςκαθαρότητα] to the (producing of the) purity of the flesh. πρός, as v. 14. Indication of the result.

Hebrews 9:14

Hebrews 9:14.[91] Incomparably more efficacious must the sacrifice of Christ be. For—(1) Christ offered Himself, i.e. He gave up His own body to the death of a sacrifice, while the Levitical high priest derives his material of sacrifice from a domain foreign to himself personally; then: He offered Himself from a free resolve of will, while the Levitical high priest is placed under the necessity of sacrificing, by the command of an external ordinance, and the sacrificial victim whose blood he offers is an irrational animal, which consequently knows nothing of the end to which it is applied. The Levitical act of sacrifice is then an external one wrought in accordance with ordinance, a sensuous one; Christ’s act of sacrifice, on the other hand, one arising out of the disposition of the heart, thus a moral one. From this it is already evident how it could be said (2) that Christ offered Himself διὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίου. The ethical belongs to the province of the spirit.

Christ accordingly offered Himself by virtue of spirit, because His act of sacrifice was, in relation to God, an act of the highest spiritual obedience (Philippians 2:8), in relation to the human brethren an act of the highest spiritual love (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). ΔΙᾺΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟςΑἸΩΝΊΟΥ, however, by virtue of eternal spirit did Christ offer Himself, inasmuch as the notion of the eternal belongs inseparably and essentially to the notion of spirit, in opposition to σάρξ, which has the notion of the transitory as its essential presupposition. The adjective ΑἸΩΝΊΟΥ is added in natural correspondence with ΑἸΩΝΊΑΝΛΎΤΡΩΣΙΝ, Hebrews 9:12. For only by virtue of eternal spirit could a redemption which is to be eternal, or of ever-enduring validity, be accomplished.

The majority have interpreted ΔΙᾺΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟςΑἸΩΝΊΟΥ of the Holy Spirit; then thinking either, as Clarius, Estius, Whitby, and others, of the third person in the divine trias, or as Bleek, de Wette, and others, of the Spirit of God which dwelt in Christ in all its fulness, and was the principle which animated Him at every moment. But this application is too special. For, in accordance with the force of the words and the connection of the thoughts, there can stand as a tacit antithesis to the expression: διὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίου, only the general formula: ΔΙᾺΣΑΡΚῸςΠΡΟΣΚΑΊΡΟΥ, whereby the mode of accomplishing the Levitical acts of sacrifice would be characterized. Moreover, if the Holy Spirit had been intended, the choice of the adjective ΑἸΩΝΊΟΥ instead of ἉΓΊΟΥ must have appeared strange, because indistinct and liable to being misunderstood; finally, the absence of the article also is best explained on the supposition that the formula is to be understood generically. Too special, likewise, is the explanation of the words adopted by Aretius, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Gomarus, Calov, Wolf, Peirce, M‘Lean, Bisping, and many others, in part coinciding with the second form of the first main interpretation, according to which, by πνεῦμααἰώνιον, the divine nature of Christ, or “the principle of the eternal Sonship of God indwelling in Christ” (Kurtz), is designated.

This view already finds its refutation in the fact that πνεῦμα has its opposite in ΣΆΡΞ, and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ and ΣΆΡΞ are contrasted as spirit and body, not as divine and human. To be rejected farther is the procedure of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Carpzov, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 525 ff.), Reuss,[92] Kurtz, Woerner, and others, in making the ΠΝΕῦΜΑΑἸΏΝΙΟΝ, as regards the thing intended, equivalent to the ΔΎΝΑΜΙςΖΩῆςἈΚΑΤΑΛΎΤΟΥ, Hebrews 7:16, whereby the essentially ethical import of the expression in our passage is lost sight of; entirely false and arbitrary, however, is the interpretation of Döderlein, Storr, and Stuart, who refer πνεῦμααἰώνιον to Christ’s state of glorification after His exaltation; of Nösselt (Opusc. ad interpret. sacr. scripturr. fascic. I. ed. 2, p. 334),—as also van der Boon Mesch, l.c. p. 100,—who espouse the opinion: “πνεῦμα esse victimam, quam Christus se immolando Deo obtulit, eamque ΑἸΩΝΊΑΝ dici propterea, quod istius victimae vis ad homines salvandos perpetua atque perennis futura sit;” of Michaelis, ad Peirc., who finds the sense, that Christ presented Himself not according to the letter of the Mosaic law, but yet certainly according to its spirit; and of Planck (Commentatt. a Rosenm. etc., edd. I. 1, p. 189), who even maintains that the spirit of prophecy in the prophets of the Old Covenant is thought of. Strangely also Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, and others (comp. already Chrysostom): διὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίου stands in opposition to the fire, by which the Levitical sacrifices were offered to God. Similarly Hofmann (Schriftbew.

II. 1, p. 420, 2 Aufl.), who is followed by Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 527, Obs.): “the spirit by which Christ offered Himself is called an eternal spirit, in opposition to the fleeting spirit of the animals which the O. T. high priest presented.” Of a “spirit” of the animals the author (cf. Hebrews 4:12) can hardly have thought, inasmuch as, though in the O. T. a πνεῦμα is often ascribed to animals, this is understood only in the lower sense of the ΨΥΧΉ. Needlessly, in the last place, does Reiske conjecture ἉΓΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς instead of ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς.

