( 1 0.) Since, then, we have now such a Great High Priest; since the pro mises of the gospel are settled on so firm a foundation; and since the gos pel in its provisions of mercy is all that we can desire it to be, let us yield our hearts entirely to the Saviour, and make this salvation wholly ours. We lave the privilege, if we will, ofdrawng near to God with boldness. We may come near his throne. Though we are poor, and sinful, and deserve neither notice nor mercy, yet we may come and ask for all that we need. We may go to God, and supplicate ris favour, with the assurance that le is ready to hear. We may go "eeling that the great atonement has >een made for our sins, and that no >ther offering is now needed; that he last bloody offering which God required has been presented, and that all that he now asks is the sacrifice of a contrite and a grateful heart. All that was needful to be done on the part of God to provide a way of sal vation has been done; all that re mains is for man to forsake his sins
JOW of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high and to come back to a God who waits to be gracious.
This chapter is a continuation of the argument which has been prose cuted in the previous chapter re specting the priesthood of Christ. The apostle had demonstrated that he was to be a priest, and that he was to be, not of the Levitical order, but of the order of Melchizedek. As a consequence, he had proved that this involved a change of the law appoint ing the priesthood, and that in re spect to permanency, and happy moral influence, the priesthood of Christ far surpassed the Jewish. This thought he pursues in this chapter, and shows particularly that it involved a change in the nature of the covenant between God and his people. In the prosecu tion of this, he (1.) states the sum or principal point of the whole matter under discussion— that the priesthood of Christ was real and permanent, while that of the Hebrew economy was typical, and was destined in its own nature to be temporary. Vs. 1 — 3. (2.) There was a fitness and propriety in his being removed to heaven to perform the functions of his office there — since if he had remained on earth he could not have officiated as priest, that duty being by the law of Moses intrusted to others pertaining to another tribe. Vs. 4, 5. (3.) Christ had obtained a more exalted ministry than the Jewish priests held, because Le was the Mediator in a better cove nant — a covenant that related rather to the heart than to external observ ances. Vs. 6 — 13. That new cove nant excelled the old in the following respects:— (a) It was established on better promises. Ver. 6. (6) It was not a covenant requiring mainly ex ternal observances, but pertained to priest, whoa is set on the right hand of the throne of the Ma jesty in the heavens; » Ep. i. 20.
the soul, and the law of that covenant was written there. Vs. 7 — 10. (c) It was connected with the diffusion of the knowledge of the Lord among all classes from the highest to the lowest. Ver. 11. (d) The evidence of forgive ness might be made more clear than it was under the old dispensation, and the way in which sins are pardoned be much better understood. Ver. 12. These considerations involved the consequence, also, which is stated in ver. 13, that the old covenant was of necessity about to vanish away.
1. Now of ike things which we have spoken. Or, ' of the'thinujfi of which we are speaking' (Stuart); or as we should say, of what is said. The Greek does not necessarily mean things that had been spoken, but may refer to all that he was saying, taking the whole subject into consideration. Tf This is the sum. Or this is the principal thing; referring to what he was about to say, not what he had said. Our translators seem to have understood this as referring to a summine/ up, or recapitulation of what he had said, and there can be no doubt that the Greek would bear this interpretation. But another exposi tion has been proposed, adopted by Bloomfield, Stuart, Michaelis, and Storr, among the moderns, and found also in Sindas, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, among the ancients. It is that which regards the word rendered sum—Ke<pcihaiov—&s meaning the principal thing; the chief matter; the most important point. The rea son for this interpretation is, that the apostle in fact goes into no recapitu lation of what he had said, but enters on a new topic relating to the priest hood of Christ. Instead of going over what he had demonstrated, he enters on a more important point, that the j priesthood of Christ is performed in I heaven, and that he has entered into
2 A minister of l the sanctu ary, a and of the true tabernacle,
the true tabernacle there. All which preceded was type and shadow; this was that which the former economy had adumbrated. In the previous chapters the apostle had shown that he who sustained this office was su perior in rank to the Jewish priests; that they were frail and dying, and that the office in their hands was changing from one to another, but that that of Christ was permanent and abiding. He now conies to consider the real nature of the office itself; the sacrifice which was offered; the sub stance of which all in the former dis pensation was the type. This was the principal thing- K€(pa\aiov— the head, the most important matter; and the consideration of this is pursued through the viiith, ixth, and xth chap ters. ^[ We have such an high priest. That is settled; proved; indisputable. The Christian system is not destitute of that which was regarded as so es sential to the old dispensation — the office of a high priest. ^[ Who is set on the right hand of a throne, &c. He is exalted to honour and glory before God. The right hand Avas regarded as the place of principal honour, and when it is said that Christ is at the right hand of God, the meaning is, that he is exalted to the highest ho nour in the universe. See Note, Mark xvi. 19. Of course the language is figurative — as God has no hands lite rally—but the language conveys an important meaning, that he is near to God; is high in his affection and love, and is raised to the most ele vated situation in heaven. See Phil. ii. 9; Notes, Eph. i. 21, 22.
Greek may either mean the sanctuary — denoting the Holy of Holies; or holy things. The word sanctuary — ttHp — kodesli — was given to the tabernacle or temple as a holy place, and the plural form which is here which the Lord pitched, and not man.
used — Ta ayia — was given to the most holy place by way of eminence — the full form of the name being — t^Kn£. W^—kodesh kadashim, or ayia ayioov — hagia hagion, (Jahn's Arche. § 328), or as it is here used simply as ra Hyla, The connexion seems to require us to understand it of the most holy place, and not of holy things. The idea is, that the Lord Jesus, the Great High Priest, has en tered into the Holy of Holies in hea ven, of which that in the tabernacle was an emblem. Eor a description of the Most Holy place in the temple, see Notes on Matt. xxi. 12. *§ And of the true tabernacle. The real taber nacle in heaven, of which that among the Hebrews was but the type. The word tabernacle — O-KJ/I/T; — means pro perly a booth, hut, or tent, and was applied to the tent which Moses was directed to build as the place for the worship of God. That tabernacle, as the temple was afterwards, was re garded as the peculiar abode of God on earth. Here the reference is to heaven, as the dwelling place of God, of which that tabernacle was the emblem or symbol. It is called the ' true tabernacle,' as it is the real dwelling of God, of which the one made by Moses was but the emblem. It is not moveable and perishable like that made by man, but is unchanging and eternal, ^f IT hick the Lord pitched, and not man. The word pitched is adapted to express the setting up of a tent. When it is said that * the Lord pitched the true tabernacle,' that is, the permanent dwelling in heaven; the meaning is, that heaven has been fitted up by God himself, and that whatever is necessary to constitute that an appropriate abode for the di vine majesty has been done by him. To that glorious dwelling the Re deemer has been received, and there he performs the office of high priest in behalf of man. In what way he
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sa crifices: wherefore it is of ne cessity that this man have some what also to offer.a » Ep. 5.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that l there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the ex-
does this, the apostle specifies in the remainder of this chapter, and in chs. ix. x.
3. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices. This is a general statement about the functions of the high priest. It was the pecu liarity of the office; it constituted its essence, that some gift or sacrifice was to be presented. This was indis putable in regard to the Jewish high priest, and this is involved in the na ture of the priestly office everywhere. A priest is one who offers sacrifice, mainly in behalf of others. The prin ciples involved in the office are, (1.) that there is need that some offer ing or atonement should be made for sin; and (2.) that there is a fitness or propriety that some one should be designated to do it. Jf this idea that a priest must offer sacrifice be correct, then it follows that the name priest should not be given to any one who is not appointed to offer sacrifice. It should not, therefore, be given to the ministers of the gospel, for it is no part of their work to offer sacrifice — the great sacrifice for sin having been once offered by the Lord Jesus, and not being again to be repeated. Ac cordingly the writers in the New Testament are perfectly uniform and consistent on this point. The name priest is never once given to the mi nisters of the gospel there. They are called ministers, ambassadors, pas tors, bishops, overseers, &c., but never priests. Nor should they be so called in the Christian church. The name priest as applied to Christian minis ters, has been derived from the pa pists. They hold that the priest does offer as a sacrifice the real body and blood of Christ in the mass, and hold ing this, the name priest is given to the minister who does it consistently.
It is not indeed right or Scriptural — for the whole doctrine on which it is based is absurd and false, but while that doctrine is held the name is con sistent. But with what show of con sistency or propriety can the name be given to a Protestant minister of the gospel? ^[ Wherefore it is of ne cessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. That the Lord Jesus should make an offering. That is, since he is declared to be a priest, and since it is essential to the office that a priest should make an offering, it is indispensable that he should bring a sacrifice to God. He could not be a priest on the acknowledged principles on which that office is held, unless he did it. What the offering was which the Lord Jesus made, the apostle specifies more fully in ch. ix. 11—14. 25,26.
4. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest. He could not perform that office. The design of this is to show a reason why he was removed to heaven. The reason was, that on earth there were those who were set apart to that office, and that he, not being of the same tribe with them, could not officiate as priest. There was an order of men here on earth consecrated already to that office, and hence it was necessary that the Lord Jesus, in performing the functions of the office, should be removed to ano ther sphere.
