Hebrews Chapter 9/Commentary

Hebrews Chapter 9

The Hebrew writer in chapter 8:2-5 had argued that Christ ministers in a much higher realm than the Levitical priests, for they served in a mere copy while Christ serves in the heavenly original. The Levitical priest’s area of service is now examined in greater detail (9:1-7). An overview of the tabernacle is given (9:1-5) and then the daily service accomplished by the priests (9:6). The activities on the Day of Atonement are then brought before our eyes (9:7). Such activities are described in greater detail in Leviticus 16. The point the writer makes is incredibly strong. The grandest display of sacrifice in the Old Testament (The Day of Atonement) failed to completely atone for sin (9:9-10). “It was a noble ritual, a thing of dignity and beauty; but it was only an unavailing shadow. The only priest and the only sacrifice which can open the way to God for all men is Jesus Christ” (Barclay p. 101). “In this discussion of the sanctuary inaugurated with the first covenant, there is no attempt by the author to disparage the former system. He speaks of it with dignity and in some detail before proceeding to show the superiority of the heavenly sanctuary” (Kent p. 160).

9:1 “Now even the first covenant”: The word “covenant” is in italics for all the ancient manuscripts here have simply “first”, so from the context we must supply some noun in agreement with the term “first”. In the previous chapter, the writer had been talking about the first and second “covenants” (8:6-7,13). “Had regulations of divine worship”: This infers that the new and better covenant has regulations that govern worship as well. That is, there is also a pattern for worship in the New Testament. Notice the past tense had. The past tense is used since the New Covenant has already been established. “The method of worship, the priestly activities, under the Mosaic Covenant was not left haphazard. God gave the regulations about how this service was to be conducted, it did not just evolve by human invention” (Reese p. 138). Many of these divine regulations can be found in Exodus chapters 25-26. We should note that the New Testament agrees that God gave the Old Testament system.

1

9:1 “And the earthly sanctuary”: God also gave detailed instructions concerning the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 25:40). The tabernacle here is called “earthly” to “call attention to the fact that it was material, temporal, and perishable” (Reese p.

138). Compare with 8:2; 9:11, 24. There is no implication of evil in the expression here.

The main description of the tabernacle in the wilderness is in Exodus chapters 25, 31 and 35-40. The court in which the tabernacle was situated was 150 feet long and 75 feet wide, and a curtain-like fence of fine, twined linen 7 1/2 feet high surrounded it.

The tabernacle itself was constructed of 48 acacia beams, 15 feet high and 2 feet 3 inches wide. They were overlaid with pure gold and rested in sockets of silver. They were bound together by outside connecting rods and by a wooden tie beam that ran through their center. The tabernacle was divided into two parts. The first--twothirds of the whole-was “The Holy Place”; the inner part-one-third of the whole-a cube 15 feet on each side, was “The Holy of Holies”. The curtain which hung in front of the holy place was supported on five brass pillars and was made of fine linen wrought in blue, purple, and scarlet.

9:2 “For there was a tabernacle prepared”: The term “prepared” here does not refer to the pitching of the tabernacle, but to the manufacture or original crafting of this structure and all its furnishings. Reese notes, “It is noteworthy that Hebrews throughout refers to the ‘tabernacle’, and not once to the temples (Solomon’s, Zerubbabel’s, or Herod’s) that succeeded it. Though they were built on the same general model or floor plan, not everyone was happy with the changes that their very design and construction necessitated. No one, however, faulted the original tabernacle. The author’s argument could be drawn from it, without the force of the argument being evaded by someone’s saying, ‘I never approved of that temple anyway!’” (p. 139).

9:2 “The outer one”: That is the first room the priest entered as he went into the two-roomed tent. The dimensions of this first room, the Holy Place, were about 30 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 15 feet high. Reese notes, “The outer walls of both rooms were made of boards, 20 for each side (north and south) and 6 for the west end. Each board was 15 feet long and about 2’3” wide. Each board had two tenons at one end, to be stood upright in 2 sockets of silver. Once the boards were stood upright, butting against each other side by side, they were held together with 5 bars 2

or poles run through golden rings in the boards. The boards were overlaid with gold. Ten sheets of cloth, each 42’ long and 6’ wide, made of blue and white and purple and scarlet linen, with cherubs worked thereon of needlework, were spread over the erected boards, making a sort of ceiling for the rooms. The outside of this structure was then covered by several layers of waterproof materials to protect the furniture inside from the elements” (pp. 139-140).