ΔΙΆ] denotes not the mere impulse or impelling motive (Vatablus, Ribera, Estius, al.), nor yet the condition or sphere (Stengel, Tholuck, al.), but the higher power, by virtue of which the offering was accomplished and made effective.

ἑαυτὸνπροσήνεγκεν] is understood by Bleek, with whom Kurtz concurs, after the precedent of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, and others, in the sense that Christ offered to God, in the heavenly Holy of Holies, His blood which was shed upon earth; which, however, is violent on account of διὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίου, since these words appertain to the whole relative clause, and are not to be referred, with Bleek, as a nearer definition merely to ἌΜΩΜΟΝ. The undergoing upon earth of the death of the cross is that which is meant.

ἌΜΩΜΟΝ] as a spotless sacrifice, yielding full satisfaction to God. The Levitical victim must be ἄμωμος (תָּמִים), physically free from blemish. Here ἌΜΩΜΟς is used of the higher, ethical spotlessness, and has reference to the sinlessness of character manifested by Christ during His earthly life. Erroneously Bleek: the expression has respect to “the condition of Christ after death and the resurrection, in which, raised above even the infirmities to which as very man He was subject upon earth, He could in particular no more fall a victim to death.”

ΤῷΘΕῷ] is to be taken along with the whole relative clause, not merely with ἌΜΩΜΟΝ.

ἈΠῸΝΕΚΡῶΝἜΡΓΩΝ] forth from dead (legal) works, so that we free ourselves from them as from something that is unfruitful and useless, rise above them. The notion of the ΝΕΚΡᾺἜΡΓΑ here the same as at Hebrews 6:1.

[91] A. L. van der Boon Mesch, Specimen Hermeneuticum in locum ad Hebr. ix. 14, Lugd. Bat. 1819, 8vo.

[92] “L’auteur a voulu dire ici, par une tournure nouvelle, justement ce qu’il a déjà dit deux fois en d’autres termes (Hebrews 7:16; Hebrews 7:25). La nature de Christ lui assure une vie éternelle, non sujette à la mort et par cela même seule capable de nous assurer un bienfait durable et éternel aussi.”

Hebrews 9:15-28

Hebrews 9:15-28. In order, however, that Christ might become the mediator of the New Covenant, it was matter of necessity that He should suffer death. This follows from the very notion of a διαθήκη, since the same is only ratified after the death of the διαθέμενος has been proved; as accordingly the first or O. T. διαθήκη was not inaugurated without blood. For the inauguration of the earthly sanctuary the blood of slain animals sufficed; for the consecration of the heavenly sanctuary, on the other hand, there was need of a more excellent sacrifice. This Christ has presented once for all in the end of the world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death.

Hebrews 9:16-17

Hebrews 9:16-17. Demonstration of the necessity of the θάνατονγενέσθαι by means of a truth of universal application. That Christ might be able to become the Mediator of a new διαθήκη, His death was required. For, to the validity of a διαθήκη, it is essential that the death of the διαθέμενος be first proved. Since immediately before (Hebrews 9:15) and immediately after (Hebrews 9:18 ff.) διαθήκη was employed in the sense of “covenant,” elsewhere usual in our epistle, we might naturally, on account of the conjunction of Heb 9:16-17, by means of γάρ, with Hebrews 9:15, and on account of ὅθεν, by which again Hebrews 9:18 is joined to Hebrews 9:15-16, expect this signification of the word to be found also in Hebrews 9:16-17. This has accordingly been insisted upon, here too, by Codurcus (Critt. sacrr. t.

VII. P. ii. p. 1067 sqq.), Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Whitby [in com.], Macknight, Michaelis, Sykes, Cramer, Paulus, and others, lastly also by Ebrard. But it is altogether inadmissible. For if we take διαθήκη as covenant, ὁδιαθέμενος could only designate him who makes or institutes the covenant; to take ὁδιαθέμενος as the mediator of the covenant, as is generally done in connection with that view, and to understand this again of the sacrificial victims, by the offering of which the covenant was sealed, is pure caprice. The thought, however, that for the validity of a covenant-act the death of the author of the covenant must first ensue, would be a perfectly irrational one.