5 Who serve unto the example. Who perform their service by the mere example and shadow of the heavenly things; or in a tabernacle, and in a mode, that is the mere em blem of the reality which exists in heaven. The reference is to the ta bernacle, which Avas a mere example or copy of heaven. The word here rendered example — vTroeta — means ample and shadow* of heavenly things, as Moses was admonish ed of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, « Col. 2. 17. c. 10. i.
a copy, likeness, or imitation. The tabernacle was made after a pattern which was shown to Moses; it was made so as to have some faint resem blance to the reality in heaven, and in that ' copy,' or ' example,' they were appointed to officiate. Their service, therefore, had some resem blance to that in heaven, ^f And shadow. That is, in the tabernacle where they served there was a mere shadow of that which was real and substantial. Compared with what is in heaven, it was what the shadow is compared with the substance. A shadow—as of a man, a house, a tree, will indicate the form, the outline, the size of the object; but it has no substance, or reality. So it was with the rites of the Jewish religion. They were designed merely as a shadow of the substantial realities of the true religion, or to present the dim out lines of what is true and real in hea ven. Comp. Notes on Col. ii. 17; Heb. x. 1. The word shadow here — o-Kid — is used in distinction from the body or reality — aa>p.a— (Comp. Col. ii. 17), and also from eiKo>i> — a perfect image or resemblance. See Heb. x. 1. ^f Of heavenly things. Of the heavenly sanctuary; of what is real and sub stantial in heaven. That is, there exists in heaven a reality of which the service in the Jewish sanctuary was but the outline. The reference is, undoubtedly, to the service which the Lord Jesus performs there as the great high priest of his people. ^[ As Moses was admonished of God. As he was divinely instructed. The word here used —xpyfJ-aTifa — means proper ly to give oracular responses; to make communications to men in a super natural way — by dreams, by direct revelations, &c. See Matt. ii. 12. 22; Luke ii. 26; Acts x. 22; Heb. XL 7; ^ For see, saith he. Ex. xxv. 9,40;
xxvi. 30. In Ex. xl. it is also repeatedly said that Moses executed all the work of the tabernacle as he had been com* manded. Great care was taken that an exact copy should be exhibited to him of all which he was to make, and that the work should be exactly like the pattern. The reason doubtless was, that as the Jewish service was to be typical, none but God could judge of the form in which the taber nacle should be made. It was not to be an edifice of architectural beauty, skill, or taste, but was designed to adumbrate important realities which were known only to God. Hence it was needful that the exact model of them should be given to Moses, and that it should be scrupulously follow ed. ^[ That thou make all things. Not only the tabernacle itself, but the al tars, the ark, the candlestick, &c. The form and materials for each were specified, and the exact pattern shown to Moses in the Mount. ^[ According to the pattern. Gr. TVTTOV — type; that is, figure, form. The word TVTTOS, type, means properly any thing produced by the agency or means of blows (from rvTrroo, I strike); hence a mark, stamp, print, impression — as that made by driving nails in the hands (John xx. 25); then a figure or form, as of an image or statue (Acts vii. 43); the form of a doctrine or opinion (Rom. vi. 17); then an example to be imitat ed or followed (I. Cor. x. 6, 1 1; Phil, iii. 17; I. Thess. i. 7; II. Thess. iii. 9); and hence a pattern, or model after which any thing is to be made. Acts vii. 44, This is the meaning here. The allusion is to a pattern such as an architect or sculptor uses; a drawing, or figure made in wood or clay, after which the work is to be modelled. The idea is, that some such drawing or model was exhibited to Moses by God on Mount Sinai, so
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent a ministry, by how much also he is the medi ator of a better1 covenant, which
7 For ifb that first covenant had been faultless then should
that he might have an exact idea of the tabernacle which was to be made. A similar drawing or model of the temple was given by David to Solo mon. I. Chron. xxiii. 11, 12. We are not, indeed, to suppose that there was in the case of the pattern shown to Moses, any miniature model of wood or stone actually created and exhibited, but that tlie form of the tabernacle was exhibited to Moses in •vision (Note, Isa. i. 1), or was so vi vidly impressed on his mind that he would have a distinct view of the edifice which was to be reared. ^[ In the Mount. In Mount Sinai; for it was while Moses was there in the presence of God, that these commu nications were made.
6. But now hath he obtained. That is, Christ, ^f A more excellent min istry. A service of a higher order, or of a more exalted nature. It was the real and substantial service of which the other was but the emblem; it pertained to things in heaven, while that was concerned with the earthly tabernacle; it was enduring, while that was to vanish away. See Notes on II. Cor. iii. 6 — 9. ^[ By how much. By as much as the new covenant is more important than the old, by so much does his ministry exceed in dig nity that under the ancient dispensa tion. «f He is the. mediator. See Notes on Gal. iii. 19, 20, where the \vord mediator is explained. It means here that Christ officiates between God and man according to the arrangements of the new covenant. ^ Of a better covenant. Marg. * Or testament.' This word properly denotes a disposition, arrangement, or ordering of things; and in the Scriptures is employed to describe the arrangements which God has made to secure the maintenance of his worship on earth, and the sal vation of men. It is uniformly used in the Septuagint and in the new Testa ment to denote the covenant which God makes with men. The word which properly denotes a covenant or compact-o-vvdrjKrj-suntheke is never used. The writers of the New Testament evidently derived its use from the Septuagint, but why the authors of that version employed it as denoting a will rather than the proper one denot ing a compact, is unknown. It has been supposed by some, and the conjecture is not wholly improbable, that it was because they were unwilling to re present God as making a compact or agreement with men, but chose rather to represent him as making a mere arrangement or ordering of things. Comp. Notes on ver. 8, and ch. ix. 16, 17. This is a better cove nant than the old, inasmuch as it relates mainly to the heart; to the pardon of sin; to a spiritual and holy religion. See ver. 10. The former related more to external rites and ob servances, and was destined to vanish away. See ver. 13. ^f Which was established upon better promises. The promises in the first covenant pertain ed mainly to the present life. They were promises of length of days; of increase of numbers; of seed time and harvest; of national privileges, and of extraordinary peace, abund ance, and prosperity. That there was also the promise of eternal life, it would be wrong to doubt; but this was not the main thing. In the new covenant, however, the promise of spiritual blessings becomes the prin cipal thing. The mind is directed to heaven; the heart is cheered with the hopes of immortal life; the favour of God and the anticipation of heaven are secured in the most ample and solemn manner.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless. See Note on ch. vii.
no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he a saith, Behold the days
come, saith the Lord, when I v/ill make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
J 1. It is implied here that God had said that that covenant was not per fect or faultless. The meaning is not that that first covenant made under Moses had any real faults — or incul cated that which was wrong, but that it did not contain the ample provision for the pardon of sin and the salva tion of the soul which was desirable. It was merely preparatory to the gos pel. •[[ Then should no place have been sought for the second. There could not have been — inasmuch as in that case it would have been impossi ble to have bettered it, and any change would have been only for the worse.
8. For finding fault with them. Or rather,' finding fault, he says to them.' The difference is only in the punctu ation, and this change is required by the passage itself. This is commonly interpreted as meaning that the fault was not found with ' them ' — that is, with the Jewish people, for they had had nothing to do in giving the cove nant, but with the covenant itself. * Stating its defects, he had said to them that he would give them one more perfect, and of which that was only preparatory.' So Grotius, Stuart, Rosenmiiller, and Erasmus under stand it. Doddridge, Koppe, and many others understand it as it is in our translation, as implying that the fault was found with the people, and they refer to the passage quoted from Jeremiah for proof, where the complaint is of the people. The Greek may bear either construction; but may we not adopt a somewhat different interpretation still? May not this be the meaning? ' For using the language of complaint, or language that implied that there was defect or error, he speaks of another covenant.' According to this, the idea would be, not that he found fault specifically either with the covenant or the peo- j pie, but generally that he used lan- I guage which implied that there was j defect somewhere when he promised l another and a better covenant. The! word rendered ' finding fault' properly | means to censure or to blame. It is | rendered in Mark vii. 2, ' they found fault,' to wit, with those who ate with unwashed hands; in Rom. ix. 19, "why doth he yet find fault?" It oc curs nowhere else in the New Testa ment. It is language used where j wrong has been done; where there is; ground of complaint; where it is de-! sirable that there should be a change. l In the passage here quoted from Jere- I miah, it is not expressly stated that | God found fault either with the cove- | nant or with the people, but that he j promised that he would give another covenant, and that it should be differ ent from that which he gave them when they came out of Egypt — im plying that there was defect in that, or that it was not faultless. The whole meaning is, that there was a deficiency which the giving of a new covenant would remove. ^[ He saith. | In Jeremiah xxxi. 31 — 34. The apos tle has not quoted the passage liter ally as it is in the Hebrew, but he has! retained the substance, and the sense is not essentially varied. The quota- [ tion appears to have been ma<i? partly j from the Septuagint, and partly from 1 memory. This often occurs in the | New Testament, f Behold. This j particle is designed to call attention j to what was about to be said as imj portant, or as having some special j claim to notice. It is of very fre quent occurrence in the Scriptures, | being much more freely used by the I sacred writers than it is in the clas- I sic authors. ^j[ The days come. The | time is coming. This refers doubt- | less to the times of the Messiah.: Phrases such as these, ' hi the last days,' ' in after times,' and ' the time is coming,' are often used in the Old Testament to denote the last dispen sation of the world — the dispensa tion when the affairs of the world would be wound up. See the phrase explained in the Notes ch. i. 2, and Isa. ii. 2. There can be no doubt that as it is used by Jeremiah it re fers to the terms of the gospel, ^f When I will make a new covenant. A cove nant that shall contemplate somewhat different ends; that shall have differ ent conditions, and that shall be more effective in restraining from sin. The word covenant here refers to the ar rangement, plan, or dispensation into which he would enter in his dealings with men. On the meaning of the word, see Notes on Acts vii. 8, and on ch. ix. 16, 17. The word covenant with us commonly denotes a compact •or agreement between two parties that are equal, and who are free to enter into the agreement or not. In this sense, of course, it cannot be used in relation to the arrangement which God makes with man. There is (1.) no equality between them, and (2.) man is not at liberty to reject any proposal Avhich God shall make. The >rord, therefore, is used in a more;general sense, and more in accordance with the original meaning of the 'Greek word. It has been above re marked (Notes on ver. 6), that the proper word to denote covenant, or -compact — (rvvdrjKTj — syntheke — is never used either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament— another word— ^Ladr]KTj — diatheke — being carefully ••employed. Whether the reason there suggested for the adoption of this word in the Septuagint be the real one or not, the fact is indisputable. 