A verse by verse commentary on Hebrews chapter 9.

1. HEBREWS 9 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
INTRODUCTION
PINK, “The principal design of the apostle in this epistle was to prove and make manifest that the "old
covenant" which Jehovah made with Israel at Sinai, with all the ordinances of worship and the privileges
connected therewith, had been Divinely annulled. This involved a complete change in the church-state of
the Hebrews, but so far from this being a thing to deplore, it was to their unspeakable advantage. A "new
covenant" had been inaugurated, and the blessings connected with it so far excelled those which had
belonged to the old dispensation, that nothing but blind prejudice and perverse unbelief could refuse the
true light which now shone, and prefer in its stead the dark shadows of a previous night. God never asks
anybody to give up any thing without proffering something far better in return; and they who despise His
offer are the losers. But prejudice is strong, and never harder to overcome than in connection with
religious customs. Therefore does the Spirit labor so patiently in His argument throughout these chapters.
The chief obstacle in the way of the Hebrews’ faith was their failure to perceive that every thing connected
with the ceremonial law—the tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifices—was typical in its significance and value.
Because it was typical, it was only preparatory and transient, for once the Antitype materialized its
purpose was served. The shadows were no longer needed when the Substance was manifested. The
scaffolding is dispensed with, taken away, as soon as the finished building appears. The toys of the
nursery become obsolete when manhood is reached. Everything is beautiful in its proper season. Heavy
garments are needed when the cold of winter is upon us, but they would be troublesome in summer’s
sunshine. Once we recognize that God Himself has acted on this principle in His dispensational dealings
with His people, much becomes plain which otherwise would be quite obscure.
The apostle had closed the 8th chapter by pointing out, "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is
ready to vanish away." In those words the Spirit had intimated the unescapable inference which must be
drawn from the oracle given through Jeremiah. He had predicted a "new covenant," which received its
fulfillment in the establishing of Christianity. The ushering in of the new order of Divine worship
necessarily denoted that the previous economy was "old," and if so, its end must be nigh. The force of
Hebrews 8:13 is as follows: "In that He says a ‘new’": God would not have done so unless He had made
the first "old." The "He hath made the first old" has an active significance and denotes an authoritative act
of God upon the old economy, whereby the calling of the other "new" was the sign and evidence. God did
not call the Christian dispensation "another covenant," or a "second covenant," but a "new" one, thereby
declaring that the Judaic covenant was obsolete.
The connecting link between the closing verses of chapter 8 and the opening verses of Hebrews chapter
9 may perhaps be set forth thus: although the old covenant or Mosaic economy was "ready to vanish
away," nevertheless, it yields, even for Christians, important and valuable teachings. It is full of most
blessed typical import, the record of which has been preserved both for the glory of its Author and the
edification and joy of His saints. Wonderful indeed were the pictorial fore-shadowings which the Lord
gave in the days of Israel’s kindergarten. The importance of them was more than hinted at by God when,
though He took but six days to make heaven and earth, He spent no less than forty days when instructing
Moses concerning the making of the tabernacle. That clearly denoted that the work of redemptive grace,
which was prefigured in Jehovah’s earthly dwelling place, was far more glorious than the work of creation.
Thereby are we taught to look away from the things which are seen, and fix our minds and affections
upon that sphere where the Son of God reigns in light and love.
"The general design of this chapter is the same as the two preceding, to show that Christ as High Priest is
superior to the Jewish high priest. This the apostle had already shown to be true in regard to His rank,
and to the dispensation of which He was the Mediator. He proceeds now to show that this was also true
in reference to the efficacy of the sacrifice which He made: and in order to do this, he gives an account of
the ancient Jewish sacrifices, and compares them with that made by the Redeemer. The essential point
is, that the former dispensation was mere shadow, type, or figure, and that the latter was real and
efficacious."—(A. Barnes).
“In the prior chapter, the author explains that the problem with the old covenant rested not with the

2. covenant but with the people. When the perfect law of God crossed the path of the sinful heart of man, it
produced sin not righteousness. As we discussed then, God had no intention of this covenant being the
means by which righteousness was imparted. The law was given that sin might increase, that is, that we
might know what sin was. The reason why the new covenant is superior is that it is able to change the
heart and produce righteousness by making us a new creation and giving us the righteousness of
another. He concluded the prior section by warning the readers that the old is ready to vanish. Most
scholars will take this as a warning regarding the pending destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.
As we have been considering may different aspects of the Old Covenant and how they are types or
shadows of those things to come, it is imperative that we do not make the error of the dispensationalists.
Dispensationalism - The primary tenant of this school of thought is that God has dealt with His people in
diffferent ways at different times (dispensations) throughout history. At one particular time, God had one
plan in mind and then as time moved on God changed the plan and moved onto another even to the point
of conflicting with the prior plan. It is very true that God has progressively revealed things to His people
and unrolled His plan of salvation. But the primary point is this: There has only been one plan of salvation
in the mind of God from first to last - the just shall live by faith.
Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship
and also an earthly sanctuary.
1. BARNES, "Then verily - Or, moreover. The object is to describe the tabernacle in which
the service of God was celebrated under the former dispensation, and to show that it had a
reference to what was future, and was only an imperfect representation of the reality. It was
important to show this, as the Jews regarded the ordinances of the tabernacle and of the whole
Levitical service as of divine appointment, and of perpetual obligation. The object of Paul is to
prove that they were to give place to a more perfect system, and hence, it was necessary to
discuss their real nature.
The first covenant - The word “covenant” is not in the Greek, but is not improperly
supplied. The meaning is, that the former arrangement or dispensation had religious rites and
services connected with it.
Had also ordinances - Margin, “Ceremonies.” The Greek word means “laws, precepts,
ordinances;” and the idea is, that there were laws regulating the worship of God. The Jewish
institutions abounded with such laws.
And a worldly sanctuary - The word “sanctuary” means a holy place, and is applied to a
house of worship, or a temple. Here it may refer either to the temple or to the tabernacle. As the
temple was constructed after the same form as the tabernacle, and had the same furniture, the
description of the apostle may be regarded as applicable to either of them, and it is difficult to
determine which he had in his eye. The term “worldly,” applied to “sanctuary,” here means that
it pertained to this world; it was contradistinguished from the heavenly sanctuary not made with
hands where Christ was now gone; compare Heb_9:11-24. It does not mean that it was “worldly”
in the sense in which that word is now used as denoting the opposite of spiritual, serious,

3. religious; but worldly in the sense that it belonged to the earth rather than to heaven; it was
made by human hands, not directly by the hands of God.
2. CLARKE, "The first covenant had also ordinances - Our translators have
introduced the word covenant, as if διαθηκη had been, if not originally in the text, yet in the
apostle’s mind. Several MSS., but not of good note, as well as printed editions, with the Coptic
version, have σκηνη tabernacle; but this is omitted by ABDE, several others, both the Syriac,
Ethiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, some copies of the Itala, and several of the Greek fathers; it is in all
probability a spurious reading, the whole context showing that covenant is that to which the
apostle refers, as that was the subject in the preceding chapter, and this is a continuation of the
same discourse.
Ordinances - ∆ικαιωµατα· Rites and ceremonies.
A worldly sanctuary - ᅓγιον κοσµικον. It is supposed that the term worldly, here, is
opposed to the term heavenly, Heb_8:5; and that the whole should be referred to the carnality
or secular nature of the tabernacle service. But I think there is nothing plainer than that the
apostle is speaking here in praise of this sublimely emblematic service, and hence he proceeds to
enumerate the various things contained in the first tabernacle, which added vastly to its
splendor and importance; such as the table of the show-bread, the golden candlestick, the
golden censer, the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, in which was the golden
pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the two tables which God had written
with his own finger: hence I am led to believe that κοσµικος is here taken in its proper, natural
meaning, and signifies adorned, embellished, splendid; and hence κοσµος, the world: Tota hujus
universi machina, coelum et terram complectens et quicquid utroque contineter, κοσµος
dicitur, quod nihil ea est mundius, pulchrius, et ornatius. “The whole machine of this universe,
comprehending the heavens and the earth, and whatsoever is contained in both, is called κοσµος
, because nothing is more beautiful, more fair, and more elegant.” So Pliny, Hist. Nat., l. ii. c. 5:
Nam quem κοσµον Graeci nomine ornamenti appellaverunt, eum nos a perfecta absolutaque
elegantia, Mundum. “That which the Greeks call κοσµος, ornament, we, (the Latins), from its
perfect and absolute elegance call mundum, world.” See on Gen_2:1 (note).
The Jews believe that the tabernacle was an epitome of the world; and it is remarkable, when
speaking of their city, that they express this sentiment by the same Greek word, in Hebrew
letters, which the apostle uses here: so in Bereshith Rabba, s. 19, fol. 19: ‫כל‬‫קוזמיקון‬‫שלו‬‫שם‬‫הוא‬ col
kozmikon (κοσµικον) shelo sham hu. “All his world is placed there.” Philo says much to the same
purpose.
If my exposition be not admitted, the next most likely is, that God has a worldly tabernacle as
well as a heavenly one; that he as truly dwelt in the Jewish tabernacle as he did in the heaven of
heavens; the one being his worldly house, the other his heavenly house.
3. GILL, "Then verily the first covenant had ordinances of divine service,.... The
design of the apostle in this chapter, as it stands in connection with what goes before, is to show
the pre-eminence of Christ, from the tabernacle, and the things in it; as well as from the