9:2 “In which were the lampstand”: Here we begin to encounter a list of the furniture found in the Holy Place. This lampstand was made of pure gold and it is described in Exodus 25:31-39 and 37:17-24. The lampstand gave the only light there was inside the whole tent. The Greek term for the lampstand is luchnia and the Hebrew is menorah. “Candlestick” gives the wrong mental image, for this lampstand was oil fed (no candles) and it consisted of an upright shaft with six branches, three on each side of the shaft. “And the table and the sacred bread”: That is, the table on which the sacred showbread was stacked. This table was placed opposite the lampstand. The original table was made of acacia wood and overlaid with gold. It was about 3 feet long, 18 inches wide and about 2 feet high. The dishes on this table were also made of gold. For the description of this table see Exodus 25:23-30; 37:10-16. On this table were placed twelve loaves of bread. The loaves were changed each Sabbath, and on top of each stack was placed a cup of frankincense (Leviticus 24:5-9). The old loaves became food for the priests. The loaves were called “showbread” or “loaves of presentation”, which literally means “bread of the face” or loaves which were placed before God’s presence. “This is called the holy place”: This was the name given to this first compartment.

9:3 “And behind the second veil”: This veil is called the second to distinguish it from the veil at the entrance of the holy place (Exodus 26:36,37; 36:37). “There was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies”: “The room to which this veil led was the holy of holies, whose measurements apparently formed a cube 15 feet in each dimension. This was the chamber which only the high priest could enter, and he only once a year” (Kent p. 163).

9:4 “Having a golden altar of incense”: Some identify this “altar” as a “censer”, i.e., the instrument used to carry coals from the brazen altar into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:12). Yet another key piece of furniture in the tabernacle was the golden altar of incense; it is unlikely that the writer would have overlooked it in describing the tabernacle. Secondly, the censer could not be 3

located in the holy of holies, because the high priest could only enter the holy of holies with the censer already in his hand. One problem at this point that commentators encounter is that the Old Testament appears to place the golden altar of incense in the first compartment (holy place) and not the second (Exodus 30:1-10). Yet even in those passages this altar is inherently connected with the Ark of the Covenant. The same is true in Exodus 40:5 and 1 Kings 6:22.

Kent argues that the writer is following precisely the thinking, as well as the terminology, of the Old Testament which also describes the incense altar in relation to the veil and the ark, rather than in terms of the chamber in which it actually was placed. “The altar of incense was thus described in this fashion because of its close association with the Day of Atonement, for the high priest took burning incense from that altar with him into the holy of holies so that the smoke of it would cover the mercy seat and protect him from death (Leviticus 16:12,13)” (p. 164).

9:4 “And the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold”: This piece of furniture was a chest, overlaid with gold; it was about 4’5” long, 2.25’ wide and 2.25 high. For a description of this ark see Exodus 25:10-15. The last notices in Scripture for the existence of this ark are from the time of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10), and the reign of Josiah (2 Chronicles 25:3). The ark might have been destroyed or taken to Babylon when Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 B.C..

Jewish tradition has it that Jeremiah hid the ark and other furniture in a cave on Mt. Nebo (2 Maccabees 21:8). In Samaritan tradition, the Ark and the holy vessels of the tabernacle were hidden on Mt. Gerizim (see Josephus Antiquities, 18:4:1). There was no Ark in either Zerubbabel’s temple or Herod’s temple. When the Roman general Pompey forced his way into the temple in 63 B.C., he found only the furniture belonging to the Holy Place. The postexilic temple of Zerubbabel contained only a stone slab on which the high priest placed his censer on the Day of Atonement.