1 may be allowed to suggest as possi ble here an additional reason why this so uniformly occurs in the New Tes tament. It is, that the writers of the New Testament never meant to repre sent the transactions between God and man as a compact or covenant properly so called. They have stu diously avoided it, and their uniform practice, in making this nice distinc tion between the two words, may show the real sense in which the He brew Avord rendered covenant — i"V"12l — berith — is used in the Old Testa" ment. The word which they employ — SiadrjKrj— never means a compact oi agreement as between equals. It re motely and secondarily means a ivill, or testament — and hence our word ' New Testament.' But This is not the sense in which it is used in the Bible — for God has never made a mil in the sense of a testamentary disposi tion of what belongs to him. We are referred, therefore, in order to arrive at the true Scripture view of this whole matter, to the original meaning of the word— diatheke — diadr)Kr)—as denoting a disposition, arrangement, plan; than that Avhich is ordered, a law, precept, promise, &c. Unhap pily we have no single word which expresses the idea, and hence a con stant error has existed in the church — either keeping up the notion of a compact— as if God could make one with men; or the idea of a will — equally repugnant to truth. The word diadfjKr) is derived from a verb— Start- 6rjfjLi — meaning to place apart, to set in order; and then to appoint, to make over, to make an arrangement Avith. Hence the Avord 8iadr]KTj — diatheke — means properly the arrangement or disposition which God made with men in regard to sah'ation; the system of statutes, directions, laAvs, and pro mises by which men are to become subject to him, and to be saA-ed. The meaning here is, that he would make a new arrangement, contemplating as a primary thing that the laAv should be written in the heart; an arrange ment which would be peculiarly spi ritual in its character, and Avhich would be attended with the diffusion of just views of the Lord. Jf With the house of Israel The family, or race. of Israel, for so the word house is often used in the Scriptures and elsewhere. The word « Israel ' is used in the Scrip tures in the folloAving senses. ( 1.) As a name given to Jacob because he wrestled with the angel of God and
9 Not according to the cove nant that I made with their fa thers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them
prevailed as a prince. Gen. xxxii. 28. (2.) As denoting all who were de scended from him — called " the chil dren of Israel " — or the Jewish nation. (3.) As denoting the kingdom of the ten tribes — or the kingdom of Sama ria, or Ephraim — that kingdom hav ing taken the name Israel in contra distinction from the other kingdom, which was called Judah. (4.) As de noting the people of God in general — his true and sincere friends — his church. See notes on Rom. ii. 28, 29; ix. 6. In this place quoted from Je remiah, it seems to be used to denote the kingdom of Israel in contradis tinction from that of Judah, and to gether they denote the whole people of God, or the whole Hebrew nation. This arrangement was ratified and con firmed by the gift of the Messiah, and by implanting his laws in the heart. It is not necessary to understand this as referring to the whole of the Jews, or to the restoration of the ten tribes; but the words Israel and Judah, are used to denote the people of God in general, and the idea is, that with the true Israel under the Messiah the laws of God would be written in the heart rather than be mere external observ ances. ^ And with the house of Ju dah. The kingdom of Judah. This kingdom consisted of two tribes — Ju dah and Benjamin. The tribe of Ben jamin was, however, small, and the name was lost in that of Judah.
9. Not according to the covenant, &c- An arrangement or dispensation re lating mainly to outward observances, and to temporal blessings. The mean ing is, that the new dispensation would be different from that which was made with them when they came out of Egypt. In what respects it •would differ is specified in vs. 10 — 12. ^[ Because they continued not in my covenant. In Jeremiah, in the He brew, this is, "while my covenant
j out of the land of Egypt; be cause they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
they brake." That is, they failed to comply with the conditions on which. I promised to bestow blessings upon them. In Jeremiah this is stated as a simple fact; in the manner in which the apostle quotes it, it is given as a reason why he would give a new ar rangement. The apostle has quoted it literally from the Septuugint, and the sense is not materially varied. The word rendered 'because' — on — may mean 'since' — 'since they did. not obey that covenant, and it was ineffectual in keeping them from sin, showing that it was not perfect or complete in regard to what was need ful to be done for man, a new arrange ment shall be made that will be with out defect.' This accords with the reasoning of the apostle; and the idea is, simply, that an arrangement may be made for man adapted to produce important ends in one state of society or one age of the world, which would not be well adapted to him in another*, and which would not accomplish all which it would be desirable to ac complish for the race. So an arrange ment may be made for teaching chil dren which would not answer the pur pose of instructing those of mature years, and which at that time of life may be superseded by another. A system of measures may be adapted to the infancy of society, or to a com paratively rude period of the world, which would be ill adapted to a more advanced state of society. Such wasthe Hebrew system. It was well adapted to the Jewish community in, their circumstances, and answered the end then in view. It served to keep them separate from other people; to preserve the knowledge and the worship of the true God, and to intro duce the gospel dispensation. ^ And I regarded them not. In Jeremiah this is, " Although I was an husband unto them." The Septuagint is as it i&
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those clays, saith
the Lord;
quoted here by Paul. The Hebrew is, C2 sn^37n 'ObS'l— which may be rendered, " although'! was theirLord;" or as it is translated by Gesenius, * and I rejected them.' The word b3?2—.Baa/— means, ( 1.) to be lord or master over any thing (Isa. xxvi. 13); (2.) to become the husband of any one (Deut. xxi. 13; xxiv. I); (3.) with ^ to disdain, to reject. So Jer. iii. 14. It is very probable that this is the meaning here, for it is not only adopted by the Septuagint, but by the Syriac. So Abulwalid, Kimchi, and Rabbi Tanchiim understood it. The Arabic word means to reject, to loath, to disdain. All that is necessary to observe here is, that it cannot be de monstrated that the apostle has not given the true sense of the prophet. The probability is, that the Septua gint translators would give the mean ing which was commonly understood to be correct, and there is still more probability that the Syriac translator would adopt the true sense, for (1.) the Syriac and Hebrew languages strongly resemble each other; and (2.) the old Syriac version — the Peshito — is incomparably a better translation than the Septuagint. If this, there fore, be the correct translation, the meaning is, that since they did not regard and obey the laws which he gave them, God would reject them as his people, and give new laws better adapted to save men. Instead of re garding and treating them as his friends, he would punish them for their offences, and visit them with calamities.
10. For this is the covenant. This is the arrangement, or the dispensa tion which shall succeed the old one. ^ With the House of Israel. With the true Israel; that is, with all. those into their mind, and write them 2 in their hearts: and a I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: whom he will regard and treat as his friends. ^[ After those days. This may either mean, ' After those days I will put my laws in their hearts,' or, ' I will make this covenant with them after those days.' This difference is merely in the punctuation, and the sense is not materially affected. It seems to me, however, that the mean ing of the Hebrew in Jeremiah is, ' in those after days' (Com p. Notes on Isa. ii. 1), 'I will put my laws into their mind;' that is, in that subse quent period, called in Scripture ' the after times,' ' the last days,' ' the ages to come,' meaning the last dispensa tion of the world. Thus interpreted, the sense is, that this would be done in the times of the Messiah. «j| I will put my laws into their mind. Marg. Give. The word give in Hebrew is often used in the sense- of put. The meaning here is, that they would not be mere external observances, but would affect the conscience and the heart. The laws of the Hebrews per tained mainly to external rites and ceremonies; the laws of the new dis pensation would relate particularly to the inner man, and be designed to control the heart. The grand pecu liarity of the Christian system is, that it regulates the conscience and the principles of the soul rather than ex ternal matters. It prescribes few ex ternal rites, and those are exceedingly simple, and are merely the proper ex pressions of the pious feelings sup posed to be in the heart; and all at tempts either to increase the number of these rites, or to make them im posing by their gorgeousness, have done just so much to mar the sim plicity of the gospel, and to corrupt religion. ^[ And write them in their hearts. Marg. Upon. Not on tables of stone or brass, but on the soul it self. That is, the obedience rendered
1 1 And they shall not teach I Know the Lord: for all a shall
every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying-,
will not be external. The law o the new system will have living pow er, and bind the faculties of the sou to obedience. The commandmen there will be written in more lasting characters than if engraved on tables of stone. ^ And I will be to them c God. This is quoted literally fron the Hebrew. The meaning is, thai he would sustain to them the appro priate relation of a God; or, if the expression may be allowed, he woulc be to them what a God should be, or what it is desirable that men should find in a God. We speak of a father'; acting in a manner appropriate to the character of a father; and the mean ing here is, that he would be to his people all that is properly applied in the name of God. He would be their lawgiver, their counsellor, their pro tector, their Kedeemer, their guide. He would provide for their wants, de fend them in danger, pardon their sins, comfort them in trials, and save their souls. He would be a faithful friend, and would never leave them nor forsake them. It is one of the inestimable privileges of his people that JP:HOVAH is their God. The liv ing and ever-blessed Being who made the heavens sustain to them the rela tion of a Protector and a Friend, and they may look up to heaven feeling that he is all which they could desire in the character of a God. <f And they shall be to me a people. This is not nerely stated as a fact, but as a pri- -,'ege. It is an inestimable blessing co be regarded as one of the people of God, and to feel that we belong to him — that we are associated with those whom he loves, and whom he treats as his friends.