4. priesthood and covenant; and as also the abrogation of the Levitical ceremonies in particular, as
well as the first covenant in general; and that they were all types and figures of Christ, and had
their fulfilment in him: the word "first", here used, designs not the tabernacle, but the covenant;
therefore it is rightly thus supplied in our version, as it is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions:
which is said to have "ordinances of divine service"; belonging to the service of God, which was
performed both by the priests, and by the people; and these ordinances were no other than the
carnal ordinances, or rites of the ceremonial law: the word used signifies "righteousnesses"; and
they are so called, because they were appointed by a righteous God; and were imposed on the
people of the Jews in a righteous way; and by them men became externally and typically
righteous; for they were figures and types of justification by the righteousness of Christ, though
no complete, perfect, real righteousness, came by them.
And a worldly sanctuary. Philo the Jew says (l), it was a type of the world, and of the various
things in it; though it was rather either a type of the church, or of heaven, or of Christ's human
nature: the better reason of its being so called is, because it consisted of earthly matter, and
worldly things; it was in the world, and only had its use in the world, and so is opposed to the
heavenly sanctuary; for the Jews often speak of ‫מקדש‬‫שלמעלה‬ , "a sanctuary above", and ‫מקדש‬
‫,שלמטה‬ "a sanctuary below" (m), and of ‫משכנא‬‫דלעילא‬ , "a tabernacle above", and ‫משכנא‬‫דלתתא‬ , "a
tabernacle below" (n); which answered to one another: the words may be rendered "a beautiful
sanctuary", a well adorned one; and such especially was the temple, or sanctuary built by
Solomon, rebuilt by Zerubbabel, and repaired and adorned by Herod, Luk_21:5. And the Jews
say, that he that never saw Herod's building, meaning the temple, never saw a beautiful
building; see Luk_21:5.
4. HENRY, "Here, I. The apostle gives an account of the tabernacle, that place of worship
which God appointed to be pitched on earth; it is called a worldly sanctuary, wholly of this
world, as to the materials of which it was built, and a building that must be taken down; it is
called a worldly sanctuary, because it was the court and palace of the King of Israel. God was
their King, and, as other kings, had his court or place of residence, and attendants, furniture,
and provision, suitable thereto. This tabernacle (of which we have the model, Ex. 25-27) was a
moving temple, shadowing forth the unsettled state of the church militant, and the human
nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. Now of this
tabernacle it is said that it was divided into two parts, called a first and a second tabernacle, an
inner and an outer part, representing the two states of the church militant and triumphant, and
the two natures of Christ, human and divine. We are also told what was placed in each part of
the tabernacle.
5. JAMISON, "Heb_9:1-28. Inferiority of the Old to the New Covenant in the means of
access to God: The blood of bulls and goats of no real avail: The Blood of Christ all-sufficient to
purge away sin, whence flows our hope of His appearing again for our perfect salvation.
Then verily — Greek, “Accordingly then.” Resuming the subject from Heb_8:5. In
accordance with the command given to Moses, “the first covenant had,” etc.
had — not “has,” for as a covenant it no longer existed, though its rites were observed till the
destruction of Jerusalem.
ordinances — of divine right and institution.
service — worship.

5. a worldly sanctuary — Greek, “its (literally, ‘the’) sanctuary worldly,” mundane; consisting
of the elements of the visible world. Contrasted with the heavenly sanctuary. Compare
Heb_9:11, Heb_9:12, “not of this building,” Heb_9:24. Material, outward, perishing (however
precious its materials were), and also defective religiously. In Heb_9:2-5, “the worldly
sanctuary” is discussed; in Heb_9:6, etc., the “ordinances of worship.” The outer tabernacle the
Jews believed, signified this world; the Holy of Holies, heaven. Josephus calls the outer, divided
into two parts, “a secular and common place,” answering to “the earth and sea”; and the inner
holiest place, the third part, appropriated to God and not accessible to men.
6. CALVIN, "Then verily the first, etc [138] After having spoken generally of the
abrogation of the old covenant, he now refers specially to the
ceremonies. His object is to show that there was nothing practiced then
to which Christ's coming has not put an end. He says first, that under
the old covenant there was a specific form of divine worship, and that
it was peculiarly adapted to that time. It will hereafter appear by the
comparison what kind of things were those rituals prescribed under the
Law.
Some copies read, prote skene the first tabernacle; but I suspect that
there is a mistake as to the word "tabernacle;" nor do I doubt but that
some unlearned reader, not finding a noun to the adjective, and in his
ignorance applying to the tabernacle what had been said of the
covenant, unwisely added the word skene tabernacle. I indeed greatly
wonder that the mistake had so prevailed, that it is found in the Greek
copies almost universally. [139] But necessity constrains me to follow
the ancient reading. For the Apostle, as I have said, had been speaking
of the old covenant; he now comes to ceremonies, which were additions,
as it were, to it. He then intimates that all the rites of the Mosaic
Law were a part of the old covenant, and that they partook of the same
ancientness, and were therefore to perish.
Many take the word latreias as an accusative plural. I agree with those
who connect the two words together, dikaiomata latreias for institutes
or rites, which the Hebrews call chvqym, and the Greeks have rendered
by the word dikaiomata ordinances. The sense is, that the whole form or
manner of worshipping God was annexed to the old covenant, and that it
consisted of sacrifices, ablutions, and other symbols, together with
the sanctuary. And he calls it a worldly sanctuary, because there was
no heavenly truth or reality in those rites; for though the sanctuary
was the effigy of the original pattern which had been shown to Moses;
yet an effigy or image is a different thing from the reality, and
especially when they are compared, as here, as things opposed to each
other. Hence the sanctuary in itself was indeed earthly, and is rightly
classed among the elements of the world, it was yet heavenly as to what
it signified.

6. 6B. PINK, “"Then verily the first had also ordinances of the Divine service, and a worldly
sanctuary" (verse 1). Having in the former chapter given further proof of the excellency of
Christ’s sacerdotal office, by describing the superior covenant that was ratified thereby,
the apostle now prepares the way to set forth the execution of that office, following the
same method of procedure in so doing. Just as he had drawn a comparison between Aaron
and Christ, so he now sets the ministrations of the one over against the Other, and this in
order to prove that that of Christ’s was most certainly to be preferred. He first approaches
the execution of the Levitical priests’ office by mentioning several rites and types which
appertained thereto.
"Then verily the first had also ordinances of Divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." The
apostle here begins the comparison which he draws between the old covenant and the new
with respect to the services and sacrifices whereby the one and the other was established
and confirmed. In so doing he is still dealing with what was to all pious Israelites a most
tender consideration. It was in the services and sacrifices which belonged to the priestly
office in the tabernacle that they had been taught to place all their confidence for
reconciliation with God. If the apostle’s previous contention respecting the abolition of the
legal priesthood was granted, then it necessarily followed that the sanctuary in which they
served and all the offerings which Moses had so solemnly appointed, became useless too. It
calls for our closest attention and deepest admiration to observe how the Spirit led the
apostle to approach an issue so startling and momentous.
First, he is so far from denying that the ritual of Judaism was of human invention, that he
declares, "verily (of truth) the first covenant had also ordinances of Divine service." Thus
he follows the same method employed in the preceding chapters. In drawing his
comparisons between Israel’s prophets and Christ, the angels and Christ, Moses and
Christ, Joshua and Christ, Aaron and Christ, he had said nothing whatever in
disparagement of the inferior. So far from reviling the first member in each comparison, he
had dwelt upon that which was in its favor: the more they could be legitimately magnified,
the greater the glory accruing to Christ when it was proved how far He excelled them. So
here: the apostle granted the principal point which an objector would make—why should
the first covenant be annulled if God Himself had made it? Before giving answer to this
(seemingly) most difficult question, he allows and affirms that the service of Judaism was of
Divine institution. Thus, in the earliest ages of human history God had graciously
appointed means for His people to use.
The expression "ordinances of divine service" calls for a word or two by way of
explanation. The word which is here rendered "ordinances’’ (margin "ceremonies")
signifies rites, statutes, institutions. They were the appointments of God, which He alone
had the right to prescribe, and which His people were under solemn bonds of observing,
and that without any alteration or deviation. These "ordinances" were of "divine service"
which is a single word in the original. In its verbal form it is found in Hebrews 8:5, "to
serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." In the New Testament it is always
found in connection with religious or divine service: in Acts 24:14, Philippians 3:3 it is
translated "worship." It signifies to serve in godly fear or trembling, thus implying an holy
awe and reverence for the One served—cf. Hebrews 12:28. Thus, the complete clause
means that under the Mosaic economy God gave His people authoritative enactments to
direct their worship of Him. This law of worship was a hedge which Jehovah placed
around Israel to keep them from the abominations of the heathen. It was concerning this

7. very thing that God had so many controversies with His people under the old covenant.
Care needs to be duly paid to the tense which the apostle here used: he said not "verily the
first covenant has also ordinances, of divine service," but "had". He is obviously referring
to the past. The Mosaic economy had those ordinances from the time God covenanted with
Israel at Sinai. But that covenant was no longer in force; it had been Divinely annulled. The
"verily the first covenant had also ordinances of Divine worship," clearly intimates that the
new covenant too has Divine "ordinances." We press this because there are some who now
affirm that even Christian baptism and the Lord’s supper are "Jewish" ceremonies, which
belong not to this present dispensation. But this error is sufficiently refuted by this word
"also"—found in the very epistle which was written to prove that Judaism has given place
to Christianity!
"And a worldly sanctuary." The reference is (as the next verse plainly shows) to the
Tabernacle, which Moses made in all things according to the pattern shown him in the
mount. Many have been sorely puzzled as to why the Holy Spirit should designate the holy
sanctuary of Jehovah a "worldly" one. Yet this adjective should not present any difficulty.
It is not used invidiously, still less as denoting anything which is evil. "Worldly" is not here
opposed to "spiritual,’’ but as that which belongs to the earth rather than to the heavens.
Thus the force of "worldly" here emphasizes the fact that the Mosaic economy was but a
transient one, and not eternal. The tabernacle was made here in this world, out of perishing
materials found in the world, and was but a portable tent, which might at pleasure be
taken down and set up again; while the efficacy of its services extended only unto worldly
things, and procured not that which was vital and eternal. Note how in Hebrews 9:24 the
"holy places made with hands" are set in antithesis from "heaven itself."
We cannot but admire the wisdom given to the apostle in handling a matter so delicate and
difficult. While his object was to show the immeasurable superiority of that which has been
brought in by Christ over that which Judaism had enjoyed, at the same time he would own
that which was of God in it. Thus, on the one hand, he acknowledges the service of the
Levitical priests as "divine," yet, to pave the way for his further proof that Christ is a
Minister of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1, 2), he points out that the tabernacle of
Judaism was but a "worldly" one. "The antithesis to worldly is heavenly, uncreated,
eternal. Thus in the epistle to the Galatians, the apostle, speaking of the legal parenthetical
dispensation, says we were then in bondage under the ‘elements of the world’ (Heb. 4:3);
and in the epistle to the Colossians he contrasts with the ‘rudiments of the world’ (Heb.
2:20) the heavenly position of the believer who has died with Christ, and ‘is no longer living
in the world,’ but seeking the things above" (Adolph Saphir).
7. SBC, “The Simplicity of Christian Ritual.
The simplicity of worship in the Christian Church is a sign of spiritual advancement—
I. Inasmuch as it arises, in some measure, from the fact that the Gospel rites are
commemorative, whilst those of the former dispensation were anticipative.
II. Inasmuch as it arises from the fact that, whilst the rites of Judaism were mainly disciplinary,
those of Christianity are spontaneous and expressive.
III. The simplicity of the Christian rites affords a safeguard against those obvious dangers which
are incident to all ritual worship. (1) The first of these is the tendency of the unspiritual mind to