9:4 “In which was a golden jar holding the manna”: See Exodus 16:33-34. “Manna would not ordinarily keep very long (Exodus 16:20). Some have supposed that the fact that some could be laid up in a jar in the Ark and preserved from age to age appears to have been a perpetual miracle in proof of the presence and faithfulness of God” (Reese p. 145). “And Aaron’s rod which budded”: See Numbers 17. We need to be impressed that the New Testament endorses both of these miraculous events. In the passing of time, both the jar of manna and the rod seem to have 4

disappeared before Solomon’s time (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10). It is assumed by many that they disappeared at the time the Philistines captured the Ark (1 Samuel 4:10-11). “And the tables of the covenant”: These were the two tables of stone on which were written the Ten Commandments (Exodus 31:18; 32:15; 34:28). They were put inside the Ark (Exodus 40:20), and were still in the Ark when Solomon’s temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10). The subsequent history of the tablets of stone is unknown, perhaps they were destroyed with the ark.

The writer has already labeled the first covenant as obsolete (8:13). He is now describing the furnishings of that obsolete covenant, which include the two tables of stone. This means that the Ten Commandments, as with the entire first covenant, are obsolete, which also means we are no longer under the command to observe the Sabbath Day. 9:5 “And above it”: Above the Ark. “Were the cherubim of glory”: The exact form and shape of the cherubim atop the Ark is not known. The term “cherub” is a word that means “guardian” or “keeper”, and “cherubim” is the plural of the term. There were two cherubims on the Ark, made of beaten gold, placed on the lid in such a manner that their faces looked toward each other, and downward at the mercy-seat (see Exodus 25:18-22; 37:7-9). The term glory may have been a reference to the Shekinah, the luminous cloud, symbolizing God’s presence, that rested above the mercy seat (Exodus 25:18-22; 29:43; Numbers 7:89). “Overshadowing the mercy seat”: The Greek term rendered “mercy seat” is hilasterion and the Hebrew term is kapporet. “The familiar English term ‘mercy seat’ comes from Tyndale’s translation, who followed Luther’s lead in an attempt to render the Hebrew word into terms easily understood by a modern audience. Since the blood sprinkled on the kapporet (covering of the Ark) had something to do with sins being passed over, the choice of the word ‘mercy’ was a useful means to call this to mind. Since the Shekinah supposedly rested right over the Ark of the Covenant, it was not difficult to picture the cover of the Ark as being the ‘seat’, the place where the merciful God was supposed to be seated” (Reese p. 146). The ceremony, on the Day of Atonement, involved the sprinkling of blood onto the mercy seat (Exodus 25:17; 37:6; Leviticus 16:14). “But of these things we cannot now speak in detail”: That is, enough has been said about these things to refresh the minds of the readers, yet the writer could have gone into greater detail (as we somewhat did in this commentary).

5

9:6 “Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship” Worship needed to be performed on a daily basis, including the burning of incense morning and evening, the lamps on the lamp-stand replenished with oil morning and evening (Exodus 30:7-8; Leviticus 23:3-4), and the showbread had to be changed weekly (Leviticus 24:5-8). Notice that the term “worship” is used for doing things in service to God. Years later when the order of priests became so numerous, they were divided into twenty-four groups (1 Chronicles 24:1-19), and the selection of the priest who would burn the incense daily was settled daily by casting the lot (Luke 1:9).

9:7 “But into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people” The service in the second compartment (holy of holies) was more restricted. All the priests were excluded from this compartment except the high priest, and he could only enter once a year on the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16).

In our modern culture people do not like restrictions when it comes to divine worship. They want to worship God in a way that pleases them. We need to be impressed that God has always had rules that govern worship and He has always placed restrictions on His worship. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are restricted to unleavened bread and fruit of the vine, and that the day is restricted to Sunday (Acts 20:7).

9:7 “Committed in ignorance”: The Old Testament drew a line between sins committed in ignorance and sins of presumption (Numbers 15:27-31). No sacrifices were available for sins committed with a high hand, i.e., in defiance and contempt for God’s law, see also Hebrews 10:26,28.