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, &c. That is, no cue shall be under a necessity of im parting instruction to another, or of exhorting him to become acquainted
know me from the least to the greatest.
with the Lord. This is designed to set forth another of the advantages which would attend the new dispen sation. In the previous verse it had been said that one advantage of that economy would be, that the law would be written on the heart, and that they who were thus blessed would be re garded as the people of God. An other advantage over the old arrange ment or covenant is here stated. It is, that the knowledge of the Lord and of the true religion, would be deeply engraved on the minds of all, and that there would be no necessity for mutual exhortation and counsel. " They shall have a much more cer tain and effectual teaching than they can derive from another." — Doddridge. This passage does not refer to the fact that the true religion will beuniersally diffused, but that among those who are interested in the blessings of the new covenant there would be an accurate and just knowledge of the Lord. In some way they Avould be so taught respecting his character that they would not need the aid to be derived from others. All under that dispensation, or sustaining to him the relation of ' a people,' would in "act have a correct knowledge of the Lord. This could not be said of the old dispensation, for ( 1.) their religion consisted much in outward observ ances. (2.) It Avas not to such an ix tent as the new system a dispensaion of the Holy Spirit. (3.) There rvere not as many means as now for earning the true character of God. 4.) The fullest revelations had not •een made to them of that character. That was reserved foy the coming f the Saviour, and under him it vras intended that there should be ommunicated the full knowledge of he character of God. Many MSS.,. and those among the best, here have citizen; fellow-citizen^ in-
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
stead of rr\r)oriov, neighbour, and this is adopted by Griesbach, Tittman, Rosenmiiller, Knapp, Stuart, and by many of the fathers. It is also in the version of the Ixx. in the place quoted from Jeremiah. It is not easy to de termine the true reading,'but the word neighbour better accords with the meaning of the Hebrew— 37 H — and there is strong authority from the MSS. and the versions for this read ing. ^[ And every man his brother. Another form of expression, meaning that there would be no necessity that one should teach another, ^f Saying, Know the Lord. That is, become ac quainted with God; learn his charac ter and his will. The idea is, that the true knowledge of Jehovah would prevail as a characteristic of those times. ^f For all shall know me. That is, all those referred to; all who are interested in the new covenant, and who are partakers of its bless ings. It does not mean that all per sons, in all lands, would then know the Lord— though the time Avill come when that will be true; but the ex pression is to be limited by the point under discussion. That point is not that the knowledge of the Lord will fill the whole world, but that all who are interested in the new dispensation will have a much more full and clear knowledge of God than was possessed under the old. Of the truth of this no one can doubt. Christians have a much more perfect knowledge of God and of his government than could have been leaned merely from the revelations of the Old Testament.
12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, &c. That is, the blessing of pardon will be much more richly enjoyed under the new dispen sation than it was under the old. This is the fourth circumstance ad duced in which the new covenant will surpass the old. That was compara-
13 In that he saith, A new* covenant, he hath made the first
tively severe in its inflictions (seech. x. 28); marked every offence with strictness, and employed the language of mercy much less frequently than that of justice. It was^ a system where law and justice reigned; not where mercy was the crowning and prevalent attribute. It was true that it contemplated pardon, and made ar rangements for it; but it is still true that this is much more prominent in the new dispensation than in the old. It is there the leading idea. It is that which separates it from all other sys tems. The entire arrangement is one for the pardon of sin in a manner consistent with the claims of law and justice, and it bestows the benefit of forgiveness in the most ample and perfect manner on all who are inter ested in the plan. In fact, the pecu liarity by which the gospel is distin guished from all other systems, an cient and modern, philosophic and mo ral, pagan and deistical, is that it is a system making provision for the forgiveness of sin, and actually be stowing pardon on the guilty. This is the centre, the crown, the glory of the new dispensation. God is merci ful to the unrighteousness of menj and their sins are remembered no more. *§ Will I remember no more. This is evidently spoken after the manner of men, and in accordance with human apprehension. It cannot mean literally that God forgets that men are sinners, but it means that he treats them as if this were forgotten. Their sins are not charged upon them, and they are no more punished than if they had passed entirely out of the recollection. God treats them with just as much kindness, and regards them with as sincere affection, as if their sins ceased wholly to be remem bered, or which is the same thing, as z/they had never sinned.
13 In that he saith. A new covenant, he hath made the Jirst old. That is,.
the use of the word 'new ' implies that the one which it was to supersede was 'old.' New and old stand in contradistinction from each other. Thus we speak of a new and old house, a new and old garment, &c. The object of the apostle is to show that by the very fact of the arrange ment for a new dispensation differing so much from the old, it was implied of necessity that that was to be super seded, and would vanish away. This was one of the leading points at which he arrived. ^[ Now that which dccaycth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. This is a general truth which would be undisputed, and which Paul applies to the case under consideration. An old house, or garment; an an cient tree; an aged man, all have indications that they are soon to dis appear. They cannot be expected to remain long. The very fact of their growing old is an indication that they will soon be gone. So Paul says it was with the dispensation that was represented as old. It had symptoms of decay. It had lost the vigour which it had when it was fresh and new; it had every mark of an anti quated and a declining system; and it had been expressly declared that a new and more perfect dispensation was to be given to the world. Paul concluded therefore, that the Jewish system must soon disappear.
1. The fact that we have a high priest, is fitted to impart consolation to the pious mind. Vs. 1 — 5. He ever lives, and is ever the same. He is a minister of the true sanctuary, and is ever before the mercy-seat. He enters there not once a year only, but has entered there to abide there for ever. We can never approach the throne of mercy without having a high priest there — for he at all times, day and night, appears before God. The me rits of his sacrifice are never exhaust ed, and God is never wearied with and waxeth old is ready to va nish away.
hearing his pleadings in behalf of his people. He is the same that he was when he gave himself on the cross. He has the same love and the same compassion which he had then, and that love which led him to make the atonement, will lead him always to regard with tenderness those for whom he died.
2. It is a privilege to live under the blessings of the Christian system. Ver. 6. We have a better covenant than the old one was — one less ex pensive and less burdensome, and one that is established upon better premis es. Now the sacrifice is made, and we do not have to renew it every day. It was made once for all, and need never be repeated. Having now a high priest in heaven who has made the sacrifice, we may approach him in any part of the earth, and at all times, and feel that our offering will be acceptable to him. If there is any blessing for which we ought to be thankful, it is for the Christian reli gion; for we have only to look at any portion of the heathen world, or even to the condition of the people of God under the comparatively dark and obscure Jewish dispensation, to see abundant reasons for thanksgiv ing for what we enjoy.
3. Let us often contemplate the mercies of the new dispensation with which we are favoured — the favours of that religion whose smiles and sunshine we are permitted to enjoy. Vs. 10— 12. It contains all that we want, and is exactly adapted to our condition. It has that for which every man should be thankful; and has not one thing which should lead a man to reject it. It furnishes all the se curity which we could desire for our salvation; lays upon us no oppressive burdens or charges; and accomplishes all which we ought to desire in our souls. Let us contemplate a moment the arrangements of that ' covenant, and see how fitted it is to make man blessed and happy.
First, It writes the laws of God on the mind and the heart. Ver. 10. It not only reveals them, but it secures their observance. It ha,s made ar rangements for disposing men to keep the laws— a thing which has not been introduced into any other system. Legislators may enact good laws, but they cannot induce others to obey them; parents may utter good pre cepts, but they cannot engrave them on the hearts of their children; and sages may express sound maxims and just precepts in morals, but there is no security that they will be regarded. So in all the heathen world — there is no power to inscribe good maxims and rules of living on the heart. They may be written; recorded on tablets; hung up in temples; but still men will not regard them. They will still give indulgence to evil pas sions, and lead wicked lives. But it is not so with the arrangement which God has made in the plan of salvation. One of the very first provisions of that plan is, that the laws shall be in scribed on the heart, and that there shall be a DISPOSITION to obey. Such a system is what nia-n wants, and such a system he can nowhere else find.
Secondly, This new arrangement reveals to us a God such as we need. Ver. 10. It contains the promise that he will be ' our God.' He will be to his people ail that can be desired in God; all that man could wish. He is just such a God as the human mind, when it is pure, most loves; has all the attributes which it could be de sired there should be in his character; has done all that we could desire a God to do; and is ready to do all that we could wish a God to perform. Man wants a God; a God in whom he can put confidence, and on whom he can rely. The ancient Greek philosopher wanted a God — and he would then have made a beautiful and efficient system of morals; the heathen want a God— to dwell in their empty temples, and in their corrupt hearts; the Atheist wants a God to make him calm, contented, and happy i in this Hfe — for he has no God now;! and man everywhere, wretched, sin-! ful, sufiering, dying, WANTS A GOD. I Such a God is revealed in the Bible j — one whose character we may conj template with ever-increasing admi ration; one who has all the attributes which we can desire; one who will minister to us all the consolation which we need in this world; and one who will be to us the same Got for ever and ever.