8. stop short at the symbol; (2) the next is the too common tendency to mistake aesthetic emotion
for religious feeling.
J. Caird, Sermons, p. 272.
Hebrews 9:1-5
Worship in Spirit and Truth.
I. Apart from revelation men have not the idea of God as Lord, Spirit, Father; and even after the
light of Scripture has appeared, God is to many only an abstract word, by which they designate a
complex of perfections rather than a real, living, loving, ever-present Lord, to whom we speak
and of whom we ask the blessings that we need. Without revelation prayer is regarded not so
much as asking God in order to receive from Him, but as an exercise of mind which elevates,
ennobles, and comforts. It is a monologue.
II. Unto the Gentiles God never gave an Aaronic priesthood, an earthly tabernacle, a symbolical
service. From the very commencement He taught them, as Jesus taught the woman of Samaria,
that now all places are alike sacred; that the element in which God is worshipped is spirit and
truth; that believers are children who call God Father; that they are a royal priesthood who
through Jesus are brought nigh unto God, who enter into the holy of holies which is above. How
difficult it is to rise from the spirit of paganism to the clear and bright atmosphere of the gospel!
Priesthood, vestments, consecrated buildings, symbols, and observances all place Christ at a
great distance, and cover the true, sinful, and guilty state of the heart which has not been
brought nigh by the blood of Christ. The sinner believes, and as a child he is brought by Jesus
unto the Father. High above all space, high above all created heavens, before the very throne of
God, is the sanctuary in which we worship. Jesus presents us to the Father. We are beloved
children, clothed in white robes, the garments of salvation, and the robes of righteousness. We
are priests unto God.
A. Saphir, Lectures on Hebrews, vol. ii., p. 76.
8. BI, “The ancient tabernacle
The writer now proceeds to compare the old and the new covenants with reference to their
respective provisions for religious communion between man and God, his purpose being to
show the superiority of the priestly ministry of Christ over that of the Levitical priesthood.
In the first five verses he gives an inventory of the furniture of the tabernacle pitched in the
wilderness; in the next five he describes the religious services there carried on. “Now [our
leading back to Heb_8:5] the first [covenant] had ordinances of Divine service and its mundane
sanctuary.” The epithet κοσµικόν here applied to the tabernacle evidently signifies belonging to
this material world, in opposition to the heavenly sanctuary (Heb_8:11) not made with hands
out of things visible and tangible. The purpose of the writer is to point out that the tabernacle
belonged to this earth, and therefore possessed the attributes of all things earthly, materiality
and perishableness. The materials might be fine and costly; still they were material, and as such
were liable to wax old and vanish away. In Heb_8:2-5 is given a detailed description of the
arrangements and furniture of this cosmic sanctuary. No valuator could be more careful to make
an inventory of household furniture perfectly accurate than our author is to give an exhaustive

9. list of the articles to be found in the Jewish tabernacle, whether in the holy place or in the most
holy. Indeed, so careful is he to make the list complete, not only in his own judgment, but in the
judgment of his readers, that he includes things which had no connection with religious
worship, bat were merely put into the tabernacle for safe custody, as valuable mementos of
incidents in Israel’s history—e.g., the golden pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded. It is
further to be noted in regard to these articles, that they are: represented as being within the ark
of the covenant, though it is nowhere in the Old Testament said that they were, the direction
given being merely that they should be placed before the testimony, and it being expressly stated
in regard to the ark in Solomon’s temple that there was nothing in it save the two tables on
which the ten commandments were inscribed. Whether these things ever had been in the ark we
do not know. The fact that they are here represented to have been does not settle the point.
While his doctrine is that the ancient tabernacle was at best but a poor, shadowy affair, he takes
pains to show that in his judgment it was as good as it was possible for a cosmic sanctuary to be.
Its articles of furniture were of the best material; the ark of fine wood covered all over with gold,
the altar of incense of similar materials, the pot with manna of pure gold. He feels he can afford
to describe in generous terms the furniture of the tabernacle, because, after all, he will have no
difficulty in showing the immeasurable superiority of the “true” tabernacle wherein Christ
ministers. One single phrase settles the point χειροποίητος (Heb_8:11). The old tabernacle and
all its furniture were made by the hands of men out of perishable materials. The “ gold, and
silver, and brass,” &c., were all liable to destruction by the devouring tooth of time, that spares
nothing visible and tangible. This eulogistic style of describing the furniture of the cosmic
tabernacle was not only generous, but politic. The more the furniture ,was praised, the more the
religious service carried on in the tent so furnished was in effect depreciated by the contrast
inevitably suggested. The emphasis laid on the excellent quality of these really signifies the
inferiority of the whole Levitical system. Looking now at the inventory distributively, let us note
what articles are placed in either compartment of the tabernacle respectively. In the first are
located the candlestick, the table, and the shewbread, which was arranged in two rows on the
table; to the second are assigned what is called the θυµιατήριον, and the ark of the covenant,
containing, as is said, the manna pot, Aaron’s rod, and the tables of the covenant, and
surmounted by the Cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat, or lid of the ark. The only
article of which there is any need to speak “particularly” is the θυµιατήριον, concerning which
there are two questions to be considered: What is it? and with what propriety is it assigned to
the most holy place? As to the former, the word θυµιατήριον may mean either “the altar of
incense,” as I have rendered it, or “the golden censer,” as translated in the Authorised and
Revised Versions. I do not suppose there would be any hesitation on the subject, were it not for
the consideration, that by deciding that the altar of incense is intended we seem to make the
writer guilty of an inaccuracy in assigning it to the inner shrine of the tabernacle. I have little
doubt that this consideration had its own weight with our Revisers in leading them to retain the
old rendering, “the golden censer”; and the fact detracts from the value of their judgment, as
based, not on the merits of the question, but on the ground of theological prudence. A clearer
insight into the mind of the writer would have shown them that this well-meant solicitude for
his infallibility was uncalled for. This brings us to the question as to the propriety of placing the
altar of incense among the things belonging to the most holy place. The fact is, that the altar of
incense was a puzzle to one who was called on to state to which part of the tabernacle it
belonged. Hence the peculiar manner in which the writer expresses himself in reference to the
things assigned to the most holy place. He does not say, as in connection with the first division,
“in which were” (ᅚν η), but represents it as “ having” (ᅞχουσα) certain things. The phrase is
chosen with special reference to the altar of incense. Of all the other articles it might have been
said “in which were,” but not of it. Nothing more could be said than that it belonged to the

10. second division. The question is, whether even so much could be said, and why the writer
preferred to say this rather than to say that the altar of incense stood outside the veil in the first
division. Now as to the former part of the question, in so putting the matter cur author was only
following an Old Testament precedent, the altar of incense being in 1Ki_6:22 called the altar
“that was by the oracle,” or more correctly, as in the Revised Version, the altar “that belonged to
the oracle.” Then the directions given for fixing its position, as recorded in Exo_30:6, are very
significant. The purport of this directory seems to be: outside the veil for daily use (for within it
could not be used save once a year), but tending inwards, indicating by its very situation a wish
to get in, standing there, so to speak, at the door of the most holy place, petitioning for
admission. So the eloquent eulogist of the better ministry of the new covenant appears to have
understood it. He thinks of the altar of incense as praying for admission into the inner shrine,
and waiting for the removal of the envious veil which forbad entrance. And he so far
sympathises with its silent prayer as to admit it within the veil before the time, or at least to
acknowledge that, while materially without, it belonged in spirit and function to the most holy
place. In stating the case as he does our author was not only following usage, but utilising the
double relations of the altar of incense for the purpose of his apologetic. He wanted to make it
felt that the position of that altar was difficult to define, that it was both without and within the
veil, that you could not place it exclusively in either position without leaving out something that
should be added to make the account complete. And he wished to press home the question,
What was the cause of the difficulty? The radical evil, he would suggest, was the existence of the
veil. It was the symbol of an imperfect religion, which denied men free access to God, and so was
the parent of this anomaly, that the altar of incense had to be in two places at the same time:
within the veil, as there were the mercy-seat and the Hearer of prayer; without the veil, because
the incense of prayer must be offered daily, and yet no one might go within save the high priest,
and he only once a year. How thankful, then, should we be that the veil is done away, so that the
distinction of without and within no longer exists, and we may come daily to offer the incense of
our prayers in the presence of God, without fear of evil, with perfect “assurance to be heard”!
After the inventory of its furniture comes an account of the ministry carried on in the Jewish
sanctuary (verses 6-10); the description of which, coming after the former, has all the effect of
an anticlimax. One can hardly fail to say to himself, What a fall is here! The furniture was
precious, but the worship how poor f Every one capable of reflection feels that a religious system
in which the vessels of the sanctuary are so much superior to the service cannot be the final and
permanent form of man’s communion with God, but only a type or parable for the time of better
things to come, that could last only till the era of reformation arrived. This truth, however, the
writer does not leave to be inferred, but expressly points out and proves. On two things he
insists, as tending to show the insufficiency and therefore the transitiveness of the Levitical
system, and all that pertained to it. First, he asserts that the mere division of the tabernacle into
an accessible holy place and an inaccessible most holy place proved the imperfection of the
worship there carried on; and, secondly, he points out the disproportion between the great end
of religion and the means employed for reaching it under the Levitical system. (A. B. Bruce, D.
D.)
The earthly sanctuary
I. EVERY COVENANT OF GOD HAD ITS PROPER PRIVILEGES AND ADVANTAGES. Even
the first covenant had so, and those such as were excellent in themselves, though not
comparable with them of the new. For to make any covenant with men is an eminent fruit of
grace and condescension in God, whereon He will annex such privileges thereunto as may evince
it so to be.