Irrational the more, inasmuch as, Hebrews 9:16-17, only an entirely general truth is contained, passing for a norm in ordinary life. Ebrard finds expressed the thought: “Where a sinful man wishes to enter into a covenant with the holy God, the man must first die, must first atone for his guilt by death (or he must present a substitutionary עוֹלָה).” But all these definings have been arbitrarily imported. For Hebrews 9:16-17 nothing is said either about a “sinful man,” or about a volition on his part, or about the “holy God,” or about an “atoning for guilt,” or about a “substitutionary עוֹלָה.” From what has been said, it follows that διαθήκη, Hebrews 9:16-17, can be taken only in the sense, likewise very frequently occurring with the Greek authors, of “testament” or “disposition by will.” It is true there arises therefrom a logical inaccuracy,[93] owing to the fact that διαθήκη is used in these two verses in another sense than before, and the formal demonstrative force of that which is advanced by the author—although the underlying thoughts are in themselves perfectly just—is thereby sacrificed. It is, however, to be observed that while for us, since we are obliged to employ a twofold expression for the reproducing of the diversity of sense, the transition from the one notion to the other appears abruptly made, this transition for the author, on the other hand, might be an imperceptible one, inasmuch as in the Greek one and the same word included within itself both significations. Thus, accordingly, it has happened that the ancient Greek interpreters explain ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ, Hebrews 9:16-17, expressly in the sense of a testament or will, then at once pass over to the declaration contained in Hebrews 9:18, without so much as noticing the logical inaccuracy which presents itself. The sense consequently is: where a testament or deed of bequest exists, there it is necessary, in order to give it validity (comp. ἰσχύει, Hebrews 9:17), that the death of the testator first be proved.

The New Covenant, therefore, which Christ has established between God and man by His sacrificial death, the author here represents—in accordance with the figure of the κληρονομία, Hebrews 9:15—as a testamentary disposition on the part of Christ, which, however, as such could only acquire validity, and put the heirs in possession of the blessings bequeathed to them, by means of the death of Christ.

ΘΆΝΑΤΟΝ] emphatically preposed, while ΤΟῦΔΙΑΘΕΜΈΝΟΥ, upon which no emphasis falls, comes in at the end of the clause.

ΦΈΡΕΣΘΑΙ] be declared or proved. Wrongly Grotius: the verb to be regarded as equivalent to exspectari (“est enim exspectatio onus quoddam”); Wittich: it denotes the being endured on the part of the relatives; Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 428), and others, that it denotes nothing more than ensue or γίνεσθαι, Hebrews 9:15.

[93] For the author does not reason, as de Wette supposes, from the mere “analogy of a will or testament.”—The course, moreover, pursued by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 426 ff.), in order to manifest the non-existence of a logical inaccuracy, in that, namely, in the whole section, ver. 15ff., he will have διαθήκη signify neither “covenant” nor “testament,” but throughout the whole only “disposal” (Verfügung), is, as also Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 598, Obs.) acknowledge, an utter breakdown. See likewise the observations of Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, März, p. 194 f.—Nor will it do, with Kurtz, to set aside the logical inaccuracy, at which he takes so great offence that he thinks himself obliged to designate such inaccuracy, in case it were present, an “inexcusable confusion” (!), in taking not only at vv. 16, 17, but also in like manner at vv. 15, 18, the διαθήκη in the special sense of “establishing as heir.” For the connection with that which precedes (comp. Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6 ff., Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:4) leads at vv. 15, 18 exclusively to the idea of a covenant.

Hebrews 9:17

Hebrews 9:17. Confirmatory elucidation of Heb 9:16. The words of the verse are connected together as parts of a single statement. We have no right to break up the same, in such wise that διαθήκηγὰρἐπὶνεκροῖςβεβαία is made a parenthesis, and ἐπεὶκ.τ.λ. joined to Hebrews 9:16 (Hofmann).

ἐπὶνεκροῖς] in the case of dead persons, i.e. only upon condition that the author of the διαθήκη is dead, or has died.

βεβαία] firm or inviolable (comp. Hebrews 2:2), inasmuch, namely, as, after the death of the testator has supervened, the abrogation or alteration of the testament on his part is no longer possible.

μήποτε] never. The making of μήποτε equivalent to μήπω or nondum (Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Luther, Schlichting, Böhme) is linguistically inadmissible. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Lud. de Dieu, Heinsius, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Lachmann, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 429), Delitzsch, and Ewald regard the word as an interrogative particle, which does not alter the sense, and might appear the preferable course, since, on the supposition of an assertory statement, the objective οὔποτε might have been expected in place of the subjective μήποτε.

Nevertheless, elsewhere too, with later authors, the placing of the subjective negation is not at all rare after ἐπεί, when it introduces an objectively valid reason. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 447; Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 304.

ἰσχύει] sc. διαθήκη, not ὁδιαθέμενος (Peirce).

Hebrews 9:18-22

Hebrews 9:18-22. The first διαθήκη also was not inaugurated without blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission under the Mosaic law.

Hebrews 9:19-20

Hebrews 9:19-20. Historic proof for the assertion, Hebrews 9:18, with a free reference to Exodus 24:3-8.

κατὰτὸννόμον] is taken by Schlichting, Calov, Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Storr, Böhme, Bleek, Bisping, al., along with πάσηςἐντολῆς: “every precept according to the law, i.e. as it was contained in the law.” So already the Vulgate: lecto enim omni mandato legis. But against this construction the absence of the connecting article and the strangeness of the preposition κατά. Rightly, therefore, have Oecumenius, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wittich, Braun, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and others referred κατὰτὸννόμον to λαληθείσης. Only we must not explain, as is ordinarily done, “in accordance with the commandment received of God,” but the sense is: after, in accordance with the law received of God, every precept had been proclaimed by Moses to the whole people. The standard for the proclamation of the ἐντολαί was the νόμος, since it contained these ἐντολαί.