Thirdly, The new covenant con templates the diffusion of knowledge. Ver. 11. This too was what man needed, for everywhere else he has been ignorant of God and of tho way of salvation. The whole heathen world is sunk in ignorance, and in deed all men, except as they are en lightened by the gospel, are in pro found darkness on the great questions which most nearly pertain to their welfare. But it is not so with the new arrangement which God has made with his people. It is a fact that they know the Lord, and a dis pensation which would produce that is just what man needed. There are two things hinted at in ver. 1 1 of this chapter, which are worthy of more than a passing notice, illustrating the excellency of the Christian religior,. The first is, that in the new dispen sation all would know the Lord. The matter of fact is, that the obscurest and most unlettered Christian often has a knowledge of God which sages never had, and which is never obtain ed except by the teachings of the Spirit of God. However this may be accounted for, the fact cannot be de nied. There is a clear and elevating view of God; a knowledge of hiiii which exerts a practical influence on the heart, and which transforms the soul; and a correctness of apprehen sion in regard to what truth is, pos sessed by the humble Christian,though a peasant, which philosophy never imparted to its votaries. Many a sage would be instructed in the truths, of religion if he would sit down and converse with the comparatively un learned Christian, who has no book but his Bible. The other thing hinted at here is, that all would know the liord from the least to the greatest. Children and youth, as well as age and experience, would have an ac quaintance with God. This promise is remarkably verified under the new dispensation. One of the most strik ing things of the system is, the at tention which it pays to the young; one of its most wonderful effects is the knowledge which it is the means of imparting to those in early life. Many a child in the Sabbath-school has a knowledge of God which, Gre cian sages never had; many a youth in the Church has a more consistent acquaintance with God's real plan of governing and saving men, than all the teachings which philosophy could ever furnish.
Fourthly, The new dispensation contemplates the pardon of sin, and is, therefore, fitted to the condition of man. Ver. 12. It is what man needs. The knowledge of some way of par don is that which human nature has been sighing for for ages; which has been sought in every system of reli gion, and by every bloody offering; but which has never elsewhere been found. The philosopher had no as surance that God would pardon, and indeed one of the chief aims of the philosopher has been to convince him self that he had no need of pardon. The heathen have had no assurance that their offerings have availed to put away the divine anger, and to obtain forgiveness. The only assur ance anywhere furnished that sin may le forgiven, if. in the Bible. This is the great peculiarity of the system recorded there, and this it is which renders it so valuable above all the other systems. It furnishes the as surance that sins may be pardoned, and shows how it may be done. This is what we must have, or perish. And why, since Christianity reveals a way of forgiveness — a way honourable to God and not degrading to man — why should any man reject it? Why should not the guilty embrace a sys tem which proclaims pardon to the guilty, and which assures all that, if they will embrace him who is the ' Mediator of the new covenant,' ' God will be merciful to their unrighteous ness, and will remember their iniqui ties no more.'
The general design of this chapter is the same as the two preceding, to ' show that Christ as high priest is su- >erior to the Jewish high priest. This he apostle had already shown to be rue in regard to his rank, and to the dispensation of which he was the mediator.' He proceeds now to show;hat this was also true in reference to the efficacy of the sacrifice which he made; and in order to this, he gives in account of the ancient Jewish sa crifices, and compares them with that made by the Redeemer. The essen tial point is, that the former dispensa tion was mere shadow, type, or figure, and that the latter was real and effi cacious. The chapter comprises, in illustration of this general indea, the following points:
(1.) A description of the ancient tabernacle, and of the utensils that were in it. Vs. 1 — 5.
(2.) A description of the services in it, particularly of that performed by the high priest once a year. Vs. 6,7.
(3.) All this was typical and sym bolical, and was a standing demon stration that the way into the most holy place in heaven was not yet fully revealed. Vs. 8 — 10.
(4.) Christ was now come — the substance of which that Avas the sha dow; the real sacrifice of which that was the emblem. Vs. 11 — 14. He pertained as a priest to a more perfect tabernacle (ver. 11); he offered not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own blood (ver. 12); with that blood he entered into the most holy place in heaven (ver. 12); and if the blood of bulls and goats was admitted to be efficacious in putting away external uncleanness- it must be admitted that
(THEN verily the first cove nant had also l ordinances of the blood of Christ had an efficacy in cleansing the conscience. Vs. 13, 14. (5.) His blood is efficacious not only in remitting present sins, but it extends in its efficacy even to past ages, and removes the sins of those •who had worshipped God under the former covenant. Ver. 15.
(6.) The apostle then proceeds to show that it was necessary that the mediator of the new covenant should shed his OAvn blood, and that the blood thus shed should be applied to purify those for whom the sacrifice was made. Vs. 16—23. This he shows by the following considerations, viz.:
(a) He argues it from the nature of a covenant or compact, showing that it was ratified only over dead sacrifices, and that of necessity the victim that was set apart to confirm or ratify it must be slain. See Notes on Vs. 16, 17.
(6) The first covenant "was confirm ed or ratified by blood, and hence it was necessary that, since the ' pat terns' of the heavenly things were sprinkled with blood, the heavenly things themselves should be purified with better sacrifices. Vs. 18 — 23.
(7.) The offering made by the Re deemer was to be made but once. This arose from the necessity of the case, since it could not be supposed that the mediator would suffer often, as the high priest went once every year into the most holy place. He had come and died once in the last dispensation of things on earth, and then had entered into heaven and could suffer no more. Vs. 24—26.
(8.) In the close of the chapter the apostle adverts to the fact that there vras a remarkable resemblance, in one respect, between the death of Christ and the death of all men. It was appointed to them to die once, and but once, and so Christ died but once. As a man, it was in accordance with the universal condition of things that he should die once; and in ac cordance with the same condition of things it was proper that he should die but once. In like manner there was a resemblance or fitness in regard to what would occur after death. Man was to appear at the judgment. He was not to cease to be, but would stand hereafter at the bar of God. In like manner, Christ would again ap - pear. He did not cease to exist when he expired, but would appear again that he might save his people. Vs. 27, 28.
1. Then verily. Or, moreover. The object is to describe the tabernacle in which the service of God was cele brated under the former dispensation, and to show that it had a reference to wrhat was future, and was only an im perfect 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 cove nant. The word « covenant' is not in the Greek, but is not improperly sup plied. The meaning is, that the for mer arrangement or dispensation had religious rites and services connected with it. ^ Had also ordinances. Marg. Ceremonies. The Greek word means laws, precepts, ordinances; and the idea is, that there were laws regulat ing the worship of God. The Jew ish 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 appli-
2 For there was a tabernacle •made, the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, b
cable to either of them, and it is diffi cult to determine which he had in his eye. The term ' worldly,' applied to • sanctuary,' here means that it per tained to this world; it was contra distinguished from the heavenly sanc tuary not made with hands where Christ was now gone. Comp. ver. 11. 24. It does not mean that it was worldly in the sense in which that word is now used as denoting the op posite of spiritual, serious, religious, but worldly in the sense that it be longed to the earth rather than to hea ven; it was made by human hands, not directly by the hands of God.
2. For there was a tabernacle made. The word ' tabernacle' properly means a tent, a booth, or a hut, and was then given by way of eminence to the tent for public worship made by Moses in the wilderness. For a description of this, see Ex. xxv. 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 — CTKTJVT) — is used in ver. 3 to denote the inner sanctuary, or holy of holies. The tabernacle, like the temple after wards, was divided into two parts by the veil (Ex. xxvi. 31, 32); one of which was called ' the holy place,' and the other ' the holy of holies.' The exact size of the two rooms in the tabernacle is not specified in the Scrip tures, but it is commonly supposed that the tabernacle was divided in the same manner as the temple was after wards; that is, two-thirds of the in terior constituted the holy place, and one-third the holy of holies. Accord ing 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 breadfca eighteen, aud the height eighteen, [n the tem- pie, the two rooms, though of the same relative proportions, were of course much larger. Jf 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 taber nacle 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 de signed reference to something that was to come. It is remarkable that though he maintains that the whole institu tion was a 'figure,' of what was to come, and though he specifies by name all the furniture of the taber nacle, 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 showbread, and the ark, and the cherubim were designed to adumbrate some particular truth or fact of the future dispensation, or had a designed spiri tual 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 in tended to introduce a more perfect economy, without endeavouring to explain the typical import of every pin and pillar of the ancient place of worship. If those things had such a designed typical reference, it is re markable 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 in struction 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 dis pensation? Following an inspired example we are on solid ground, and are not in danger. But the moment we leave that, and attempt to spi ritualise every thing in the ancient economy, we are in an open sea with out compass or chart, and no one knows to what fairy lands he may be drifted. As there are frequent allu sions in the New Testament to the different parts of the tabernacle fur niture here specified, it may be a mat ter of interest and profit to furnish an illustration of the most material of them. ^[ The candlestick. For an ac count of the candlestick, see Ex. xxv. 31 — 37. It was made of pure gold, and had seven branches, that is, three on each side and one in the centre. These branches had on the extremities seven golden lamps, which were fed with pure olive oil, and which were lighted "to give light over against it;" that is, they shed light on the altar of incense, the table of 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 centre or upright shaft there were four •boAvls,' 'knops,' and 'flowers' of this kind. These ornaments were proba bly taken from the Almond, and re presented 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 Avhich the flower springs. The
* knops ' probably referred to some or nament on the candlestick mingled with the 'bowls' and the 'flowers,' perhaps designed as an imitation of the nut or i'ruit of the almond. The 'flowers' were evidently ornaments resembling the flowers on the almondtree, wrought, as all the rest were, in pure gold. — See Bush's Notes on Exo dus xxv. The candlestick was un doubtedly designed to furnish light in the dark room of the tabernacle and temple; and in accordance with the general plan of those edifices was or namented after the most chaste and pure views of ornamental architecture of those times — but there is no evi dence that its branches, and bowls, and knops, and flowers had each a peculiar typical significance. The sa cred 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 them selves. How should any uninspired man know that these things had such a peculiar typical signification? — The candlestick was placed on the south, or left-hand side of the holy place as one entered, the row of lamps being probably parallel with the Avail. It was at first placed in the tabernacle, and afterwards removed into the tem ple built by Solomon. Its subsequent history is unknoAvn. Probably it was destroyed when the temple Avas taken by the Chaldeans. The form of the candlestick in the second temple, whose figure is preserved on the 'Arch of Ti tus ' in Rome, Avas of someAvhat dif ferent construction. But it is to be remembered that the articles taken away from the temple by Vespasian Avere 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 shoAvbread was placed. This table was made of shittim-Avood, overlaid Avith gold. It Avas tAvo cubits long, and one cubit broad, and a cubit and a half high; that is, about three ieet and
3 And after the second veil, a
a half in length, one foot and nine inches wide, and two feet and a half in height. It was furnished with rings or staples, through which were passed staves, by which it was carried. These staves, we are informed by Josephus, •were removed when the table was at rest, so that they might not be in the way of the priests as they officiated in the tabernacle. It stood lengthwise east and west, on the noi th side of the holy place. ^[ And the shoio-brcad. On the table 'just rk.scribed. This bread consisted oi twelve loaves, placed on the tables «very Sabbath. The Hebrews &3Lrm 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. xxiv. 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 ' showbread' means properly ' bread effaces,' or ' bread of presence.' The Lxx. render it Uprovs ev^iriovs—foreplaced loaves. In the New Testament it is, r/ Trpodeais TWV apTtov—ihe Pacing 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 di vided. Some have held that it was because it was before, or in the pre sence of the symbol of the divine pre sence in the tabernacle, though in another department; some that it was because it was set there to be seen by men, rather than to be seen by God. Others that it had an emblematic de sign, 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 the tabernacle, which is called the Holiest of all;
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 dwellingplace of God, arid that there was a propriety that it should be fitted up with the usual appurtenances of a dwelling. Hence there was a candle stick 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 everj; 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. If the loaves were piled above one another, they were proba bly separated by thin plates of gold or some other substance to keep them from moulding. The Jews say that they were separated by plates of gold. ^[ Which is called the sanctuary. Marg. ' Or, holy.7 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.