11. II. THERE WAS NEVER ANY COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND MAN BUT IT HAD SOME
ORDINANCES, OR ARBITRARY INSTITUTIONS OF EXTERNAL DIVINE WORSHIP
ANNEXED UNTO IT. The original covenant of works had the ordinances of the tree of life, and
of the knowledge of good and evil, the laws whereof belonged not unto that of natural light and
reason. The covenant of Sinai, whereof the apostle speaks, had a multiplication of them. Nor is
the new covenant destitute of them or of their necessary observance. All public worship and the
sacraments of the Church are of this nature.
III. IT IS A HARD AND RARE THING TO HAVE THE MINDS OF MEN KEPT UPRIGHT
WITH GOD IN THE OBSERVANCE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF DIVINE WORSHIP. By some
they are neglected, by some corrupted, and by some they are exalted above their proper place
and use, and are turning into an occasion of neglecting more important duties. And the reason
of this difficulty is, because faith hath not that assistance from innate principles of reason, and
sensible experience of this kind of obedience, as it hath in that which is moral, internal, and
spiritual.
IV. THAT THESE ORDINANCES OF DIVINE WORSHIP MIGHT BE DULY OBSERVED AND
RIGHTLY PERFORMED UNDER THE FIRST COVENANT, THERE WAS A PLACE
APPOINTED OF GOD FOR THEIR SOLEMNISATION.
1. This tabernacle with what belonged thereunto was a visible pledge of the presence of God
among the people, owning, blessing, and protecting them. And it was a pledge of God’s own
institution, in imitation whereof the superstitious heathens invented ways of obliging their
idol-gods, to be present among them for the same ends.
2. It was the pledge and means of God’s dwelling among them, which expresseth the
peculiar manner of His presence mentioned in general before.
3. It was a fixed seat of all Divine worship, wherein the truth and purity of it was to be
preserved.
4. It was principally the privilege and glory of the Church of Israel, in that it was a continual
representation of the incarnation of the Son of God; a type of His coming in the flesh to dwell
among us, and by the one sacrifice of Himself to make reconciliation with God, and
atonement for sins. It was such an expression of the idea of the mind of God, concerning the
person and meditation of Christ, as in His wisdom and grace He thought meet to intrust the
Church withal. Hence was that severe injunction, that all things concerning it should be
made according unto the pattern shown in the Mount. For what could the wisdom of men do
in the prefiguration of that mystery, of which they had no comprehension? But yet the
sanctuary the apostle calls κοσµικον, “worldly.”
(1) The place of it was on the earth in this world, in opposition whereunto the sanctuary
of the new covenant is in heaven (Heb_8:2).
(2) Although the materials of it were as durable as anything in that kind could be
procured, as gold and Shittim wood, yet were they worldly; that is, perishing things, as
are all things of the world, God intimating thereby that they were not to have an
everlasting continuance. Gold, and wood, and silk, and hair, however curiously wrought
and carefully preserved, are but for a time.
(3) All the services of it, all its sacrifices in themselves, separated from their typical
representative use, were all worldly; and their efficacy extended only unto worldly things,
as the apostle proves in this chapter.
(4) On these accounts the apostle calls it “worldly”; yet not absolutely so, but in
opposition unto that which is heavenly. All things in the ministration of the new

12. covenant are heavenly. So is the priest, his sacrifice, tabernacle, and altar, as we shall see
in the process of the apostle’s discourse. And we may observe from the whole
V. THAT DIVINE INSTITUTION ALONE IS THAT WHICH RENDERS ANYTHING
ACCEPTABLE UNTO GOD. Although the things that belonged unto the sanctuary, and the
sanctuary itself, were in themselves but worldly, yet being Divine ordinances, they had a glory in
them, and were in their season accepted with God.
VI. GOD CAN ANIMATE OUTWARD CARNAL THINGS WITH A HIDDEN INVISIBLE
SPRING OF GLORY AND EFFICACY. SO He did their sanctuary with its relation unto Christ;
which was an object of faith which no eye of flesh could behold. (John Owens, D. D.)
The simplicity of Christian ritual
The language of sign or symbol enters very largely into all the affairs of life. The human spirit
craves and finds embodiment for its impalpable, evanescent ideas and emotions, not merely in
sounds that die away upon the ear, but in acts and observances that arrest the eye, and stamp
themselves upon the memory, or in shapes and forms and symbols that possess a material and
palpable continuity. The superiority of sign or symbol as a vehicle of thought is in some sort
implied in the very fact that it is the language of nature, the first which man learns, or rather
which, with instinctive and universal intelligence, he employs. There is something, again, in a
visible and tangible sign, or in a significant or symbolic act, which, by its very nature, appeals
more impressively to the mind than mere vocables that vibrate for a moment on the organ of
hearing and then pass away. Embody thought in a material representation or memorial, and it
stands before you with a distinct and palpable continuity; it can become the object of prolonged
contemplation; it is permanently embalmed to the senses. Moreover, it deserves to be
considered that the language of symbol lies nearer to thought than that of verbal expression. As
no man can look into another’s mind and have direct cognisance of another’s thoughts, we can
only convey to others what is passing in our own minds, by selecting and pointing out some
object or phenomenon of the outward world that bears an analogy to the thought or feeling
within our breasts. And if further proof of the utility and importance of symbol were wanting, it
might he found in the fact that all nature is but one grand symbol by which God shadows forth
His own invisible Being and character. The principle on which symbolic language depends being
thus deeply seated in man’s nature, it might be anticipated that its influence would be apparent
in that religion which is so marvellously adapted to his sympathies and wants. But when we turn
to that religious economy under which we live, by nothing are we so much struck as by the
simplicity of its external worship—the scantiness, unobtrusiveness, and seeming poverty of its
ritual observances. And this absence of symbol in the Christian worship becomes all the more
singular when contrasted with the sensuous beauty and splendour of the heathen religions
amidst which Christianity was developed, and with the imposing ceremonial, the elaborate
symbolism, of that earlier dispensation from which it took its rise.
I. The simplicity of worship in the Christian Church is a sign of spiritual advancement,
inasmuch as it arises, in some measure, from the fact THAT THE GOSPEL RITES ARE
COMMEMORATIVE, WHILST THOSE OF THE FORMER DISPENSATION WERE
ANTICIPATIVE. TO THE Hebrew in ancient times Christ was a Being of whose person and
character and work he had but the most vague and undefined conceptions; to the Christian
worshipper He is no shadowy dream of the future, no vague and visionary personage of a distant
age, but the best beloved of friends, whose beautiful life stands forth before the mind with all the
distinctness of history—whose glorious person and mission is the treasured and familiar
contemplation of his secret thoughts. The former, accordingly, needed all the elaborate formality
of type and ceremony, of temple and altar and sacrifice—of symbolic persons and objects and

13. actions, to help out his idea of the Messiah and of His mighty work and mission. But to enable
the latter to recall his Lord, no more is required than a few drops of water, a bit of broken bread,
or a cup of wine. Around these simplest outward memorials, a host of thoughts, reflections,
remembrances, are ready to gather. Deity incarnate, infinite self-sacrifice, reconciliation with
God, pardon, purity, peace, eternal life through the blood of Jesus, union with Christ, and in
Him with all good and holy beings,—these are some of the great Christian ideas already lodged
in each devout worshipper’s mind, and which awake at the suggestive touch of the sacramental
symbols to invest them with a value altogether incommensurate with their outward worth. The
very simplicity of these material symbols implies that the senses have less and the mind far more
to do in the process of spiritual conception than in a system of more imposing and obtrusive
materialism.
II. The simple and unimposing character of the Christian ritual is an indication of spiritual
advancement again, inasmuch as it arises from the fact, THAT WHILST THE RIGHTS OF
JUDAISM WERE MAINLY DISCIPLINARY, THOSE OF CHRISTIANITY ARE SPONTANEOUS
AND EXPRESSIVE. The Jew could not eat or drink, or dress, or sow or reap, or buy or sell,
arrange his household, hold intercourse with neighbour or friend, perform any one function of
individual or social life, without being met by restrictions, forms, observances, which forced
religious impression upon him, and, in combination with the more solemn ceremonial of the
temple, left a constant deposit of spiritual thought upon the mind, and drilled the worshipper
into religious habits. In a more spiritual and reflective age, on the other hand, in which the
spiritual perceptions have become developed, and the mind has become receptive of direct
religious instruction, such sensible helps to the formation of thought are no longer necessary.
The mind in which truth has become an intuition needs no longer to spell out its conviction by
the aid of a picture-book. The avenue of spirit thrown open to the worshipper, he no more
requires to climb slowly up to the presence-chamber of the king by the circuitous route of sense.
But if ritual may in such an age be dispensed with in great measure as a means of instruction, it
still performs an important function as a means of expression. No longer necessary as a mould
for the shaping of thought, it has still its use as a form in which religious thought and feeling
may find vent. If the necessity for a visible temple and sanctuary to symbolise God’s residence
with man has ceased, now that He who is “the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express
image of His person” has dwelt amongst us-if to prompt our minds in conceiving of sin and
sacrifice, no scenic show of victims slain and life’s blood drenching earthly altars be needed, now
that the stainless, sinless, all-holy One hath once for all offered up the sacrifice of a perfect life to
God—still there is in the Christian heart the demand for outward forms andrites to embody the
reverence, the gratitude, the devotion, the love of which it is inwardly conscious. The soul, in its
relation to an unseen Father, still craves for some outer medium of expression that shall give
form to feeling—that shall tell forth its devotion to the heavenly Friend as the smile, the look, the
grasp of the hand, the meeting at the festive board, the gifts and tokens of affection, externalise
and express our sentiments towards those we love on earth. And the conclusion to which, from
this argument, we are led is obviously this, that the glory of our Christian ritual lies in its very
simplicity. For the manifestation of our common life in God, and of our common faith in Christ,
the mind craves some outward badge or symbol; and so, in gracious condescension to our needs,
our Lord has instituted the two sacramental rites; but even these He has prescribed but in
outline, leaving all accessories to be filled in, as the varied needs of His people, in different times
and places and circumstances, should dictate. And in this lies the very grandeur of its worship,
that in the “chartered freedom” of our Christian ritual, each nation and community, each
separate society and church and individual, lifting up its own note of adoration, all axe found to
blend in the one accordant anthem, the one manifold yet harmonious tribute of the universal
Church’s praise. I conclude with the remark, that the simplicity of the Christian rites serves as a
safeguard against those obvious dangers which are incident to all ritual worship.