παντὶτῷλαῷ] Exodus 24:3 stands only διηγήσατοτῷλαῷ. But παντί resulted from the ἀπεκρίθηδὲπᾶςὁλαός there immediately following.

καὶτῶντράγων] and of the goats. Of goats slain in sacrifice the underlying narrative of Exodus says nothing. Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Böhme, and others therefore suppose that the author had in view the burnt-offerings mentioned before the thank-offerings of oxen, Exodus 24:5; inasmuch as, according to Leviticus 1:10 ff; Leviticus 4:23 ff; Leviticus 9:2-3, Numbers 6:10-11; Numbers 7:27, rams and he-goats, as well as other smaller animals, might be selected for burnt-offerings. Nevertheless, it is also possible that, as conjectured by Bleek, de Wette, and Bisping, there was present to the mind of the author that sacrifice of bullocks and goats already referred to, Hebrews 9:12-13, which the high priest was to offer on the great day of atonement.

μετὰὕδατοςκαὶἐρίουκοκκίνουκαὶὑσσώπου] along with water and crimson wool and hyssop. With regard to this also, nothing is stated in the corresponding passage of Exodus. But all three things are elsewhere mentioned in connection with legally enjoined aspersions for purification. Comp. Numbers 19:6; Numbers 19:17 f.; Leviticus 14:2 ff., Leviticus 14:49 ff. In accordance therewith, a mixture of fresh spring water in some cases with the ashes of the red heifer, in others with the blood of a slain bird, was prescribed in the case of aspersions which were appointed for the cleansing of one defiled by contact with a corpse or by leprosy.

In like manner, according to the passages above referred to, hyssop (אֵזוֹב, comp. on this plant, Winer, Bibl. Realwצrterb. Bd. II. 2 Aufl. p. 819 f.) and crimson wool. With the latter the hyssop stem was probably bound round, and this served as a brush for sprinkling the blood. Comp. this use of hyssop in Exodus 12:22.

αὐτότετὸβιβλίονκαὶπάντατὸνλαὸνἐράντισεν] he sprinkled as well the book itself as also the whole people. τὸβιβλίον is the βιβλίοντῆςδιαθήκης, Exodus 24:7. Of a sprinkling likewise of this book of the covenant, nothing, however, is told us in Exodus. It has therefore been proposed, by way of removing the difference, to make τὸβιβλίον still dependent upon the preceding λαβών. So, after the precedent of the Coptic and Armenian versions, Grotius, Wittich, Surenhus, Cramer, Bengel, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, Ewald, and others. But the καί following βιβλίον renders this impossible. For the setting aside of this καί by pronouncing it spurious (Colomesius, Valckenaer), or by the assumption of a pleonasm (so ordinarily), is an act of violence; while we are prevented from placing it, with Bengel and Ewald, in correspondence with the καί, Hebrews 9:21, as “et … et vero,” or “non modo … vero etiam,”—apart from the clumsiness of construction thus arising, and leaving out of consideration the inconvenient δέ,—by the twice occurring of the verb ἐράντισεν, Hebrews 9:19; Hebrews 9:21.

πάντατὸνλαόν] LXX. Hebrews 9:8: ΛαβὼνδὲΜωϋσῆςτὸαἷμακατεσκέδασετοῦλαοῦ. Schlichting: Omnem autem populum conspersisse dicitur, quia qui ex proxime astantibus conspersi fuerant, universi populi personam hac in parte gessere, ita ut totus populus conspersus fuisse censeretur.

ἐράντισεν] sc. for consecration and purification.

Hebrews 9:20

Hebrews 9:20. Exodus 24:8, LXX.: καὶεἶπενἰδοὺτὸαἷματῆςδιαθήκης, ἧςδιέθετοκύριοςπρὸςὑμᾶςπερὶπάντωντῶνλόγωντούτων.

ἧςἐνετείλατοπρὸςὑμᾶςὁθεός] Bengel: “praecepit mihi, ut perferrem ad vos.”

Hebrews 9:21

Hebrews 9:21 adds to that mentioned Hebrews 9:19-20, not a simultaneous fact, but only something occurring later. For when the law was proclaimed by Moses, and the people promised to observe the same, the tabernacle had not yet an existence. Exodus 40, where we have the account of the erection and inauguration of the tabernacle, only an anointing of the tabernacle and its vessels with oil is enjoined, not a sprinkling thereof with blood. Comp. ibid. Exodus 9:9. Similarly in Leviticus, a sprinkling indeed with blood (Leviticus 8:15; Leviticus 8:19; Leviticus 8:24) is supposed in regard to the altar; in regard to the tabernacle and its furniture, on the other hand, only an anointing (Leviticus 8:10 ff.).

It is possible, however, that Jewish tradition preserved more precise details. At least mention is made by Josephus also (Antiq. iii. 8. 6) of an aspersion of the tabernacle and its furniture, on the part of Moses, with blood.

Erroneously, for the rest (on account of the aorist), do Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Cramer, and others find mentioned, Hebrews 9:21, in place of the one act of Moses, a sprinkling enjoined by the law of Moses, and occurring at different fixed periods, in connection with which the majority will have the sprinkling which is made on the great Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16:14 ff., to be meant.