3. And after the second veil. There were two veils to the tabernacle. The one, which is described in Ex. xxvi. 36, 37, was called ' the hanging for
4 Which had the golden cen ser, a and the ark b of the cove nant overlaid round about with
the door of the tent,' and was made of ' blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen,' and was suspended on five pillars of shittim-wood, over laid with gold. This answered for a door to the whole tabernacle. The second or inner veil, here referred to, divided the holy from the most holy place. This is described in Ex. xxvi. 31 — 33. It was made of the same materials as the other, though it would seem in a more costly manner, and with more embroidered work. On this veil the figures of the cherubim were curiously wrought. The design of this veil was to separate the holy from the most holy place, and in re gard to its symbolical meaning we can be at no loss, for the apostle Paul has himself explained it in this chap ter. See Notes on vs. 8—14. f The tabernacle. That is, the inner taber nacle; or that which more properly was called the tabernacle. The name was given to either of the two rooms into which it was divided, or to the whole structure. ^ Which is called the Holiest of all. It was called ' the Most Holy place;' ' the Holy of Ho lies;' or ' the Holiest of all.' It was so called because the symbol of the divine presence — the Shekinah — dwelt there between the cherubim.
4. Which had the golden censer. The censer was a fire-pan, made for the purpose of carrying fire, in order to burn incense on it in the place of worship. The forms of the censer were various. Some difficulty has been felt respecting the statement of Paul here that the ' golden censer' was in the most holy place, from the fact that no such utensil is mentioned by TMoses as pertaining to the tabernacle, nor in the description of Solomon's temple, which was modelled after the tabernacle, is there any account of it given. But the following considera tions will probably remove the diflftculty. (1.) Paul was a Jew, and was
gold, wherein was the golden ° pot that had manna, and Aaron's
familiar with what pertained to the temple, and gave such a description of it as would be in accordance with what actually existed in his time. The fact that Moses does not express ly mention it, does not prove that in fact no such censer was laid up in the most holy place. (2.) Aaron and his successors were expressly com manded to burn incense in a ' censer' in the most holy place before the mercy-seat. This was to be done on the great day of atonement, and but once in a year. Lev. xvi. 12, 13. (3.) There is every probability that the censer that was used on such an oc casion was made of gold. All the implements that were employed in the most holy place were made of gold, or overlaid with gold, and it is in the highest degree improbable that the high priest would use any other on so solemn an occasion. Comp. I. Kings vii. 50. (4.) As the golden censer was to be used only once in a year, it would naturally be laid away in some secure situation, and none would so obviously occur as the most holy place. There it would be per fectly safe. No one was permitted to enter there but the high priest, and being preserved there it would be al ways ready for his use. The state ment of Paul, therefore, has the high est probability, and undoubtedly ac cords with what actually occurred in the tabernacle and the temple. The object of the incense burned in wor ship was to produce an agreeable fra grance or smell. See Notes on Luke i. 9. ^f And the ark of the covenant. This ark or chest was made of shittimwood, was two cubits and a half long, a cubit and a half broad, and the same in height. Ex. xxv. 10. It was com pletely covered with gold, and had a lid, which was called the ' mercyseat,' on which rested the Shekinah, the symbol of the divine presence, between the outstretched wings of the rod'1 that budded, and the ta- \ bles b of the covenant;
cherubim. It was called ' the ark of the covenant,' because within it were the two tables of the covenant, or the law of God written on tables of stone. It was a simple chest, coffer, or box, with little ornament, though rich in its materials. A golden crown or moulding, ran around the top, and it had rings and staves in its sides by which it might be borne. Ex. xxv. 12 — 16. This ark was regarded as the most sacred of all the appendages of the tabernacle. Containing the law, and being the place where the symbol of the divine presence was manifested, it was regarded as pecu liarly holy, and in the various wars and revolutions in the Hebrew com monwealth, it was guarded with pe culiar care. After the passage over the Jordan it remained for some time at Gilgal (Josh. iv. 19), whence it was removal to Shiloh. I. Sam. i 3. From hence the Israelites took it to their camp, apparently to animate them in battle, but it was taken by the Phil istines. I. Sam. iv. The Philistines, however, oppressed by the hand of God, resolved to return it, and sent it to Kirjath-Jearim. I. Sam. vii. 1. In the reign of Saul it was at Nob. Da vid conveyed it to the house of Obed- Edom, and thence to his palace on Mount Zion. II. Sam. vi. At the dedication of the temple it was placed in the Holy of Holies by Solomon, where it remained for many years. Subsequently, it is said, the wicked kings of Judah, abandoning them selves to idolatry, established idols in the most holy place itself, and the priests removed the ark, and bore it from place to place to secure it from profanation. — Calmet. When Josiah ascended the throne he commanded j the priests to restore the ark to its place in the sanctuary, and forbade j them to carry it about from one place to another as they had before done. II. Chron. xxxv. 3. The subsequent history of the ark is unknown. It is probable that it was either destroyed when the city of Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, or that it was carried with other spoils to Babylon. There is no good reason to suppose that it was ever in the second temp'e, and it is generally admitted by the Jews that the ark of the covenant was one of the things that were want ing there. Aberbanel says, that the Jews flatter themselves that it will be restored by the.Messiah. ^[ If -'herein. That is, in the ark — for so the con struction naturally requires. In I.. Kings viii. 9, however it said that there was nothing in the ark, " save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb," and it has been supposed by some that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were not in the ark, but that they were in cap sules, or ledges made on its sides for their safe keeping, and that thisshould be rendered ' by the ark.' But the apostle uses the same language respecting the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron which he does about the two tables of stone, and as they were certainly in the ark, the fair con struction here is that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were in it also. The account in Ex. xvi. 32 — 34; Num. xvii. 10, is, that they were laid up in the most holy place, ' before the testimony,' and there is no improba bility whatever in the supposition that they were in the ark. Indeed.,, that would be the most safe place ta keep them, as the tabernacle was often taken down, and removed front place to place. It is clear from the passage in I. Kings viii. 9, that they were not in the ark in the temple, but there is no improbability in the sup position that before the temple was built they might have been removed from the ark and lost. When the ark was carried from place to place, or during its captivity by the Philistines, it is probable that they were lost, as we never hear of them afterwards
5 And over it the cherubim a: seat; of which we cannot now of giory shadowing* the mercy-! speak particularly.
«|f The golden pot. In Ex. xvi. 33, it is simply ' a pot,' without specifying the material. In the Septuagint it is rendered ' golden pot,' and as the other utensils of the sanctuary were of gold, it may be fairly presumed that this was also. *f That had manna. A small quantity of manna which was to be preserved as a perpetual remembrancer of the food which they had eaten in their long journey in the wilderness, and of the goodness of God, in miraculously sup plying their wants. As the manna, also, would not of itself keep (Ex. xvi. 20), the fact that this was to be laid up to be preserved from age to age, was a perpetual miracle in proof of the presence and faithfulness of God. On the subject of the manna, see Bush's Notes on Exodus xvi. 15. *5[ And Aaron's rod that budded. That budded and blossomed as a proof that God had chosen him to minister to I him. The princes of the tribes were I disposed to rebel, and to call in ques tion the authority of Aaron. To settle | the matter, each one was required to J take a rod or staff of office, and to | bring it to Moses with the name of j the tribe tc which it appertained written on it. These were laid up by Moses in the tabernacle, and it was found on the next day that the rod j marked with the name of Levi had budded, and blossomed, and produced almonds. In perpetual remembrance of this miracle, the rod was preserved in the ark. Num. xvii. Its subse-, quent history is unknown. It was j not in the ark when the temple was I built, nor is there any reason to sup- | pose that it was preserved to that time. *f And t/te tables of the covenant. The two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written. They were expressly called the ' words of the covenant' in Ex. xxxiv. 28. On the word covenant, see Notes on vs. 16 and 17 of this chapter. These two tables were in the ark at the time the temple was dedicated. I. Kings viii. 9. Their subsequent history is unknown. It is probable that they shared the fate of the ark, and were either carried to Babylon, or were destroyed when the city was taken by Nebuchadnezzar.