14. 1. The chief of these is the tendency in the unspiritual mind to stop short at the symbol—in
other words, to transfer to the visible sign feelings appropriate only to the things signified, or
to rest content with the performance of outward ceremonial acts, apart from the exercise of
those devout feelings which lend to such acts any real value. A religion in which ritual holds
a prominent place is notoriously liable to degenerate into formalism. The true way to avoid
this error is, obviously, to remove as much as possible its cause. Let there be no arbitrary and
needless intervention between the soul of the worshipper and the Divine object of its
homage. Let the eye of faith gaze on the Invisible through the simplest and purest
medium-Deprive it of all excuse to trifle curiously with the telescope, instead of using it in
order to see. And forasmuch as, to earthly worship, formal aids are indispensable, let it ever
be remembered that that form is the best which least diverts attention to itself, and best
helps the soul to hold fellowship with God.
2. Moreover, the danger thus incident to an elaborate ceremonial, of substituting ritual for
religion, is increased by the too common tendency to mistake aesthetic emotion for religious
feeling. Awe, reverence, rapt contemplation, the kindling of heart and swelling of soul, which
the grand objects of faith are adapted to excite, may, in a man of sensitive mind or delicate
organisation, find a close imitation in the feelings called forth by a tasteful and splendid
ceremonial. The soul that is devoid of true reverence towards God may be rapt into a
spurious elation, while in rich and solemn tones the loud-voiced organ peals forth His
praise. The heart that never felt one throb of love to Christ may thrill with an ecstasy of
sentimental tenderness, whilst soft voices, now blending, now dividing, in combined or
responsive strains, celebrate the glories of redeeming love. It is easy to admire the sheen of
the sapphire throne, while we leave its glorious Occupant unreverenced and unrecognised.
Banish from the service of God all coarseness and rudeness—all that would distract by
offending the taste of the worshipper, just as much as all that would disturb by subjecting
him to bodily discomfort, and you leave the spirit free for its own pure and glorious exercise.
But too studiously adorn the sanctuary and its services; obtrude an artificial beauty on the
eye and sense of the worshipper, and you will surely lead to formalism and self-deception. (J.
Caird, D. D.)
Christian sanctuaries material, but not worldly:
I. THE ERECTION OF THE WORLDLY SANCTUARY. In contemplating the character of their
“worldly sanctuary” whether in the wilderness or on Mount Zion—we behold God dealing with
men in a manner accordant with the character of the covenant under which He saw fit to place
them. For whether we review the history of our world at large, or the history of God’s dealings
with His Church, we find it to be a law of the Divine Procedure, that, in civilisation and scientific
discovery, and in the attainments of knowledge and of arts, no less than in matters directly
spiritual, He allows period of lengthened infancy and childhood. In no respect does He allow
men to attain at once to maturity. Thus, in mere secular things, how old was our world ere
printing was invented, ere the powers of steam were discovered! Railways and electric
telegraphs are but of yesterday, it is with the world at large and with individual nations,
intellectually and socially, as with the individual man physically. We are born, not men and
women, but babes; we speak, and think, and understand as children; we attain manhood slowly.
It has been so with human society: it has been so with our own favoured land, where once
savages swarmed, and Druids offered their bloody rites. The history of man in every country had
been different had not this principle pervaded God’s designs and government—intellectual and
social infancy—growth from infancy to childhood—from childhood to manhood—the manhood
of intellect, and science and art, and civilisation; from the Rome of Romulus and Numa to the
Rome of Augustus from the Gauls of Caesar’s day to the French of the nineteenth century; from

15. the England of Roman conquest and Saxon rule and Norman triumph to the England of our
birth. Apply this principle to the subject before us. Israel, long familiarised with material
temples and carnal rites in Egypt, was spiritually a nation of children: their worship was wisely
and mercifully adapted to their spiritual age and attainment. For the simple worship of the more
spiritual dispensation they were wholly unprepared. Form and ceremony—material and
sensuous splendour—were needful. To have elevated and simplified their minds and tastes for
our simpler worship would have been, in fact, to have forstalled the progress of ages, and
changed the whole course of God’s procedure with His Church and with our world.
II. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE WORLDLY SANCTUARY AND THE SPIRITUAL
WORSHIP OF THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. The blessed truth, that He who was at once the
sacrificial Victim and the sacrificing Priest, by His one offering of Himself, hath made an end of
sacrifice, and for ever perfected His people, as touching their justification—these truths
discerned, experienced, bring with them true spirituality of mind and heart and life. The
believer, while he rejoices in Christ Jesus, and has “no confidence in the flesh,” exhibits also the
other feature of the apostle’s portraiture—he worships “God in the Spirit.” The temple with
which his eye and heart are filled is the spiritual temple, in which himself is a lively stone—the
Chinch of the Father’s election, of the Spirit’s sanctifying. The glory of Christianity is not in
tabernacles or temples, in carnal ordinances. The glory of Christianity is Christ; the glory of the
gospel, its message, “God is love!” And in accordance with the spirit of simplicity which
characterises its doctrines should be the spirit of its worship. (J. C. Miller, M. A.)
The candlestick
The gospel of the golden candlestick:
I. A type of the CHURCH (Rev_1:20).
1. The end and use of the Church is to give light, and to hold forth the Php_2:15; 1Ti_3:15).
2. The matter of the Church. As the candlestick was of gold, so the matter of the Church is
saints.
3. The discipline of the Church as the golden snuffers (Exo_25:38) did cut off the snuff of
the candle, so discipline and censures cut off corruption and corrupt members.
4. The union and distinction of Churches. Several branches and seven lamps—therefore
distinct; but all growing on one shaft—therefore one.
II. A type of the MINISTRY. As the candlestick supports the lamp and the light., so does the
Church the ministry; and as the lamp or candle shines in the candlestick, so does the ministry in
the Church.
III. A type of the WORD (Psa_119:105; Psa_19:10; 2Pe_1:19).
IV. A type of the SPIRIT (Rev_4:5).
1. The lamps of the candlestick did shine and give light. So the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of light
and illumination (Eph_1:19).
2. The lamps were fed with off (Exo_27:20). Now this oil is the Spirit (Isa_61:1; Act_10:38).
Of a softening and healing nature.
3. The sacred lamps were ever burning, and never went out (Ex Lev_24:3). So it is with the
Spirit of God in the hearts of His people. The true believer cannot fall away totally and
finally.

16. 4. The dressing and trimming of the lamps signified the revivings of the work of the Spirit, in
the hearts of His people, when it begins, or is in danger to decline. This teaches us both the
Lord’s goodness and our duty Mat_12:20; 2Ti_1:6). Also Church discipline and
mortification are taught us hereby (Mat_25:7).
Lessons:
1. Learn to prize and see the worth and excellency of Church society.
2. Prize the ministry.
3. Prize the Word.
4. Labour to find the Spirit burning and working in your hearts.
(1) Get fresh supplies of oil (Psa_92:10). Jesus Christ is the Fountain, and the Holy
Ghost the immediate Dispenser of it Zec_4:12).
(2) Stir up that which you have (2Ti_1:6; Rev_3:2).
(3) Snuff the wick (Jas_1:23). (S. Mather.)
The candlestick:
If the priests had had any duties to discharge at night in the holy place, I should have felt no
necessity to make any inquiry at all about the significance of the seven lights; the impossibility of
performing the sacred functions in total darkness would have been an adequate explanation. But
there was no midnight ritual; why then, when the curtain, which was thrown aside during the
day to admit the light of heaven, was closed for the night, was not the holy place left in
darkness? There seems to me to be a perfectly obvious and natural answer. The holy place was in
the thoughts of every devout Jew when he longed for the mercy of God to forgive his sin, or cried
to Him for consolation in time of trouble. It was there that, day by day, the priest offered the
incense, which was the visible symbol of all supplication and worship. That was the chamber in
which the Lord received the prayers and homage of the nation, as the most holy place was His
secret shine. And would not the lamps that burnt there during the darkness, and filled it with
light, seem to say to every troubled soul, that God never slumbered nor slept; that the darkness
and light are both alike to Him, and that at all times He is waiting to listen to the prayers of His
people? (R. W. Dale, LL. D.)
The tabernacle.
The tabernacle, and its three antitypes
The tabernacle, of course, was a type. What did it typify? Some say that it typified Christ, and,
particularly, that it typified His incarnation (Joh_1:14). Others hold that the tabernacle
represented the Christian Church. Yet a third opinion is that the tabernacle signified heaven.
Which of these opinions shall we choose? We shall not choose any one of them to the exclusion
of the others. We incline to adopt all three, and to hold that the tabernacle was a type of Christ,
and of the Church, and of heaven. The Man Christ Jesus is God’s tabernacle; so is the Church; so
is heaven. God dwells most wondrously in Christ: He dwells most graciously in the Church; and
He dwells most gloriously in heaven. Christ is God’s tabernacle to the eye of the Church; the
Church is God’s tabernacle before the world; heaven is, and, with the gathered company of the
redeemed set round the throne for ever will be God’s tabernacle before the universe. (Andrew
Gray.)

17. The golden censer
The golden censer:
You will have noticed the peculiarity of the expression at the commencement of the Heb_9:4;
“which”—i.e., the Holiest of all, “had the golden censer,” or rather, “the golden altar of incense.”
Of the holy place it is said, in Heb_9:2, “Wherein was the candlestick and the table,” &c. The
change of expression is significant. The writer does not mean to say that the altar of incense was
within the holy of holies, but that the altar of incense belonged to it. The altar actually stood in
the holy place, but more truly belonged to the holy of holies itself. It is very wonderful that any
man who had read this Epistle intelligently could imagine for a moment that it was possible for
the writer to have been so ill-informed as to have believed that the altar was actually within the
most sacred inclosure. Apart altogether from inspiration, the intimate and profound knowledge
of the Jewish system which the whole of the Epistle indicates, renders it absurd to suppose that
on such a simple matter as the.position of the altar of incense the writer could have blundered. It
would, to my mind, be just as reasonable to infer from some peculiarity of expression in Lord
Macaulay, that the great historian had erroneously imagined that the Spanish Armada came
against this country in the reign of Charles I., or to infer on similar grounds that Dr. Livingstone
was under the impression that the island of Madagascar formed part of the African continent.
(R. W. Dale, LL. D.)
The ark of the covenant
Christ typified by the ark of the covenant
I. THE ARK TYPIFIED THE DIGNITY AND PURITY OF CHRIST’S PERSON. It was made of
incorruptible wood; was overlaid with pure gold; and had crowns of gold wrought round about
it. Here is distinctly pointed out to us
1. The holiness and incorruptibility of Christ’s human nature.
2. The divinity of Jesus.
3. The regal glory of Jesus.
II. THE CONTENTS OF THE ARK TYPIFIED THE FULNESS AND WORK OF CHRIST.
1. In it were the two tables of the law. In Jesus these laws were embodied. He had them in
His heart. He exemplified them in their fullest extent.
2. In it was the golden pot of manna. So in Jesus is the bread of life. “His flesh is meat
indeed.” He is the soul’s satisfying portion.
3. In it was Aaron’s rod that budded. Typifying Christ’s exalted and abiding priesthood.
III. THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE ARK TYPIFIED THE VICTORIES OF CHRIST.
1. The ark opened a passage through Jordan to the promised land. So by Christ a way has
been opened through the grave to the heavenly Canaan.
2. By the ark’s compassing the walls of Jericho they were thrown down. So Jesus by His
Divine power spoiled the powers of darkness, and He shall finally overthrow all the bulwarks
of Satan’s empire.