9:8 “The Holy Spirit is signifying this”: Here the term “signify” means to “indicate clearly”. “That the way into the holy place”: The holy place in this context must be heaven (9:24), for the way into the literal holy place in the tabernacle was clearly revealed. “Has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing”: The idea here is that the Old Testament tabernacle was a visible demonstration by the Holy Spirit that perfect access to God by all people did not exist as long as that arrangement was valid. This arrangement, by which the holy of holies was made so 6

inaccessible to the vast majority was the Holy Spirit's way of teaching us that free access to the presence of God was not yet possible. As long as the first tabernacle stood, God's plan for enabling sinners to draw near to His throne of grace was still a mystery. “When Jesus died, the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51), and henceforth the way into heaven is perfectly evident” (Reese p. 149). In addition, the writer attaches the Holy Spirit to the existence of the tabernacle, that is, the Holy Spirit gave all the instructions for the building of this structure.

9:9 “Which is a symbol for the present time”: The term symbol is the same term that is translated elsewhere, “parable”. The idea here is that the tabernacle served as a parable or teaching figure. All the divine service or worship mentioned in 9:1-7 symbolized greater spiritual realities. The tabernacle, its compartments, its furniture and its worship were earthly things that were teaching and looking forward to a far greater spiritual reality (8:2,5). “For the present time”: Not the “present time” when the Hebrew writer was speaking, but the “present time” when the tabernacle was standing. “Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience” The sacrifices under the above system had definite limitations. This statement certainly does not apply to every Jewish person who lived under the Old Covenant, for many seemed to think that they were alright with God even in their sins (Jeremiah 8:11-12). Rather, this statement appears to refer to the faithful. This verse infers that the faithful were “aware” that something more was needed to make them perfect and that the good hearts in Israel went away from the tabernacle services conscious of the fact that even though they had been obedient to the Law, the sacrifice they had offered was not sufficient to meet their needs.

The blood of bulls and goats did not take away sins and they knew it.

9:10 “Since they”: That is, such sacrifices offered under the Law. “Relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body”: The sacrifices and ceremonial rules simply took care of the body, and that only in a ceremonial sense.

From the book of Isaiah (1:10ff), we learn that many wicked Israelites had satisfied themselves that since they had fulfilled their obligations to God by observing such ceremonies, that they were right with Him. “Until a time of reformation”: The tabernacle, its services, the various ordinances, and the priesthood were never intended to be anything but temporary. The word reformation means 7

“improvement” or “new order”. “It speaks of putting things right, making it better” (Reese p. 151). In the following verses, as well as the previous chapter (8:6), it is clear that the time of reformation is the gospel age or the time of the new covenant.

Kent notes that one of the problems that the writer may be encountering among his readers is that they have placed undue confidence in the ritual of Judaism, and found its attractions almost irresistible. This would then explain the writer’s repeated emphasis upon the inadequacy of the Old Testament system (7:11,18-19; 9:9-23; 10:1-4,11).

Since the Old Testament system was a copy or shadow of greater things to come (9:9), our high priest, Jesus Christ, also entered into a holy place to atone for sins, but He did not enter a physical tabernacle or temple (9:11-12). Neither did He enter with the blood of slain animals (9:12) nor will He need to make atonement for sins on a yearly basis (9:12 “once for all”). What the Jewish high priests did yearly in the holy of holies before the mercy seat, our high priest did before the throne of God, once for all with his own blood. “For this cause” (9:15). Since the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience and thus removes the barrier between man and God, Jesus is the perfect mediator. Verse 15 also reveals that the blood of Christ was needed to cleanse the faithful under the first covenant. An illustration is then given that demonstrates that the death of Christ was a necessity to establish the New Covenant (9:16-17). In fact, even the First Covenant was enacted upon similar grounds (i.e. the shedding of blood) (9:18-22). The death of the Messiah should not have caught the Jewish people by surprise, because forgiveness had always been connected with the shedding of blood (9:22) and covenant ratification.