5. And oner it. That is, over the ark. ^[ The cherubim of glory. A Hebrew mode of expression, mean ing the glorious cherubim. The word cherubim is the Hebrew form of the plural, of which cherub is the singu lar. The word glory used here in connexion with ' cherubim* refers to the splendour or magnificence of the image, as being carved with great skill, and covered with gold. There were two cherubim on the ark, placed on the lid in such a manner that their faces looked inward towards each other, and downward toward the mercy-seat. They stretched out their wings « on high,' and covered the mercy-seat, or the lid of the ark. Ex. xxv. 18—20. Comp. I. Kings viii. 6, 7; I. Chron. xxviii. 18. In the temple, the cherubim were made of the olive-tree, and were ten cubits high. They were overlaid with gold, and were so placed that the wing of one touched the wall on one side of the Holy of Holies, and that of the other the other side, and their wings met together over the ark. I. Kings vi. 23 — 28. It is not probable, how ever, that this was the form used in the tabernacle, as wings thus ex panded would have rendered it incon venient to carry them from place to place. Of the form and design of the cherubim much has been written, and much that is the mere creation of fancy, and the fruit of wild conjec ture. Their design is not explained in the Bible, and silence in regard to it would have been wisdom. If they
6 Now when these things! bernacle, accomplishing the ser were thus ordained, the priests a j vice of God.
were intended to be symbolical, as is certainly possible (comp. Ezek x. 20 —22), it is impossible now to deter mine the object of the symbol. Who is authorised to explain it? Who can give to his speculations any thing more than the authority of pious con jecture? And of what advantage, therefore, can speculation be, where the volume of inspiration says no thing? They who wish to examine this subject more fully, with the va rious opinions that have been formed on it, may consult the following works, viz.: Calmet's Dictionary, Fragment No. 152, with the numer ous illustrations; Bush's Notes on Exodus xxv. 18; and the Quarterly Christian Spectator, vol. viii. pp. 368 — 388. Drawings resembling the cherubim were not uncommon on ancient sculptures. ^[ Shadowing. Stretching out its wings so as to cover the mercy-seat. ^[ The mercyseat. The cover of the ark on which rested the cloud or visible symbol of the divine presence. It was called ' mercy-seat,' or propitiatory — ihacTTripiov — because it was this which was sprinkled over with the blood of atonement or propitiation, and be cause it was from this place, on which the symbol of the deity rested, that God manifested himself as propitious to sinners. The blood of the atone ment was that through or by means of which he declared his mercy to the guilty. Here God was supposed to be seated, and from this place he was supposed to dispense mercy to man when the blood of the atonement was sprinkled there. This was undoubt edly designed to be a symbol of his dispensing mercy to men in virtue of the blood which the Saviour shed as the great sacrifice for guilt. See vs. 13, 14. ^[ Of which we cannot now tpeak particularly. That is. it is
7 But into the second went
not my present design to speak par ticularly of these things. These mat ters were well understood by those to whom he wrote, and his object did not require him to go into a fuller expla nation.
6. When these things were thus or dained. Thus arranged or appointed. Having shown what the tabernacle was, the apostle proceeds to show what was done in it. ^ The priests went always into the first tabernacle. The outer tabernacle called the holy place. They Avere not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, that being entered only once in a year by the High Priest. The holy place was entered every day to make the morning and evening oblation. ^[ Accomplishing the service of God. Performing the acts of worship which God had ap pointed — burning incense, &c. Luke i. 9.
7. But into the second. The second apartment or room, called the most holy place. Ver. 3. ^ Went the hiyk priest alone once every year. On the great day of atonement. Ex. xxx. 1 0. On that day he probably entered the Holy of Holies three or four times, first to burn incense, Lev. xvi. 12; then to sprinkle the blood of the bul lock on the mercy-seat, Lev. xvi. 14, then he was to kill the goat of the sin-offering, and bring that blood with in the veil and sprinkle it also on the mercy-seat, and then, perhaps, he en tered again to bring out the golden censer. The Jewish tradition is tha' he entered the Holy of Holies fo\., times on that day. After all, ho^ ever, the number of times is not cer tain, nor is it material, the only im portant point being that he entered it only on one day of the year, while the holy place was entered every day ^[ Not without blood. That is, he bare with him blood to sprinkle on th*
the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet stand ing: the high priest alone a once every year, not without blood, which he offered b for himself and for the errors of the peo ple:
8 The Holy Ghost this sig-
at two different times. ^[ Which he offered for himself. The blood of the bullock was offeree! for himself and for his house or family — thus keeping impressively before his own mind and the mind of the people the fact that $he priests even of the highest order ^•ere sinners, and needed expiation like others. Lev. xvi. 11. ^ And for the errors of the people. The blood of the goat Avas offered for them. Lev. xvi. 15. The word rendered errors — dyv6r]p.a — denotes properly ignorance, involuntary error; and then error or fault in general — the same as the He brew nUt!/D from /""Ok^ to err. The object was to make expiation for all the errors and sins of the people, and this occurred once in the year. The repetition of these sacrifices was a constant remembrancer of sin, and the design was that neither the priests nor the people should lose sight of the fact that they were violators of the law of God.
8. The Holy Ghost. Who appoint- I ed all this. The whole arrangement! in the service of the tabernacle is | represented as having been under the j direction of the Holy Ghost, or this was one of his methods of teaching j the great truths of religion, and of keeping them before the minds of men. Sometimes that Spirit taught! by direct revelation; sometimes by! the written word; and sometimes by j symbols. The tabernacle, with its | different apartments, utensils, and ser vices, was a permanent means of keep ing important truths before the minds of the ancient people of God. ^[ This signifying. That is, shoAving this ment to impress this truth on the minds of men that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made mani fest. *[ That the way into the holiest of all. Into heaven — of which the Most Holy place in the tabernacle was undoubtedly designed to be an emblem. It was the place where the visible symbol of God — the Shekinah — dwelt; where the blood of propitia tion was sprinkled, and was, there fore, an appropriate emblem of that holy heaven where God dwells, and whence pardon is obtained by the blood of the atonement. ^[ Was not yet made manifest. The way to hea ven was not opened or fully under stood. It was not known how men could appear before God, or how they would come with the hope of pardon. That way has now been opened by the ascension of the Redeemer to hea ven, and by the assurance that all who will may come in his name. ^[ While as the first tabernacle uas yet standing. As long as it stood, and the appointed services were held in it. The idea is, that until it was superseded by a more perfect system, it was a prorfthtit the way to heaven was not yet fully and freely opened, and that the Holy Ghost designed that it should be such a proof. The apos tle does not specify in what the proof consisted, but it may have been in something like the following. (1.) It was a mere symbol, and not the real ity—showing that the true way was not yet fully understood. (2.) It was entered but once a year — showing that there was not access at all times. (3.) It was entered only by the High I3riest — showing that there was not free and full access to all the people.
9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sa crifices, that could not a make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;b
(4.) It was accessible only by Jews — showing that the way in which all men might be saved was not then fully revealed. The sense is, that it was a system of types and shadows, in which there were many burdensome rites and many things to prevent men from coming before the symbol of the divinity, and was, therefore, an im perfect system. All these obstructions are now removed; the Saviour — The Great High Priest of his people — has entered heaven and ' opened it to all true believers,' and all of every nation may now have free access to God. See ver. 12. Comp. ch. x. 19 —22.
9. Which was a figure for the time then present. That is as long as the tabernacle stood. The word rendered figure irapafto\ri is not the same as type TVTTOS (Rom v. 14; Acts vii. 43, 44; John XX. 25; 1 Cor. X. 6. 11; Phil. iii. 17, et a/.) but is the word commonly rendered parable. Matt, xiii. 3. 10. 13. 18. 24. 31. 33-36. 53; xv. 15, et s«'pe, and means properly a placing side by side; then a compa rison, or similitude. Here it is used in the sense of image or symbol of something to represent other things. The idea is, that the arrangements and services of the tabernacle were a repiespntation of important realities, and of things which were more fully to be revealed at a future period. There can be no doubt that Paul meant to say that this service in general was •symbolical or typical, though this will not authorize us to attempt to spiritualize every minute arrange ment of it. Some of the things in which it was typical are specified by
10. Which stood only in meats0 and drinks, and divers wash ings/1 and carnal1 ordinances,0 imposed on them until the time of reformation.
the apostle himself, and wisdom and safety in explaining the arrangements of the tabernaele and its services con sist in adhering very closclt/ to the explanations furnished by the inspired writers. An interpreter is on an open sea, to be driven he knows not whi ther, when he takes leave of these safe pilots, f Both gifts. Thank-of ferings. ^[ And sacrifices. Bloody of ferings. The idea is, that all kinds of offerings to God were made there. ^[ That could not make him that did the service perfect. That could not take away sin and remove the stains of guilt on the soul. Note. ch. vii. 1 1; comp. ch. viii. 7; vii. 27; x. 1. 11. ^[ As pertaining to the conscience. They related mainly to outward and ceremonial rites, and even when offer ings were made for sin the conscience was not relieved. They could not expiate guilt; they could not make the soul pure; they could not of them selves impart peace to the soul by re conciling it to God. They could not fully accomplish what the conscience needed to have done in order to give it peace. Nothing will do this but the blood of the Redeemer.