18. 3. The presence of the ark broke the idol Dagon to pieces. So shall the Saviour cast down all
the idols of the heathen.
IV. THE MOVEMENTS OF THE ARK TYPIFIED THE PROGRESS AND CONSUMMATION OF
CHRIST’S KINGDOM. The ark was possessed by the Israelites, then it was in the hands of the
Philistines, and finally it was laid up in Solomon’s temple. Thus Christ was first preached to the
Jews, the gospel kingdom was first set up among them, afterwards it was extended to the
Gentiles; and when consummated, it shall consist of all nations in the heavenly temple, there to
be permanently glourious for ever and ever. Application: Learn
1. The privilege you possess in having Christ the true ark with you. In it you have treasured
up a fulness of all spiritual blessings.
2. With believing reverence draw near to it, and receive mercy, enjoy fellowship with God,
and obtain grace to help you in every time of need.
3. Despisers of Christ must inevitably perish. (J. Burns, D. D.)
The holy chest:
What was the lesson taught by this wonderful article of tabernacle furniture? Are we not to look
upon it as a picture of Jesus?
I. Let us consider the OUTSIDE. What do we see? a chest most likely about three feet long, by
eighteen inches wide, and eighteen inches deep. It is a box made of common wood, but covered
with fine gold; and is not our Jesus both human and Divine? Both are there, and you cannot
separate them; just as the ark was not perfect, though the right shape and size, till it was covered
with fine gold, so Christ could not be Jesus without the gold of divinity. Still we do not overlook
the wood, though it is covered with gold. It is sweet to know that Christ shares our nature. He
passed over the cedar of angelic life, and took the common shittim, the tree of the wilderness.
When we think of our sins, we are thankful that our Saviour was Divine, and therefore able to
save to the uttermost; but when we think of our future, we are glad that we are to spend our
eternity with the Man Christ Jesus. He is one of ourselves. Do you notice that at each corner
there is a ring of gold? What are these rings for? To receive the staves which are passed through
the rings. By these gold-covered staves the Levites carried the ark on their shoulders. The holy
thing was portable; it went before, and led the people on their march. They were sure to be safe
if they went where the ark led them. It would be a blessed thing if” the Church of God would be
persuaded to go only where Christ would have gone. But what are these figures which stand at
each end of the ark—winged creatures, whose faces are looking with such earnestness at the gold
oh the top of the ark? These are the cherubim, the representatives of the angelic world. They
gaze with interest upon the mercy-seat. Is it not Jesus who links heaven to earth? Upon what are
the cherubim gazing so intently? Follow the direction of their eyes, and what see you? There is a
spot of blood! Blood? Yes, blood. Blood on the pure gold? Yes, this ark is the meeting-place
between God and man—the only place where the Holy God can be approached by Him who
represents sinners.
II. We will now lift the lid of the ark and look INSIDE. What do we see? “The golden pot.” A
vessel of gold filled with manna! Does not this teach that in Christ we have spiritual food? Just
as the manna fell all the time the children of Israel were in the wilderness, so Jesus is the bread
of life to us, all the time we are on this side Jordan. Have another peep inside, and what meets
your gaze? “The rod that budded” (Num_17:1-13.). What does this teach us? That in Christ is the
true, God-chosen, God-honoured, God-prevalent priesthood. Look again. What see you now?
“The tables of the covenant.” The stones upon which God wrote the law. Not the first tables: they
were broken. Moses did not pick up the fragments and patch them together and put them in the

19. ark. No, it was the new, unbroken tables which were put in the ark. And is not Christ Jesus our
righteousness? Do we not glory in the fact that our Substitute was sinless? We have no
righteousness to plead, but we have a perfect Saviour. Our efforts at reformation are but a
clumsy piecing of the broken tables, but in Christ we have a perfect law. (T. Champness.)
The golden pot
The pot of manna
I. THE MANNA (Exo_16:11).
II. THE GOLDEN POT IN WHICH IT WAS CONTAINED may be applied
1. To the Divine Word; which is more precious than gold, and which is the “Word of Christ,”
every part of which is full of Him.
2. To the holy ordinances; where He is so strikingly exhibited.
3. To the preached gospel; where Christ is the Alpha and Omega.
4. To the believer’s heart.
5. To the holiest place; where He ever dwells in all His glory, as the infinite source of all the
blessedness of the heavenly world. Application:
(1) Be thankful for this heavenly bread.
(2) Receive it with all cordiality and joy.
(3) Constantly seek it in those means where His presence and blessing are promised.
(4) Despisers of Christ must starve and die. (J. Burns, D. D.)
The cherubims of glory.—The cherubim and the mercy-seat
I. We are taught by this sacred symbol, an ark thus constructed and accompanied, that THERE
IS NOW, UNDER THE EVANGELICAL DISPENSATION, A RELATION BETWIXT LAW AND
GRACE.
1. The law was there because it is eternal, and must therefore harmonise with every
dispensation of religion to man.
2. The tables of the law are there in the ark, and connected with evangelical symbols
representing the dispensation of mercy to mankind, because it was the violation of the law
by which the dispensation of mercy was rendered necessary.
3. But we see the tables of the law thus connected with evangelical symbols, to intimate to us
another truth, that the grand end of the administration of grace to man is the
re-establishment of the law’s dominion over him.
4. This connection between the law and the mercy-seat indicates, finally, that the
administration of grace is in every part consistent with law.
II. There was not only a connection between the tables of the law and the mercy-seat, but over
this mercy-seat the cherubims of glory were placed. We are therefore instructed in the fact, that
THERE IS AN HARMONIOUS RELATION BETWIXT THE DISPENSATION OF GRACE TO
MAN AND THE HEAVENLY WORLD.

20. 1. We may, therefore, observe, with respect to the angelic powers, of whom the cherubim
were the emblems, that “they have an intellectual interest in this great subject.
2. We may go farther, and say, that we have evidence from Scripture that the connection of
the angelic world with the Christian system is not one of mere intellectual curiosity and
gratification, but likewise of large and important moral benefit.
3. There is another view in which we may regard the connection between the angelic world
and the Church: they are angels and ministers; ministers to the Church, and ministers to
individuals.
III. THERE WAS THE PRESENCE OF GOD CROWNING THE WHOLE. In the sanctuary you
have not only the ark of the covenant, the tables of the law, the mercy-seat, and the cherubim
shadowing it, but the visible symbol of the Divine presence. God was there. And thus are we
shown that all things are of Him, and by Him, and for Him. The tables of the law declared His
will; the covenant sprang from His everlasting wisdom and love; the mercy-seat was His throne;
the cherubim were His servants; the holiest of all was His “resting-place” (2Ch_6:41). The
people came to worship Him, and were dismissed with His blessing. As creation itself is from the
will of God, so is redemption. All is the result of His benevolence. The whole plan of mercy
sprang from the depths of His eternal love, and all its arrangements were fixed according to the
treasures of His own knowledge and wisdom. This indicates, too, the necessity of Divine agency.
As He originated the whole scheme of redemption, so must He be present with it to give it power
and efficacy. (R. Watson.)
Of which we cannot now speak particularly
The inexpediency of dwelling on curious questions:
Sundry other things there were about the tabernacle, the narration whereof might have
delighted the reader. But St. Paul here is a moderator to himself: you are desirous to hear more,
but it is expedient to cut them off. Wherein he may be a precedent to all teachers. Though the
discussing of curious and intricate questions would more delight the auditory, yet we must not
feed their humour that way. Let us give them but a taste of them, and a whole mouthful of sound
and wholesome food. Some, peradventure, in this place would have said, Oh, Paul, why dost
thou so slightly handle the things belonging to the tabernacle? Repeat, I pray thee, every
particular to us; it doth us good to hear of them. Yet he doth not satisfy their itching ears in that.
St. Paul hath more necessary matter. Let us especially be desirous to hear of Christ our High
Priest and Bishop of our souls, of repentance, of faith in Him, of making our calling sure by good
works, of the true sanctuary of heaven, than of those earthly things: these are more profitable for
us. The Spirit of God passeth over sundry other things about the tabernacle, because He had
more substantial points in hand tending to our salvation by Christ. (W. Jones, D. D.)
9. MURRAY, THE HOLY PLACE AND THE MOST HOLY. 1-7
IN chap. vii. the eternal priesthood of Jesus has been revealed
to us. In chap. viii. we have seen Him, as Priest seated on the
throne of heaven in His twofold work. He is the Minister of
the sanctuary in the heavens. He is the Mediator of the covenant