καὶ … δέ] but also. Luke 2:35; John 8:16, al.

τὰσκεύητῆςλειτουργίας] the vessels designed for sacred use.

Hebrews 9:22

Hebrews 9:22. Confirmation of the special historic facts adduced Hebrews 9:19-21, by the general rule, which throughout the whole domain of Mosaic law was recognised as, with hardly any exception, of binding obligation.

σχεδόν] almost, nearly (Acts 13:44; Acts 19:26), does not belong to ἐναἵματι (Bengel, Böhme). Still less is it to be joined to καθαρίζεται, as is done by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Primasius, who, in opposition to the cohesion with that which precedes and follows, will find the thought expressed that the purification accomplished in accordance with the law is only a partial, bodily one, and thus only imperfect, since it is not able to cancel sins. It belongs logically to πάντα. The author, however, does not write καὶἐναἵματισχεδὸνπάντακαθαρίζεται, but, on the contrary, prefixes σχεδόν to the whole clause, in order to imply that the limitation contained in this expression extends to both members of the clause. The sense is consequently: and one must almost say that all things are according to the law purified with blood, and that without the shedding of blood no remission takes place. So, rightly, Bleek, Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 514 f.; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 500; Alford, Maier, Hofmann, and Woerner.

As concerns the thought, Grotius in his day aptly refers us to the saying of the Talmud (tract. Joma, fol. 5. 1; Menachoth, fol. 93. 2): אֵין כַּפָּרָה אָלָּא בַדָּם, non est expiatio nisi per sanguinem. The conceding, moreover, of the existence of single exceptions, by virtue of σχεδόν, finds its justification, as regards the first half of the clause, in Exodus 19:10; Leviticus 15:5 ff., Leviticus 15:27; Leviticus 16:26; Leviticus 16:28; Leviticus 22:6; Numbers 31:22-24; as regards the second half, in Leviticus 5:11-13.

πάντα] all universally (men as well as things), which as Levitically impure has need of cleansing. Wrongly Peirce and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 563): all the furniture and utensils of the sanctuary.

κατὰτὸννόμον] in conformity with the law, i.e. so soon as the norm fixed by the Mosaic law is taken into account. The addition κατὰτὸννόμον is likewise to be supplied in thought to the second member of the clause.

αἱματεκχυσία] a word not elsewhere met with in Greek literature. What is meant is not specially the pouring out of the blood upon the altar (de Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 435, al.), but in general, the blood-shedding by the slaying of sacrificial animals (Bleek, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, Hofmann, Comm. p. 363).

ἄφεσις] remission, sc. of the guilt incurred.

Hebrews 9:23-28

Hebrews 9:23-28. If the earthly sanctuary needed to be cleansed and consecrated by such things as these, there was required of necessity for the dedication of the heavenly sanctuary a more excellent sacrifice. This Christ has presented in the end of the world by means of His sin-cancelling sacrificial death; and at His return, which is now to be expected for the salvation of those that hope in Him, no repetition of His sacrifice will be required.

Hebrews 9:24

Hebrews 9:24. Confirmatory justification of αὐτὰτὰἐπουράνια, Hebrews 9:23, by the proof that in reality the heavenly sanctuary is that consecrated by the sacrifice of Christ. Wrongly is it assumed by Delitzsch, that at Hebrews 9:24 the indispensable requirement of better sacrifices for the heavenly world is proved from the actual nature of the one rendered and presented to God. For the argument passes over to the character of Christ’s sacrifice, as offered once for all, only at Hebrews 9:25.

οὐγὰρεἰςχειροποίηταἅγιαεἰσῆλθενΧριστός] for Christ entered not into a holy place (i.e. most holy place, see at Hebrews 9:8) made with hands (Hebrews 9:11).

χειροποίητα] as the main idea emphatically preposed.

ἀντίτυπατῶνἀληθινῶν] a copy of the true (Hebrews 8:2), real one. ἀντίτυπα denotes neither the copy of a copy, as is supposed by Bleek, after the precedent of Michaelis, ad Peirc., Cramer, Chr. Fr. Schmid, upon the presupposition that the author already thought of the τύπος, Hebrews 8:5, as a mere copy of the original; nor is it to be taken as equivalent to the simple τύπος, as is done by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, and others. What is meant is the corresponding image, i.e. the copy or imitation, formed after the proportions of the τύπος or pattern, which God had shown to Moses (comp. Hebrews 8:5). The expression, therefore, is of essentially the same import as ὑπόδειγμα, Hebrews 8:5, Hebrews 9:23.

ἀλλ̓εἰςαὐτὸντὸνοὐρανόν] but into heaven itself, into the heavenly Holy of Holies, where the throne of God itself exists, in opposition to the earthly Most Holy Place, not to the heavenly fore-tabernacle, Hebrews 9:11.

υῦνἐμφανισθῆναιτῷπροσώπῳτοῦθεοῦὑπὲρἡμῶν] now to appear before the face of God on our behalf (as our advocate, and intent upon our salvation, comp. Hebrews 7:25).

νῦν] now, after He has obtained His abiding dwelling-place in heaven.

