Hebrews 9 commentary

HEBREWS 9 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
1 ow the first covenant had regulations for
worship and also an earthly sanctuary.
1. BAR ES, "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, 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: ‫הוא‬ ‫שם‬ ‫שלו‬ ‫קוזמיקון‬ ‫כל‬ 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 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 ‫שלמעלה‬ ‫,מקדש‬ "a
sanctuary above", and ‫שלמטה‬ ‫,מקדש‬ "a sanctuary below" (m), and of ‫דלעילא‬ ‫,משכנא‬ "a
tabernacle above", and ‫דלתתא‬ ‫,משכנא‬ "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. HE RY, "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.
1. In the outer part: and there were several things, of which you have here a sort of
schedule. (1.) The candlestick; doubtless not an empty and unlighted one, but where the
lamps were always burning. And there was need of it, for there were no windows in the
sanctuary; and this was to convince the Jews of the darkness and the mysterious nature
of that dispensation. Their light was only candle-light, in comparison of the fullness of
light which Christ, the Sun of righteousness, would bring along with him, and
communicate to his people; for all our light is derived from him the fountain of light. (2.)
The table and the show-bread set upon it. This table was set directly opposite to the
candlestick, which shows that by light from Christ we must have communion with him
and with one another. We must not come in the dark to his table, but by light from
Christ must discern the Lord's body. On this table were placed twelve loaves for the
twelve tribes of Israel, a loaf for a tribe, which stood from sabbath to sabbath, and on
that day were renewed. This show-bread may be considered either as the provision of the
palace (though the King of Israel needed it not, yet, in resemblance of the palaces of
earthly kings, there must be this provision laid in weekly), or the provision made in
Christ for the souls of his people, suitable to the wants and to the relief of their souls. He
is the bread of life; in our Father's house there is bread enough and to spare; we may
have fresh supplies from Christ, especially every Lord's day. This outer part is called the
sanctuary or holy, because erected to the worship of a holy God, to represent a holy
Jesus, and to entertain a holy people, for their further improvement in holiness.

5. JAMISO , "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.
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. CALVI , "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.
6B. PINK, “PINK, “PINK, “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
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.
DispensationalismDispensationalismDispensationalismDispensationalism - 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.
PINK, “PINK, “PINK, “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 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. HAWKER, "(1) Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service,
and a worldly sanctuary. (2) For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the
candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. (3) And
after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; (4) Which had the
golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid roundabout with gold, wherein was
the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the
covenant; (5) And over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which we
cannot now speak particularly.
How gracious was it in God the Holy Ghost, to give the Church an account, as he hath
here done, of the furniture of the tabernacle and so blessedly explained the subject, as he
hath hereafter done in this chapter, in relation to Christ. Oh! the goodness and
condescension of God the Spirit! Truly was it said, by our dear Lord, concerning him,
when teaching his disciples to be on the lookout for his coming after Christ’s departure,
he shall not speak of himself, And where do we find the blessed Spirit speaking of
himself? But he shall glorify me, said Jesus. And, oh! Reader, how doth the Holy Ghost
indeed glorify my Lord to my poor soul, when Ha shews me more and more the plague of
my own heart; and that there is none in heaven or earth that can bring a remedy for it,
but the Lord Jesus Christ Joh_16:13-14. I do hope, before we close this Chapter, both,
the Writer and Reader (if it be the Lord’s holy will) may find cause to raise a renewed
monument of praise to the Holy Spirit, for what He hath here revealed of all-precious
Jesus!
I desire the Reader, one by one, to observe the several articles here enumerated, in what
belonged to what is called the first covenant. All were costly. And as all was of God’s own
appointment in divine service, and yet were but typical and preparatory to the Gospel
Church of Christ, they serve the more to shew of what vast importance in God’s sight
must have been, and still is, that glorious dispensation by Christ, which was thus set
forth with such a world of attention? The first court, which was called the holy place, and
used in daily service, contained the candlestick, to intimate, perhaps, that as the light
there shining communicates brightness around, so Christ, in his Church, is the sole light
of his Church. The table, which is said to have been made of Shittim-wood, Exo_25:10,
and which was not liable to be worm-eaten, was perhaps typical of the incorruptible
nature of Christ’s humanity, which, though subject to death, as the sacrifice for sin, yet
not to corruption, Ps 16. And as a table is a place of fellowship in families, where the
several members partake of the same viands, it is probable that the Holy Ghost might
intend to convey, by this representation, the communion and fellowship Christ and his
members have with each other. All these were, in what was called the sanctuary, or holy
place, to distinguish it both from the world without, and the Holy of Holies within. Here
was performed all the ordinary service of the priests, in their daily ministration. Christ
must be the daily light, and life, and food, and communion of his people. To Him do all

his redeemed; whom he hath made kings and priests to the Father, duly come, and by
him offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving
thanks to his name, Heb_13:15.
By the second vail is meant within the vail, for there was but one veil in the sanctuary,
Exo_26:33, and which was rent in the moment of Christ’s death, to imply that all
intervening obstructions, which kept the people of God from the Lord, was now done
away by that death. Jesus had then removed forever the vail spread over all nations, Isa_
25:6-8; Col_2:14. Hence the call to draw nigh, Heb_10:19-23. The furniture within this
vail, which was called the holy of holies, was, no doubt, highly significant also; but, as
the Apostle’s speaking of those things in full declared that he could not now speak
particularly, so may we. That they were all typical, seems to be without all doubt, for the
law itself was a shadow of good things to come. But there is a certain obscurity thrown
over such things as are not immediately necessary to be known, for wise and good
purposes. We can, and do, through divine teaching, behold the figure of Christ, in the
golden Censer: see Rev_8:3-4. and in the Ark also, there could be no other than Christ
intended, who is to all his elect as the Ark was to Noah, into which the Patriarch entered
by faith, Heb_11:7. The Pot that had manna, which in its nature is so perishing, and yet
so wonderfully preserved by this means, very strongly, and aptly represented Christ,
preserving our nature. And the Rod that budded, pointed to Him, who is Jehovah’s rod
of strength, and the everlasting bud, blossom, and fruit of Jehovah’s eternal love, to all
his people forever, Psa_110:2. The tables of the Covenant, perhaps had an allusion to
God’s New Testament dispensation, when God promised to write them in the living
tables of the heart of his people, Heb_8:10; 2Co_3:3. And the Cherubim of glory, could
mean no other than what from the first, at the gate of Eden, represented the glorious
Persons in Jehovah. Through all the word of God it is plain, the Cherubim could have
allusion to none but the Lord. Reader! think with what a vast preparation the Gospel of
Christ hath been ushered in, and how infinitely important, therefore, it must be? Oh! for
grace, to contemplate more and more, the Person of the Lord Jesus, in, whom all centre,
and who is the sum and substance of all!
8. SBC, "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.
9. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "The first covenant had also ordinances
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 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 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.
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
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 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.
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 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.
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.)
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.
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 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.
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.)
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. BAR ES, "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 skēnē
- 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 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, 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 enōpious - foreplaced
loaves. In the New Testament it is, ᅧ πρόθεσις τራν ᅎρτων hē prothesis tōn artōn - “the
placing of bread;” and in Symmachus, “bread of proposition,” or placing. Why it was
called “bread of presence” has been a subject on which expositors have been much
divided.
Some have held that it was because it was “before,” or in the presence of the symbol of
the divine presence in the tabernacle, though in another department; some that it was
because it was set there to be seen by 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.
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 graces, and a
profession of religion with grace along with it: and it was typical of the church in its

Hebrews 9 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Hebrews 9 commentary

Similar to Hebrews 9 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Hebrews 9 commentary