21. in the heart of man on earth. We thus know the Priest and the
sanctuary in which He ministers ; we are now invited in this
chapter to look at the blood which He presents, and what it
ffects. The word Blood has not yet been used : in this chapter
we have it twelve times. In the first half (1-14) we have its
efficacy in opening the most holy place, and in sprinkling our
conscience to enter there; then (15-22) in dedicating the cove
nant, and cleansing all connected with it ; and after that again in
opening heaven and putting away all sin (23-28).
The first portion begins with a description of the worldly
sanctuary, the tabernacle and its furniture, of which things, the
writer says, we cannot now speak severally. Just as he said, in chap.
viii. I, This is the chief point: we have such an High Priest,
so here too, in speaking of the sanctuary, he has one great thought
which he wishes to press home. The tabernacle was so con
structed by Moses, after the heavenly pattern, as specially to
shadow forth one great truth. In that truth lies the mystery
and the glory of the New Testament, the power and joy of the
Christian life. That truth is the opening of the way into the
Holiest, the access into the presence of God.
We read: There was a tabernacle prepared, the first,
which is called the Holy Place. And after the second veil, the
tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies. The priests
go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the
service ; but into the second, the high priest alone, once in the
year, not without blood. The one thing the writer wishes to
direct our attention to is the difference and the relation between
the two compartments into which the tabernacle was divided,
and the meaning of the veil that separated them.
The inner sanctuary was called the Holiest of All, or, as it is
in Hebrew, the Holiness of Holinesses. It was the highest em
bodiment there could be of holiness ; it was the place where

22. God Most Holy dwelt. His holy presence filled it. No man
might enter there on pain of death but the high priest, and
even he only once a year. In the Holy Place, separated from
the Most Holy by a heavy veil, the priests entered and served.
The truths embodied in the house thus made after a heavenly
pattern were very simple. In the Most Holy God dwelt, but man
might not enter. In the Holy Place man might enter to serve
God, but God dwelt not there. The veil was the symbol of
separation between a holy God and sinful man : they cannot
dwell together. The tabernacle thus expressed the union of two
apparently conflicting truths. God called man to come and
worship and serve Him, and yet he might not come too near :
the veil kept him at a distance. His worship in the tabernacle
testified to his longing for the restoration to the fellowship with
God he had lost in paradise, but also to his unfitness for it, and
his inability to attain it. The two truths find their reason and
their harmony in the holiness of God, that highest attribute of
the divine Being. In it righteousness and love are combined.
Love calls the sinner near ; righteousness keeps him back. The
Holy One bids Israel build Him a house in which He will
dwell, but forbids them entering His presence there. The
entrance of the high priest once a year for a few moments was
a faint foreshadowing that the time would come when access to
the Holiest would be given. In the fulness of time righteousness
and love would be revealed in their perfect harmony in Him, in
whom those types and shadows would find their fulfilment.
The first and second tabernacles are the symbols of two
degrees of the divine nearness, two stages of access to God s
presence, two modes of fellowship with God, two ways of serving
Him. The one, to which the High Priest had access only once
a year, is the promise of what would one day be in Christ : the
nearer, the more direct and immediate approach into the pre
sence and fellowship of God. The other is the symbol of the
service of God as at a distance with a veil between, without the

23. full light of His countenance. The one thing the writer wants
us to learn is the difference between the two stages, and the way
by which God leads us from the lower to the higher.
1. Of which things we cannot now speak severally, one by one. There is a time for
doing this too. But when souls are to be led on into the perfection of Christ and His work, we
must turn then from the multiplicity of truths to the simplicity and unity of one truth, that
Christ has opened heaven. Let this be our one question, What has the heavenly High Priest
effected for me ?
2. I know what Christ has done. I need to know what He had to do. There was a Holy Place
into which man might enter. There was a Most Holy into which he might not enter. The veil shut
him out. And Christ s one work was to tear down that veil, and give us the right and the fitness
to enter, yea to dwell always in that heretofore inaccessible place. The mystery of the rent
veil, of the opened entrance Into the Holiest, is the one thing we need to learn.
2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the
lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this
was called the Holy Place.
1. BARNES, "For there was a tabernacle made - The word “tabernacle” properly means
a tent, a booth, or a hut, and was then given by way of eminence to the tent for public worship
made by Moses in the wilderness. For a description of this, see Exo. 26. In this place the word
means the “outer sanctuary” or “room” in the tabernacle; that is, the “first” room which was
entered - called here “the first.” The same word - σκηνή skene - is used in Heb_9:3 to denote
the “inner” sanctuary, or holy of holies. The tabernacle, like the temple afterward, was divided
into two parts by the veil Exo_26:31, Exo_26:33, one of which was called “the holy place,” and
the other “the holy of holies.” The exact size of the two rooms in the tabernacle is not specified in
the Scriptures, but it is commonly supposed that the tabernacle was divided in the same manner
as the temple was afterward; that is, two-thirds of the interior constituted the holy place, and
one-third the holy of holies. According to this, the holy place, or “first tabernacle” was twenty

24. cubits long by ten broad, and the most holy place was ten cubits square. The whole length of the
tabernacle was about fifty-five feet, the breadth eighteen, and the height eighteen. In the temple,
the two rooms, though of the same relative proportions, were of course much larger. See a
description of the temple in the notes on Mat_21:12. In both cases, the holy place was at the
east, and the Holy of Holies at the west end of the sacred edifice.
The first - The first room on entering the sacred edifice, here called the “first tabernacle.”
The apostle proceeds now to enumerate the various articles of furniture which were in the two
rooms of the tabernacle and temple. His object seems to be, not for information, for it could not
be supposed that they to whom he was writing were ignorant on this point, but partly to show
that it could not be said that he spoke of that of which he had no information, or that he
undervalued it; and partly to show the real nature of the institution, and to prove that it was of
an imperfect and typical character, and had a designed reference to something that was to come.
It is remarkable that though he maintains that the whole institution was a “figure” of what was
to come, and though he specifies by name all the furniture of the tabernacle, he does not attempt
to explain their particular typical character, nor does he affirm that they had such a character.
He does not say that the candlestick, and the table of show-bread, and the ark, and the
cherubim were designed to adumbrate some particular truth or fact of the future dispensation,
or had a designed spiritual meaning. It would have been happy if all expositors had followed the
example of Paul, and had been content, as he was, to state the facts about the tabernacle, and the
general truth that the dispensation was intended to introduce a more perfect economy, without
endeavoring to explain the typical import of every pin and pillar of the ancient place of worship.
If those things had such a designed typical reference, it is remarkable that Paul did not go into
an explanation of that fact in the Epistle before us. Never could a better opportunity for doing it
occur than was furnished here. Yet it was not done. Paul is silent where many expositors have
found occasion for admiration. Where they have seen the profoundest wisdom, he saw none;
where they have found spiritual instruction in the various implements of divine service in the
sanctuary, he found none.
Why should we be more wise than he was? Why attempt to hunt for types and shadows where
he found none? And why should we not be limited to the views which he actually expressed in
regard to the design and import of the ancient dispensation? Following an inspired example we
are on solid ground, and are not in danger. But the moment we leave that, and attempt to
spiritualize everything in the ancient economy, we are in an open sea without compass or chart,
and no one knows to what fairy lands he may be drifted. As there are frequent allusions in the
New Testament to the different parts of the tabernacle furniture here specified, it may be a
matter of interest and profit to furnish an illustration of the most material of them.
(Without attempting to explain the typical import of every pin and pillar of the tabernacle, one
may be excused for thinking, that such prominent parts of its furniture, as the ark, the
candlestick, and the cherubim, were designed as types. Nor can it be wrong to inquire into the
spiritual significancy of them, under such guidance as the light of Scripture, here or affords
elsewhere. This has been done by a host of most sober and learned commentators. It is of no use
to allege, that the apostle himself has given no particular explanation of these matters, since this
would have kept him back too long from his main object; and is, therefore, expressly declined by
him. “Yet,” says McLean, his manner of declining it implies, that each of these sacred utensils
had a mystical signification. They were all constructed according to particular divine directions,
Exo. 25. The apostle terms them, “the example and shadow of heavenly things,” Heb_8:5; “the
patterns of things in the heavens, Heb_9:23; and these typical patterns included not only the
tabernacle and its services, but every article of its furniture, as is plain from the words of Moses,
Exo_25:8-9. There are also other passages which seem to allude to, and even to explain, some of
these articles, such as the golden candlestick, with its seven lamps, Rev_1:12-13, Rev_1:20; the
golden censer, Rev_8:3-4; the vail, Heb_10:20; the mercy-seat, Rom_3:25; Heb_4:16; and,

25. perhaps, the angelic cherubim, 1Pe_1:12.” It must, however, be acknowledged that too great care
and caution cannot be used in investigating such subjects.)
The candlestick - For an account of the candlestick, see Exo_25:31-37. It was made of pure
gold, and had seven branches, that is, three on each side and one in the center. These branches
had on the extremities seven golden lamps, which were fed with pure olive oil, and which were
lighted “to give light over against it;” that is, they shed light on the altar of incense, the table of
show-bread, and generally on the furniture of the holy place. These branches were made with
three “bowls,” “knops,” and “flowers” occurring alternately on each one of the six branches;
while on the center or upright shaft there were four “bowls,” “knops” and “flowers” of this kind.
These ornaments were probably taken from the almond, and represented the flower of that tree
in various stages. The “bowls” on the branches of the candlestick probably meant the calyx or
cup of that plant from which the flower springs.
The “knops” probably referred to some ornament on the candlestick mingled with the “bowls”
and the “flowers,” perhaps designed as an imitation of the nut or fruit of the almond. The
“flowers” were evidently ornaments resembling the flowers on the almond-tree, wrought, as all
the rest were, in pure gold. See Bush’s notes on Exodus 25. The candlestick was undoubtedly
designed to furnish light in the dark room of the tabernacle and temple; and in accordance with
the general plan of those edifices, was ornamented after the most chaste and pure views of
ornamental architecture of those times - but there is no evidence that its branches, and bowls,
and knops, and flowers each had a special typical significance. The sacred writers are wholly
silent as to any such reference, and it is not well to attempt to be “wise above that which is
written.” An expositor of the Scripture cannot have a safer guide than the sacred writers
themselves.
How should any uninspired man know that these things had such a special typical
signification? The candlestick was placed on the south, or lefthand side of the holy place as one
entered, the row of lamps being probably parallel with the wall. It was at first placed in the
tabernacle, and afterward removed into the temple built by Solomon. Its subsequent history is
unknown. Probably it was destroyed when the temple was taken by the Chaldeans. The form of
the candlestick in the second temple, whose figure is preserved on the “Arch of Titus” in Rome,
was of somewhat different construction. But it is to be remembered that the articles taken away
from the temple by Vespasian were not the same as those made by Moses, and Josephus says
expressly that the candlestick was altered from its original form.
And the table - That is, the table on which the showbread was placed. This table was made
of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold. It was two cubits long, and one cubit broad, and a cubit and
a half high; that is, about three feet and a half in length, one foot and nine inches wide, and two
feet and a half in height. It was furnished with rings or staples, through which were passed
staves, by which it was carried. These staves, we are informed by Josephus, were removed when
the table was at rest, so that they might not be in the way of the priest as they officiated in the
tabernacle. It stood lengthwise east and west, on the north side of the holy place.
And the show-bread - On the table just described. This bread consisted of twelve loaves,
placed on the table, every Sabbath. The Hebrews affirm that they were square loaves, having the
four sides covered with leaves of gold. They were arranged in two piles, of course with six in a
pile; Lev_24:5-9. The number twelve was selected with reference to the twelve tribes of Israel.
They were made without leaven; were renewed each Sabbath, when the old loaves were then
taken away to be eaten by the priests only. The Hebrew phrase rendered “show-bread” means
properly “bread of faces,” or “bread of presence.” The Septuagint render it ᅎρτους ᅚνώπιους
artous enopious - foreplaced loaves. In the New Testament it is, ᅧ πρόθεσις τራν ᅎρτων he
prothesis ton arton - “the placing of bread;” and in Symmachus, “bread of proposition,” or placing.