9:11 “But when Christ appeared”: “We are now beginning that part of the argument wherein Christ’s superior service in heaven is contrasted to the old tabernacle and its imperfect services (9:1-10)” (Reese p. 151). “In contrast to the symbolic operations under the first covenant, Christ has now arrived as the great high priest (4:14), and has instituted the good things of the new covenant discussed in 8:10-12” (Kent p. 170). “As a high priest of the good things to come”: The expression “good things to come” is another way of saying, “a time of reformation” (9:10), or the better promises of 8:6. From the standpoint of the Old Testament, the Messiah’s better services were a thing looked forward to. “He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation”

8

Just as the Jewish high priest passed through the Holy Place on his way into the Holy of Holies, so Jesus is pictured as entering a greater tabernacle. God designed the tabernacle in the Old Testament, yet it was constructed by human hands (Exodus 35:30-35; 36:1-4; 38:22,23). Verse 24 specifies the “more perfect tabernacle” that Jesus entered as heaven itself. In addition, “heaven” is not part of the created order of the heavens and the earth. “Christ acts as high priest in a far better sanctuary— the actual presence of God” (Kent p. 171). “For God’s acceptance of the person of the appointed Mediator is the indisputable proof of the efficacy of the sacrifice He had offered on their behalf” (Wilson p. 108). We should be impressed that Christianity is the only religion with any objective evidence that God approves of it as a means of salvation. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice as atonement for sin.

9:12 “And not through the blood of goats and calves”: “Not only is the place of Christ’s activity a great improvement over the Old Testament priest’s, but so is the offering” (Kent p. 171). The blood of goats and bulls was used on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). The high priest first entered the holy of holies with the blood of a bullock for his own sins, and then reentered with the blood of a goat for the sins of the people. “But through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all”: The statement “once for all” speaks of the finality of Jesus’ sacrifice and its perpetual validity. With such a sacrifice as His blood, there is no need for an annual renewal. This text does not mean that Jesus literally carried some of His own blood into heaven, but rather by means of His sacrifice He appeared before God as the perfect Savior. In lieu of what was done on the cross, God could grant redemption.

9:12 “Having obtained eternal redemption”: The term “eternal” suggests that this method of redemption covers past, present and future. It is valid until the end of the New Covenant age, that is, for the rest of the period of human history. The blood of Jesus is the means of redemption for as long as time shall last. This also means that God has no intention of replacing Christianity as He replaced the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices. Calvinists argue that Jesus’ death automatically saved those chosen from eternity for salvation and that there is no way that such people can forfeit such redemption. Yet this book empathically teaches that Christians can forfeit salvation (6:4-6; 10:26ff). In addition, Jesus died for all men, not just some elect group (1 Timothy 2:6 “a ransom for all”). Therefore, Jesus’ death put all men into a redeemable position, that is, they can be redeemed if 9

they meet God’s conditions for salvation (Mark 16:16). The idea behind the word “redemption” is from the world of slavery, and suggests that one who was a slave has now been freed or released.

9:13 “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh”: The “ashes of a heifer” refer to the ceremony of the red heifer (Numbers 19). The point being made is that the Old Testament system largely provided an external or ceremonial purity (“cleansing of the flesh”), and really did not deal with internal or spiritual purity.

“The real purpose of such a ceremony was to drive men to think of the need they had to be cleansed (inside) from the defilement of sin, and to awaken in their minds the idea that God could and would provide the needed purification” (Reese p. 153).

There were individuals in the Old Testament who realized that they did need a greater purification than the Law provided (Psalm 51:16-17; Isaiah 6:1ff). Wilson notes, “Ceremonial sacrifices released from temporal penalties and ceremonial disqualifications: Christ’s sacrifice releases from everlasting penalties (9:12) and moral impurities of conscience disqualifying from access to God (9:14)” (p. 109).

9:14 “How much more will the blood of Christ”: “If therefore even the blood of animals sufficed to secure such an external purification, how much more shall the blood of Christ effect the moral cleansing of the conscience?” (Wilson p. 110).

“Who through the eternal Spirit”: Some see this as a reference to the Holy Spirit, that the Holy Spirit had something to do with Jesus’ offering, see Isaiah 42:1. We know that the Holy Spirit assisted Jesus in His earthly ministry (Luke 4:18; 11:20; Matthew 12:28). Another view is that the “Spirit” mentioned here is Jesus’ own Spirit, that is, His Divine nature. Since Jesus is eternal, the Son of the Living God, He could offer Himself as a sacrifice that would satisfy the holy justice of God. “Offered Himself without blemish to God”: Notice the huge difference between the sacrifice of Jesus and animal sacrifices. 1. Jesus was without blemish far beyond any animal, for His perfection was not physical, but spiritual and moral, He was sinless! 2. No animal could do what Jesus did, that is, offer Himself. What Jesus did was completely voluntary, a self-sacrifice, and was not the sacrifice of a passive-victim.