Before the face of God. In this respect, too, a pointing to the exaltedness of Christ, the heavenly high priest. For, according to Exodus 33:20, no man could continue to live who had seen the face of God; on which account also the earthly high priest might not even enter the earthly Holy of Holies until this had first been filled with the smoke of the altar of incense, and in this way the typical presence of God there existing had been veiled from his glance. Comp. Leviticus 16:12-13.

Hebrews 9:25-28

Hebrews 9:25-28. Renewed (comp. Hebrews 7:27-28, Hebrews 9:12) emphasizing of the manifestation once for all (and thus the full sufficiency) of the sacrifice of Christ.

Hebrews 9:26

Hebrews 9:26. Proof of the necessity that Christ’s sacrifice should take place only once for all, from the non-reasonableness of the opposite. For if the sacrifice of Christ sufficed not once for all for the cancelling of sin, He must oftentimes in succession—because no generation of mankind, so long as the world has endured, has been free from sin—have undergone death since the beginning of the world. But now, seeing this is contrary to reason, the matter stands in reality quite otherwise. From this reasoning it is evident that the author supposed an expiation of the sins of all the earlier generations of mankind too, by virtue of the sacrificial death of Christ. An erroneous statement of the connection of thought is given by Hofmann (Schriftbew.

II. 1, p. 441), Delitzsch, and Alford. See, on the other hand, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 552, Obs.

ἐπεί] since otherwise, alioquin. Comp. 1 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 7:14, al.

ἔδειαὐτὸνπολλάκιςπαθεῖν] it were needful that He should often suffer.

On ἔδει without ἄν, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 266.

παθεῖν specially of the suffering of death, as Hebrews 13:12.

ἀπὸκαταβολῆςκόσμον] from the foundation or creation of the world onwards (comp. Hebrews 4:3), i.e. here: so long as there are men in the world.

νυνὶδέ] as Hebrews 8:6, in the logical sense: but now. Opposition to ἐπεὶκ.τ.λ.

ἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων] in the end of the ages, periods of time. Antithesis to ἀπὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου, and equivalent in signification to ἐπ̓ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτων, Hebrews 1:1. Comp. also ἐντῇσυντελείᾳτοῦαἰῶνος, Matthew 13:40; Matthew 13:49.

εἰςἀθέτησινἁμαρτίαςδιὰτῆςθυσίαςαὐτοῦ] for the cancelling of sin by His sacrifice. These words belong together. The conjoining of διὰτῆςθυσίαςαὐτοῦ with πεφανέρωται, which has been preferred by Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov, Heinrichs, Schulz, Böhme, Tholuck, and others, is, in connection with the right determination of the sense of the verb (vid. infra), harsh and unnatural, and not at all justified by the alleged analogon: ὁἐλθὼνδἰὕδατοςκαὶαἵματος, 1 John 5:6. Tholuck’s objection, however, that ἅπαξ … αἰώνων is antithetically opposed to the κατ̓ἐνιαυτόν, Hebrews 9:25, and πεφανέρωταιδιὰτῆςθυσίας to the εἰσέρχεταιἐναἵματιἀλλοτρίῳ, does not apply, inasmuch as the second clause of Heb 9:26 forms the antithesis to the first clause of that verse, but not to Hebrews 9:25; on which account also ἐπεὶ … κόσμου is not, with Beza, Mill, Griesbach, Carpzov, Schulz, Bloomfield, and others, to be enclosed within a parenthesis.

No emphasis for the rest falls upon the personal pronoun employed with θυσίας, in such wise that the sense would be: by the sacrifice of Himself (so Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, in their translations, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Limborch, Schulz, Heinrichs, Böhme, Stuart, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Conybeare, and others). It means simply: by His sacrifice (Bleek, de Wette), so that not αὑτοῦ, but αὑτοῦ is to be written. The contrast between His own blood and the blood of other victims was already sufficiently brought out afresh at Hebrews 9:25.

πεφανέρωται] He has been manifested, i.e. He has appeared or come forth before the sight of men upon earth. Comp. 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 3:5; 1 John 3:8; also Colossians 3:4; 1 John 2:28; 1 Peter 5:4 [1 Timothy 3:16]. To explain the expression of the appearing before God, and to make it of like import with ἐμφανισθῆναιτῷπροσώτῳτοῦθεοῦ, Hebrews 9:24 (Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, Schulz, al.), is forbidden alike by the absence of the, in that case indispensable, addition τῷθεῷ, as by the ἐκδευτέρουὀφθήσεται, Hebrews 9:28, corresponding as it does to the πεφανέρωται.

Hebrews 9:27-28

Hebrews 9:27-28. Further (καί) enforcement of the ἅπαξ, Hebrews 9:26, by means of an analogy. As death is appointed to men once for all, they, after having once suffered death, do not need to die again, but after death nothing more follows for them but the judgment; so also Christ has once for all offered up Himself for the cancelling of sin; at His return He will not again have to offer Himself for the cancelling of sin, but He will return once again, only to put the believers in possession of the everlasting salvation.