26. Why it was called “bread of presence” has been a subject on which expositors have been much
divided.
Some have held that it was because it was “before,” or in the presence of the symbol of the
divine presence in the tabernacle, though in another department; some that it was because it
was set there to be seen by people, rather than to be seen by God. Others that it had an
emblematic design, looking forward to the Messiah as the food or nourishment of the soul, and
was substantially the same as the table spread with the symbols of the Saviour’s body and blood.
See Bush, in loc. But of this last-mentioned opinion, it may be asked where is the proof? It is not
found in the account of it in the Old Testament, and there is not the slightest intimation in the
New Testament that it had any such design. The object for which it was placed there can be only
a matter of conjecture, as it is not explained in the Bible, and it is more difficult to ascertain the
use and design of the show-bread than of almost any other emblem of the Jewish economy.”
Calmet. Perhaps the true idea, after all that has been written and conjectured is, that the table
and the bread were for the sake of carrying out the idea that the tabernacle was the
dwelling-place of God, and that there was a propriety that it should be prepared with the usual
appurtenances of a dwelling. Hence, there was a candlestick and a table, because these were the
common and ordinary furniture of a room; and the idea was to be kept up constantly that that
was the dwelling-place of the Most High by lighting and trimming the lamps every day, and by
renewing the bread on the table periodically. The most simple explanation of the phrase “bread
of faces,” or “bread of presence” is, that it was so called because it was set before the “face” or in
the “presence” of God in the tabernacle. The various forms which it has been supposed would
represent the table of showbread may be seen in Calmet’s Large Dictionary. The Jews say that
they were separated by plates of gold.
Which is called the sanctuary - Margin, “Or, holy.” That is, “the holy place.” The name
sanctuary was commonly given to the whole edifice, but with strict propriety appertained only to
this first room.
2. CLARKE, "For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein - The sense is here
very obscure, and the construction involved: leaving out all punctuation, which is the case with
all the very ancient MSS., the verse stands thus: Σκηνη γαρ κατεσκευασθη ᅧ πρωτη εν ᇌ ᅧ τε
λυχνια, κ. τ. λ. which I suppose an indifferent person, who understood the language, would
without hesitation render, For, there was the first tabernacle constructed, in which were the
candlestick, etc. And this tabernacle or dwelling may be called the first dwelling place which God
had among men, to distinguish it from the second dwelling place, the temple built by Solomon;
for tabernacle here is to be considered in its general sense, as implying a dwelling.
To have a proper understanding of what the apostle relates here, we should endeavor to take a
concise view of the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness. This tabernacle was the
epitome of the Jewish temple; or rather, according to this as a model was the Jewish temple
built. It comprised,
1. The court where the people might enter.
2. In this was contained the altar of burnt-offerings, on which were offered the sacrifices in
general, besides offerings of bread, wine, and other things.
3. At the bottom or lower end of this court was the tent of the covenant; the two principal
parts of the tabernacle were, the holy place and the holy of holies.

27. In the temple built by Solomon there was a court for the Levites, different from that of the
people; and, at the entrance of the holy place, a vestibule. But in the tabernacle built by Moses
these parts were not found, nor does the apostle mention them here.
In the holy place, as the apostle observes, there were,
1. The golden candlestick of seven branches, on the south.
2. The golden altar, or altar of incense, on the north.
3. The altar, or table of the show-bread; or where the twelve loaves, representing the twelve
tribes, were laid before the Lord.
1. In each branch of the golden candlestick was a lamp; these were lighted every evening, and
extinguished every morning. They were intended to give light by night.
2. The altar of incense was of gold; and a priest, chosen by lot each week, offered incense
every morning and evening in a golden censer, which he probably left on the altar after the
completion of the offering.
3. The table of the show-bread was covered with plates of gold; and on this, every Sabbath,
they placed twelve loaves in two piles, six in each, which continued there all the week till
the next Sabbath, when they were removed, and fresh loaves put in their place. The whole
of this may be seen in all its details in the book of Exodus, from chap. 35 to Exo_40:1. See
Calmet also.
Which is called the sanctuary - ᅯτις λεγεται ᅋγια· This is called holy. This clause may
apply to any of the nouns in this verse, in the nominative case, which are all of the feminine
gender; and the adjective ᅋγια, holy, may be considered here as the nominative singular
feminine, agreeing with ᅧτις. Several editions accent the words in reference to this construction.
The word σκηνη, tabernacle, may be the proper antecedent; and then we may read ᅋγία, instead
of ᅏγια: but these niceties belong chiefly to grammarians.
3. GILL, "For there was a tabernacle made,.... By the direction of Moses, according to the
pattern showed him in the Mount:
the first; that is, the first part of the tabernacle, called the holy place, in distinction from the
holy of holies, which was the second part of the tabernacle; for otherwise there were not a first
and a second tabernacle; there never was but one tabernacle:
wherein was the candlestick; that this was in the tabernacle, and on the south side of it, and
without the vail, where the apostle has placed it, is plain from Exo_26:35. This was wanting in
the second temple (o): it was a type of Christ mystical, or the church; in the general use of it, to
hold forth light, so the church holds forth the light of the Gospel, being put into it by Christ; in
the matter of it, which was pure gold, denoting the purity, worth, splendour, glory, and duration
of the church; in the parts of it, it had one shaft in the middle of it, in which all the parts met and
cemented, typical of Christ the principal, and head of the church, whose situation is in the midst
of the church, and who unites all together, and is but one: the six branches of it may intend all
the members of the church, and especially the ministers of the word; the seven lamps with oil in
them, may have a respect to the seven spirits of God, or the Spirit of God with his gifts and

28. graces, and a profession of religion with grace along with it: and it was typical of the church in
its ornaments and decorations; its bowls, knops, and flowers, may signify the various gifts of the
Spirit, beautifying ministers, and fitting them for usefulness; and in the appurtenances of it, the
tongs and snuff dishes may signify church discipline, censures, and excommunications.
And the table and the shewbread; the table, with the shewbread on it, was also in the
tabernacle, on the north side of it, and without the vail, Exo_26:35. This was also wanting in the
second temple (p): the table was typical of Christ, and of communion with him; of the person of
Christ; in the matter of it, which was Shittim wood overlaid with gold, whereby were signified
the two natures of Christ in one person; the human nature by the Shittim wood, which is
incorruptible, for though he died he saw no corruption, and is risen again, and lives for ever; and
the divine nature by the gold, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him; and in the
decorations of it, as the border, golden crown, &c. which may respect the fulness of his grace,
and the honour and glory he is crowned with, which render him exceeding valuable and
precious: and it may be typical of communion with him, either hereafter, when the saints shall
sit with him as at a table, and eat and drink with him in the kingdom of his Father; or here, to
which Christ admits them, and than which nothing is more honourable, comfortable, and
desirable; and it may be significative of the ministration of the word and ordinances, of which
Christ is the sum and substance, and in which he grants his people fellowship with him: to this
table belonged rings and bars to carry it from place to place, which was done by the priests;
where the church is, there Christ is, and there is the ministration of his word and ordinances;
and which are sometimes moved from one place to another, by the ministers of the word,
according to divine direction. The "shewbread", on the table, was typical either of the church of
Christ, the saints, who may be signified by the unleavened cakes, being true and sincere, and
without the leaven of malice and hypocrisy; and by twelve of them, which may represent the
twelve tribes of Israel, the whole spiritual Israel of God; and by bread of faces, as the word for
shewbread may be rendered, since they are always before the Lord, and his eyes are continually
upon them; they are set upon the pure table, Christ, on whom they are safe, and by whom they
are accepted with God: and the shewbread being set in rows, may denote their order and
harmony; and their being removed every sabbath day, may signify the succession of saints in the
church, as one is removed, another is brought in; and the frankincense put upon each row,
shows them to be a sweet savour to God: or else the shewbread was typical of Christ himself,
who is the bread of life, the food of his people; and may be signified by the shewbread for its
fineness and purity, being made of fine flour, Christ is the finest of the wheat, bread from
heaven, and angels' food; for its quantity, twelve cakes, with Christ, is bread enough, and to
spare, for all the elect; for its continuance, Christ always abides, and such as feed upon him live
for ever; for its gratefulness, Christ's flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed; and for its
being only for the priests, as only such who are made priests to God, live by faith on Christ; see
Lev_25:5. Moreover, the intercession of Christ may be prefigured by the shewbread, or bread of
faces, he being the angel of God's presence or face, who appears in the presence of God for his
people; and this consisting of twelve loaves, according to the number of the tribes of Israel,
shows that Christ represents the whole Israel of God in heaven, and intercedes for them; and
whereas the shewbread always continued, no sooner was one set of loaves removed, but another
was put in their room; this may point at the continual intercession of Christ for his people; and
the frankincense may denote the acceptableness of it to God.
Which is called the sanctuary; or "holy"; this refers either to the first part of the tabernacle,
which was called the holy place, in which the priests in common ministered; or else to the things
which were in it, now mentioned, the candlestick table, and shewbread; to which the Ethiopic
version adds, and the golden censer, which it leaves out in the fourth verse; which version
renders these words, "and these they call holy"; and so the Arabic version, "which are called holy