9:14 “Cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” The sacrifices under the Law could cleanse the flesh (9:13), but they could never cleanse the heart of the faithful. The expression “dead works” is found in 6:1. “We 10

must note the aim of atonement which is to serve the living God. We are not cleansed by Christ so that we can immerse ourselves continually in fresh dirt” (Wilson p. 110). “Christ’s blood dealt with the realities and the ultimate issue, not just the externals” (Kent p. 173). The verse seems to infer that the people whom the author is addressing had become Christians because they could not find a completely pure conscience in Judaism. Obviously, many Jews felt completely at ease with regard to their conscience in Judaism, but these Christians had been honest enough to see the shortcomings of such a system. Thus why return to a system that never really cleansed the conscience? The Christian can have true peace of mind for he or she knows that eternal redemption has been secured by Christ and that their sins are completely forgiven.

9:15 “And for this reason”: Because Jesus’ sacrifice is so much better. “He is the mediator of a new covenant”: This is also asserted in 8:6. “In order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant”: Here we learn some additional facts about the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus’ death atoned for sins committed before as well as after the cross. The “first covenant” has already been defined as the Law of Moses (9:1), and other verses make it clear that the sacrificial system in the first covenant could not truly atone for sin (10:4; 7:11). There is no need for the readers to return to the first covenant, seeing that all the faithful under the first covenant needed the blood of Christ to be saved! All faithful Jews in the Old Testament were in reality saved by Jesus Christ. “Here there is a definite statement that the real value in the typical sacrifices under the Old Testament system was in the realization in the death of Christ. It is Christ’s death that gives worth to the types that pointed to Him. So then the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the basis of the salvation for all who are saved before the cross and since” (Robertson p. 401). This is why God was able to “pass over” the sins committed by the faithful under the first covenant (Romans 3:25).

9:15 “Those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance”: The “called” includes those who obeyed God under the first covenant.

Not every physical descendant of Abraham ended up saved, but only those who faithfully served God (Romans 11). In like manner, Jesus spoke of people being called or invited in His parables (Luke 14:16-24; Matthew 22:1-14). Christians are partakers of a heavenly calling (Hebrews 3:1), and God calls everyone through the gospel (Mark 16:15; 2 Thess. 2:14), yet only those who accept this invitation are labeled as the “called”. Before any could rightfully claim the inheritance promised 11

(11:16), Jesus had to die (Hebrews 11:40). “The mention of the provisions of the new covenant as an inheritance stresses the testamentary aspect of the covenant that paves the way for the statement which follows” (Kent p. 174).

9:16 “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it”: “This is a general proposition that is true to this day. No provisions of a will are effective prior to the death of the one whose testament it is” (Kent p.

175). This is basically true whether we are talking about a “covenant” or a “testament”. The Hebrew writer will note in 9:18 that even the first covenant was not instituted without death, that is, the covenant sacrifice. For example, in the covenant made with Abraham (Genesis 15:1-18), and in the one made with Israel at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Exodus 24:3-8), covenant-victims were sacrificed. This, of course, means that the new covenant did not begin and the first covenant did not end until Jesus died on the cross (Colossians 2:14-16; Ephesians 2:13ff). This can also be seen from the fact that the new covenant promised the forgiveness of sins and such forgiveness was not available until Jesus died (Matthew 26:29). This is the reason why we have Jesus observing the Law of Moses (the Passover observance on the night He was betrayed) right up till the point at which He died. Some have tried to argue that baptism is not necessary for salvation because Jesus forgave the thief on the cross although he was not baptized (Luke 23:42-43). First, it is pure assumption that he had never been baptized; the text does not say one way or the other. He may have been baptized under John’s baptism, for he knew about the kingdom of God. Secondly, Jesus forgave this man before the new covenant was established, and thus before the command to be baptized (Mark 16:16).