καθ̓ὅσον] inasmuch as [cf. Hebrews 7:20], is not entirely synonymous with καθώς, which one might have expected on account of the following οὕτως, and which Grotius and Braun conjecture to have been the original reading; for, whereas καθώς would express the bare notion of comparison, this contains at the same time an indication of cause. The indication of cause, however, has reference merely to ἅπαξἀποθανεῖν, to which then the ἅπαξπροσενεχθείς, Hebrews 9:28, corresponds; but not likewise, as Kurtz maintains,[95] to the addition μετὰδὲτοῦτοκρίσις, since to this an element of dissimilarity is opposed at Hebrews 9:28. The sense is: inasmuch as men, regarded generally, have only once to undergo death, so also Christ, since He was herein entirely like unto His brethren, could not die more than once.

ἀπόκειται] is appointed (in the decree of God). Comp. Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:8. The verb originally of that which has been laid aside, and so lies ready for future use.

ἅπαξἀποθανεῖν] to die a single time, or once for all. Comp. Sophocles in Stobaeus, ii. 120: θανεῖνγὰροὐκἔξεστιτοῖςαὐτοῖσιδίς.

Calvin: Si quis objiciat, bis quosdam esse mortuos, ut Lazarum et similes (comp. Hebrews 11:35), expedita est solutio, apostolum hic de ordinaria hominum conditione disputare: quin etiam ab hoc ordine eximuntur, quos subita commutatio corruptione exuet (comp. Hebrews 11:5).

μετὰδὲτοῦτοκρίσις] sc. ἀπόκειται, not ἐστίν or ἔσται. Whether, for the rest, the κρίσις is thought of by the author as ensuing immediately after the death of each individual (Jac. Cappellus, Kurtz, al.), or as a later act coinciding only with the general resurrection of the dead (Bengel, Bleek, Tholuck, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, al.), the elastic μετὰτοῦτο affords us no intimation.

κρίσις] judgment, is to be taken quite generally. Wrongly is it understood by Schulz (and so also Böhme) specially of the judgment unto punishment or unto condemnation, in that he supposes—erroneously, because at variance with the absolute τοῖςἀνθρώποις—two different classes of men (those to be punished and those to be blessed) to be opposed to each other in Hebrews 9:27-28. [Yet comp. John 5:24.

[95] According to Kurtz, the resurrection and ascension of Christ is then to be thought of as the result of the κρίσις on Christ’s part. But where is ever in the N. T. the resurrection and ascension of Christ presented from the point of view of a judgment exercised on Him? And how could it be expected of the reader, without further indication, that he should derive so strange a conception from the words of vv. 27, 28?

Hebrews 9:28

Hebrews 9:28. Ἅπαξπροσενεχθείς] once offered (by the suffering of death). Chrysostom: ὑπὸτίνοςπροσενεχθείς; ὑφ̓ἑαυτοῦδηλονότι. Wrongly (comp. ἑαυτόν, Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 9:14) Delitzsch: in connection with the passive προσενεχθείς we have “to think of the violence proceeding from the human and demoniac power, which Christ endured, in order to become the προσφορά for the propitiation of mankind;” Kurtz and Hofmann: ὑπὸτοῦθεοῦ is to be supplemented, which, accordingly, is interpreted by Kurtz into the signification of the “sending of the Son into the world, in behoof of the vicarious atoning for sin by means of His sacrificial death;” by Hofmann: into a “being brought to that place where He was to be at the disposal of Him who had ordained Him to be an expiatory sacrifice for sins.” The words ἅπαξπροσενεχθείς correspond to the ἅπαξἀποθανεῖν, Hebrews 9:27, and προσενεχθείς forms a paronomasia with the following ἀνενεγκεῖν: borne as a sacrifice, that He might bear away, dargebracht, um fortzubringen [oblatus ut auferret]. For ἀνενεγκεῖν denotes not the bearing up (and fastening) to the cross (Jac. Cappellus, Calov, Wolf, Bengel, and others, after 1 Peter 2:24, where, however, ἐπὶτὸξύλον is employed with it), or the substitutionary bearing (Augustine, de pecc. mer. i. 28; Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Böhme, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 544 f.; Alford, Maier, Conybeare, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Hofmann, and others, in accordance with the signification of the verb, Isaiah 53:12, LXX.: αὐτὸςἁμαρτίαςπολλῶνἀνήνεγκε, an utterance which certainly may have been before the mind of the author at the time of his writing this passage), or the offering up of the sins, as it were, as a sacrifice (Peshito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Michaelis); but the expiation of sins, conceived under the form of the result immediately of necessity attaching itself thereto, i.e. the putting away of sins, in such wise that it takes up again the idea expressed by εἰςἀθέτησινἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 9:26, and becomes identical with ἀφαιρεῖνἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 10:4.

From a linguistic point of view this interpretation encounters no difficulty (against Delitzsch and others), since the ἀνά in ἀνενεγκεῖν was employed not otherwise than, e.g., very frequently the ἀνά in ἀναιρεῖν. How easily the notion of bearing in φέρειν could pass over into that of bearing away or doing away with, is shown in the kindred verb βαστάζειν, which is unquestionably used, Matthew 8:17, John 20:15, in the sense of auferre. Comp. also Galen, de compos. medicam. 2 : ψώραςτεθεραπεύεικαὶὑπώπιαβαστάζει.