10. Which stood only in meats and drinks. The idea is, that the ordi nances of the Jews, in connexion with the services of religion, consisted much of laws pertaining to what was lawful to eat and drink, &c. A con siderable part of those laws related to the distinction between clean and unclean beasts, and to such arrange ments as were designed to keep them externally distinct from other nations. It is possible also that there may be a reference here to meat and drink offerings. On the grammatical diffi-
1 1 But Christ being1 come an high a priest of good b things to come, by a greater c and more perfect tabernacle, not made with culties of tliis verse, see Stuart on the Hebrews, in loc. *§A nd divers wash ings. The various ablutions which were required in the service of the ta bernacle and the temple — washing of the hands, of the victim that was to be offered, &c. It was for this pur pose that the laver was erected in front of the tabernacle (Ex. xxx. 18; xxxi. 9; xxxv. 16), and that the bra zen sea and the lavers were constructed in connexion with the temple of Solo mon. II Cliron. iv. 3—5; I. Kings vii. 26. The Greek word here is bap tisms. On its meaning, see Notes on Matt. iii. 6; Mark vii. 4. «j[ And carnal ordinances. Marg. ' Or. rites, or cere monies. Gr. ' Ordinances of the flesh,' that is which pertained to the flesh, or to external ceremonies. The ob ject was rather to keep them exter nally pure than to cleanse the con science and make them holy in heart. ^[ Imposed on them. Laid on them — arumpmb It does not mean that there was any oppression or injustice in regard to these ordinances, but that they were appointed for a temporary purpose. ^[ Until the time of reforma tion. The word here rendered refor mation — diopdacris— means properly emendation, improvement, reform. It refers to putting a thing in a right condition; making it better; or rais ing up and restoring that which is fallen down. — Passoiv. Here the re ference is undoubtedly to the gospel as being a better system — a putting things where the;/ ought to be. Comp. Notes on Acts iii. 21. The idea here is, that those ordinances were only temporary in their nature, and were designed to endure till a more perfect system should be introduced. They were of value to introduce that better system; they were not adapted to purify the conscience and remove the stains of guilt from the soul.
11 But Christ being come. Now that the Messiah has come, a more
perfect system is introduced by which the conscience may be made free from guilt. ^An high priest of good things to come. See ch. x. 1. The apostle having described the tabernacle, and shown wherein it was defective in regard to the real wants of sinners, proceeds now to describe the Christian system, and to show how that met the real condition of man, and espe cially how it was adapted to remove sin from the soul. The phrase ' high priest of good things to come,' seems to refer to those ' good things' which belonged to the dispensation that was to come; that is, the dispensation under the Messiah. The Jews anti cipated great blessings in that time. They looked forward to better things than they enjoyed under the old dis pensation. They expected more sig nal proofs of the divine favour; a clearer knowledge of the way of par don; and more eminent spiritual en joyments. Of these, the apostle says that Christ, who had come, was now the high priest. It was he by whom they were procured; and the time had actually arrived when they might enjoy the long-anticipated good things under the Messiah. ^[ By a greater and more perfect tabernacle. The meaning is, that Christ officiated as high priest in a much more magnifi cent and perfect temple than either the tabernacle or the temple under the old dispensation. He performed the great functions of his priestly office — the sprinkling of the blood of the atonement — in heaven itself, of which the most holy place in the tabernacle was but the emblem. The Jewish high priest entered the sanctury made with hands to minister before God; Christ entered into hea ven itself. The word ' by' here — Sta — means properly through, and the idea is, that Christ passed through a more perfect tabernacle on his way to the mercy-seat in heaven than the Jew ish high priest did when he passed hands, that is to say, not of this j goats a and calves, but by Ids building. i own b blood, he entered in one*
12 Neither by the blood of j into the holy place, c having ob tained eternal redemption for us.
through the outer tabernacle (ver. 2), and through the veil into the most holy place. Probably the idea in the mind of the writer was that of the Saviour passing through the visible heavens above us, to which the veil, dividing the holy from the most holy place in the temple, bore some resem blance. Many, however, have under stood the word ' tabernacle' here as denoting the body of Clurist (see Grotius and Bloomfield in loc.~); and ac cording to this the idea is, that Christ by means of his own body and blood offered as a sacrifice, entered into the most holy place in heaven. But it seems to "me that the whole scope of the passage requires us to understand it of the more perfect temple in hea ven where Christ performs his minis try, and of which the tabernacle of the Hebrews was but the emblem. Christ did not belong to the tribe of Levi; he was not an high priest of the order of Aaron; he did not enter the holy place on earth, but he entered the heavens, and perfects the work of his ministry there. ^[ Not made with hands. A phrase that properly describes heaven as being fitted up by God himself. See Notes on II. Cor. v. 1. ^ Not of this building. Gr. ' Of this creation — Krio-fcos. The meaning is, that the place where he officiates is not fitted up by human power and art, but is the work of God. The ob ject is to show that his ministry is altogether more perfect than that which could be rendered by a Jewish priest, and performed in a temple which could not have been reared by human skill and power.
12. Neither by the blood of goats and cakes. The Jewish sacrifice consisted of the shedding of the blood of animals. On the great day of the atonement the high priest to\>k with him into the most holy place (1) the blood of a young bullock (Lev. xvi. 3. 11), which is here called the blood of a ' calf/ which he offered for his own sin; and (2.) the blood of a goat, as a sin-offering for others. Lev. xvi. 9. 15. It was by, or by means of — 8ia — blood thus sprinkled on the mercyseat that the high priest sought the forgiveness of his own sins and the sins of the people. *fl" But by his own blood. That is, by his own blood shed for the remission of sins. The mean ing is, that it was in virtue of his own blood, or by means of that, that he sought the pardon of his people. That blood was not shed for himself— for he had no sin — and consequently there was a material difference be tween his offering and that of the Jewish high priest. The difference related to such points as these. (1.) The offering which Christ made was wholly for others; that of the Jewish priest for himself as well as for them. (2.) The blood offered by the Jewish priest was that of animals; that offer ed by the Saviour was his own. (3.) That offered by the Jewish priest was only an emblem or type — for it could not take away sin; that offered by Christ had a real efficacy and re moves transgression from the soul. *[ He entered into the holy place. Hea ven. The meaning is, that as the Jewish high priest bore the blood of the animal into the Holy of Holies, and sprinkled it there as the means of expiation, so the offering which Christ has to make in heaven, or the consideration on which lie pleads for the pardon of his people, is the blood which he shed on Calvary. Having made the atonement, he now pleads the merit of it as a reason why sin ners should be saved. It is not, of course, meant that he literally bore his own blood into heaven — as the high priest did the blood of the bul-
13 For if the blood of bulls •and of goats, and the ashes a of
lock and the goat into the sanctuary; or that he literally sprinkled it on the mercy-seat there, but that that blood, having been shed for sin, is now the.ground of his pleading and interces sion for the pardon of sin — as the sprinkled blood of the Jewish sacrifice was the ground of the pleading of the Jewish high priest for the pardon of himself and the people. ^[ Having obtained eternal redemption for us. That is, by the shedding of his blood. On the meaning of the word redemp tion, see Notes on Gal. iii. 13. The redemption which the Lord Jesus effected for his people is eternal. It •will continue for ever. It is not a temporary deliverance leaving the re deemed in danger of falling into sin and ruin, but it makes salvation secure, and in its' effects extends "through eternity. Who can estimate the extent of that love which pur chased for us stick a redemption? Who can be sufficiently grateful that he is thus redeemed? The doctrine in this verse is, that the blood of Christ is the means of redemption, •or atones for sin. In the following verses the apostle shows that it not only makes atonement for sin, but that it is the means of sanctifying or purifying the soul.
13. For if the blood of bulls and of yoats. Referring still to the great day of atonement, when the offering made was the sacrifice of a bullock and a goat. <*[ And the ashes of an heifer. For an account of this, see Numbers xix. 2—10. In ver. 9, it is said that the ashes of the heifer, after it was burnt, should be kept ' for a water of separation; it is a purifica tion for sin.' That is, the ashes were to be carefully preserved, and being mixed with water were sprinkled on those who were from any cause cere monially impure. The reason for this appears to have been that the heifer was considered as a sacrifice an heifer sprinkling the un clean, sanctifieth to the puritying of the flesh;
whose blood has been offered, and the application of the ashes to which she had been burnt was regarded as an evidence of participation in that sa crifice. It was needful, where the laws were so numerous respecting external pollutions, or where the mem bers of the Jewish community were regarded as so frequently ' unclean by contact with dead bodies, and in various other ways, that there should be some method in which they could be declared to be cleansed from their ' uncleanness.' The nature of these institutions also required that this should be in connexion Avith sacrifice, and in order to this, it was arranged that there should be this permanent sacrifice— the ashes of the heifer that had been sacrificed — of which they could avail themselves at any time, without the expense and delay of making a bloody offering specifically for the occasion. It was, therefore, a provision of convenience, and at the same time was designed to keep up the idea, that all purification was somehow connected with the shed ding of blood. ^[ Sprinkling the un clean. Mingled with water, and sprinkled on the unclean. The word unclean here refers to such as had been defiled by contact with dead bodies, or when one had died in the family, &c. See Num. xix. 11 — 22. ^[ Sanctifieth to the purifying of the Jiesh. Makes holy so far as the flesh or body is concerned. The uncleanness here referred to related to the body only, and of course the means of cleansing extended only to that. It was not designed to give peace to the conscience, or to expiate moral offences. The offering thus made re moved the obstructions to the worship of God so far as to allow him who had been defiled to approach him in a re gular manner. Thus much the apos tle allows was accomplished by the Jewish rites. They had an efficacy