9:17 “For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives”: At this point it is clear that the Holy Spirit is using the illustration of a will or testament to teach us something about the new covenant.

Jesus is the author and Mediator of a new covenant. There is one kind of covenant that serves particularly well to illustrate a truth about the new covenant, that is, the testamentary covenant that does not come into effect before the death of the person who makes it. Notice that man and his practices have not really changed all that much. Arguments given 2000 years ago are arguments that we still readily grasp today. Please note that some people today are trying to argue that the term “covenant” means a “relationship” and has nothing to do with “law” or “commandments”. It is clear that the writer is talking about something far more

12

than a relationship. Note that when describing the first “covenant” the Holy Spirit speaks of “every commandment” (9:19).

9:18 “Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood” “To any who may have been finding fault with the idea of Christ’s death as a necessary feature of the new covenant, the reminder is given that not even the Mosaic covenant was inaugurated without blood. If some of these were actually contemplating a return to Judaism, let them remember that the use of sacrificial blood was involved in that covenant as well” (Kent p. 175).

9:19 “For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law”: Moses first set out the terms and conditions of the covenant, making it plain to the people what the requirements of the covenant were. The events recorded in Exodus 24:1-8 are the basis for the author’s remarks. The people actually responded after Moses had spoken, “All the words which the Lord hath said will we do” (24:3). “He took the blood of the calves”: (Exodus 24:5) “And the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people”: Goats are not mentioned in Exodus 24, yet some manuscripts do mention them. Water, scarlet wool, and hyssop are not mentioned in Exodus 24, although some means had to be employed for the sprinkling of the blood. Neither does Exodus 24 mention that Moses sprinkled blood on the book of the covenant, yet the Holy Spirit here does give these additional details. “The water would be used to increase the quantity of fluid available, and to keep it from coagulating” (Reese p. 159).

9:20 “Saying, ‘This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded’”: Moses clearly explained the significance of the blood, that is, the blood ratified the covenant. This quotation proves the writer’s point that the shedding of blood was necessary to establish even the first covenant. Jesus said the same thing about His blood, that it would establish the new covenant (Matthew 26:29). We should note that the people could accept or reject the covenant (and many of them did reject it over the centuries), but they could not change any of the conditions of the covenant.

13

9:21 “And in the same way”: “That is, using a mixture of blood and water, and an instrument made of scarlet wool and hyssop” (Reese p. 160). “He sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood” This ceremony took place later, for construction on the tabernacle was not even begun until after Exodus 25. The Old Testament does record an anointing of the newly constructed tabernacle and its furniture with oil (Exodus 40:9), but does not mention the sprinkling with blood. Yet Numbers 7:1 says that Moses anointed and sanctified it. The term “sanctified” probably refers to the sprinkling with blood, just as the Hebrew writer says. Reese notes that there are several facts not recorded in the Old Testament concerning Old Testament events that we do not learn until we read the New Testament, including Abraham’s call from Ur of the Chaldees, the names of Jannes and Jambres, and the prophecy made by Enoch.

9:22 “And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed by blood” “As far as the whole record found in the Old Testament is concerned, it is almost universally true. There were some things purified by water (Leviticus 15:10) and some by fire (Numbers 31:22-24; Leviticus 5:11-13)” (Reese p. 161). The word “almost” does allow for these few exceptions, yet the normal method of purification involved the use of blood.

9:22 “And without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”: The idea that Jesus had to die for our sins should not come as a shock to these readers of a Jewish background. The Old Testament had consistently taught the same truth.

Sins, even in the Old Testament, were not pardoned except by the shedding of blood. This truth was seen in the requirement of a sacrifice for sin offerings. The author is making the point that the principal of sacrificial death was clearly established even in Old Testament practice, and it would be a folly to turn from Christ on account of His dying, or His being crucified. In Leviticus 5:11-13, someone who was too poor to afford the price of an animal, was allowed to substitute an offering of flour and oil, yet even this was burned on the altar, and was thus apparently placed on top of previously bloody offerings and burned in conjunction with them.