πολλῶν] here too, as Hebrews 2:10 and often (see p. 122), lays stress only on the notion of multitude or plurality, without regard to the question whether this plurality constitutes the totality of mankind or not.

ἐκδευτέρουὀφθήσεται] shall appear the second time before the eyes of men, namely, at His Parousia. According to Bleek, there arises a difficulty from the words, if we explain προσενεχθείς of the death suffered upon earth, and not, with him, of an action accomplished in heaven, only after the resurrection, inasmuch as in the former case Christ already appeared in a visible form the second time after His resurrection. But such difficulty does not at all present itself in connection with that application of προσενεχθείς either. For ἐκδευτέρουὀφθήσεται can only be understood of a second appearing in a visible form upon earth; when, however, Christ after His resurrection appeared again to His disciples, He had not yet left the earth; those manifestations of the risen Christ before His ascension belonged consequently to His first visible coming forth upon earth.

χωρὶςἁμαρτίας] forms the opposition to εἰςτὸπολλῶνἀνενεγκεῖνἁμαρτίας, is therefore to be interpreted after the analogy of these words. (Erroneously Bleek, according to whom χωρὶςἁμαρτίας forms the opposition to εἰςἀθέτησινἁμαρτίαςδιὰτῆςθυσίαςαὐτοῦπεφανέρωται, Hebrews 9:26.) Christ has once offered Himself up for the expiation of the sins of men; when He returns to earth the second time, He will not once more have to do with the expiation of human sin, but He will, apart from sin, or free from all relation to sin, appear to bring the σωτηρία to the believers. Free from the guilt and punishment of sin, Christ has already rendered His believers by means of His sacrificial death at His first appearing upon earth. Positively, He will bless them with salvation at His return. To combine χωρὶςἁμαρτίας with τοῖςἀπεκδεχομένοις by means of an hyperbaton (so Faber Stapulensis and Grotius) is grammatically impossible. The sense, however, cannot be either, as the Irvingites will, that Christ Himself will be free from sin at His second appearing, in opposition to the lust which they suppose to have attached to Him during His first appearing; for that Christ during this period too, notwithstanding all the temptation to which He was subject, was free from sin, the author certainly distinctly asserts at Hebrews 4:15. Incorrectly also does Bleek—after the example of Theodore of Mopsuestia (τὸγὰρχωρὶςἁμαρτίαςτοῦτολέγει, ὅτιμὴκρατούσηςἔτιτῆςἁμαρτίαςοὕτωκαὶαὐτὸςἔξωπαντὸςἀνθρωπίνουπάθουςὀφθήσεταιτότε) and of Theodoret (οὐκέτιτῆςἁμαρτίαςκρατούσης, ἀντὶτοῦχώρανοὐκέτιἐχούσηςκατὰτῶνἀνθρώπωντῆςἁμαρτίας)—take χωρὶςἁμαρτίας as equivalent in signification to μὴοὔσηςἁμαρτίας, so that the sense would be: “at the return of Christ sin will no longer be present, at least in the domain to which the operation of the Redeemer will relate.” Even in a grammatical respect this application of the words is inadmissible, since χωρὶςἁμαρτίας must stand in relation to the subject in ὀφθήσεται, thus cannot be torn away from this reference by being made equivalent to an independent participial clause.

But also the thought thence arising would be encumbered with difficulty, as Bleek himself admits, by the addition of “at least,” etc., although Bleek has sought to justify it. Additional misinterpretations of χωρὶςἁμαρτίας are met with in other writers. Thus it is supposed to mean: without, again vicariously laden with the sins of men, being made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) for them (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Akersloot, Wolf, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Heinrichs, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 545, Obs.; Alford, Maier, Moll, and others), which is already refuted by the erroneousness of explaining the foregoing ἀνενεγκεῖν of the vicarious bearing of sins; without the punishment of sin (Klee, al.); without the sufferings undertaken for sin (Tholuck); sine corporis, peccato obnoxii, mortalitate (Zeger); sine sacrificio pro peccato (Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, M‘Caul, and many); not as a sufferer for the guilt of others, but as the holy judge of the guilt of others (Ebrard, Delitzsch; similarly Stein and others), and so forth, all of which have the plain expression of the language against them.

εἰςσωτηρίαν] belongs to ὀφθήσεται, not, as it is true, upon the retention of the spurious addition (see the critical remark) διὰπίστεως, it must be conjoined, to ἀπεκδεχομένοις (so Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Camerarius, Wolf, Klee, Paulus, Stein). For τοῖςαὐτὸνἀπεκδεχομένοις contains a non-essential element of the statement, Hebrews 9:28; εἰςσωτηρίαν, on the other hand, an essential element of the same. εἰςσωτηρίαν, namely, is the positive nearer defining of the negative χωρὶςἁμαρτίας, and forms consequently, like the latter, an antithesis to εἰςτὸπολλῶνἀνενεγκεῖνἁμαρτίας. The whole clause, however, ἐκδευτέρου … εἰςσωτηρίαν, corresponds to the second member of the clause, Hebrews 9:27: μετὰδὲτοῦτοκρίσις.