14

9:23 “Therefore”: “We begin here a consideration of the need for Jesus’ presence and superior services in heaven. Perhaps the readers have been thinking that the idea of an unseen priest functioning on our behalf in heaven was not nearly so attractive or impressive as the ceremonies presided over by the visible Levitical priest” (Reese p. 161).

9:23 “It was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens”: This verse refers to the tabernacle and its furniture (9:21). “Copies” is a word also used in 8:5, where it was stated that the Levitical priests served a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. The “copies” were cleansed with the blood of the first covenant (9:20-21). “But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these”: Of course of the question is, “Why should heaven or the things in heaven need a cleansing?” First, the phrase “better sacrifices” refers to the sacrifice of Jesus (9:15). “The plural sacrifices is used because the statement gives a general principle and is made parallel to the previous clause referring to animal sacrifices” (Kent p. 179). Since the earthly copies required cleansing by animal sacrifices, surely it is obvious that the heavenly originals needed even better sacrifices than these.

 Some commentators say that heaven needed cleansing because of Satan’s rebellion and the angels that sinned (2 Peter 2:4). Yet I believe there is a better explanation.  Bruce contends that the “heavenly things” refers to things in the heavens such as God’s people, probably those who lived under the Old Covenant (9:15). This appears to be the thought in Colossians 1:20, where things “in heaven” were reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus Christ.  “Another explanation may be that just as the furniture in the tabernacle needed cleansing, not because of itself but because it was the place where sinners were restored to God’s presence, so the heavenly realities, consisting of God’s righteous presence, needed cleansing, not because of sin in heaven, but because sinful men need to be reconciled to God’s offended righteousness. What animal sacrifices accomplished ceremonially and typically, Christ’s sacrifice achieved actually. Christ’s blood fully satisfied God’s wrath against sin” (Kent p. 179).  It might be that the “things” cleansed were the things that would be part of the New Covenant, including the New Testament Church. “Another interpretation of ‘cleansed’ in verse 23 is that it is not so much the removal 15

of impurity that is talked about, but rather this word is expressive of a consecratory or inaugural process” (Reese p. 162). This last point would appear to have some validity, for the tabernacle and furniture of the Old Covenant were “cleansed” but not in the sense that such objects were in need of forgiveness or the removal of moral impurity, rather they were being set apart for God’s service.

9:24 “For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one”: Jesus did not enter any earthly tabernacle to perform His priestly duties (9:11). “Hebrew readers, are you listening? The tabernacle is just a copy!

It is not the real thing (8:5), the real thing is in heaven!” (Reese p. 162). “It is true that Christ never ministered in the temple in Jerusalem nor in any other sanctuary made with hands. His tribal connections would have prevented it (7:13-14). This is no disadvantage, however, for the earthly tabernacle (and the temples which succeeded it) were but a copy of the true one. As a copy (antitupa), the tabernacle corresponded to the model or pattern (typon) shown to Moses in the mount (8:5)” (Kent p. 179). “But into heaven itself”: (Hebrews 1:3). ”This is the author’s definition of the heavenly sanctuary. If he had meant for his readers to understand a heavenly structure corresponding to the earthly one board for board and curtain for curtain, this would have been the obvious place to indicate it.

However, heaven itself is the Biblical place of the divine presence. It is in the actual, not just the representative, presence of God that Christ our high priest has entered now to appear before the face of God. He is not in a smoke clouded chamber where God’s glory needed to be obscured lest the high priest die” (Kent pp. 179-180). “Now to appear in the presence of God for us”: The word “now” is expressive of the period of time from Jesus’ ascension into heaven following His death and resurrection, until the end of time. The term “for us”, means “on our behalf”. Jesus is not just sitting at the right hand of God doing nothing. See Hebrews 7:25 and 4:14-16.

 When comparing religions, people need to be impressed that Christianity has a high priest in the actual presence of God!  We need to be reminded that Jesus does not automatically take care of our sins without any repentance upon our part (1 John 1:8-10). The denominational concept that God only sees the perfect righteousness of Jesus when I sin is false. God was certainly seeing the wavering of these Christians to whom the Hebrew letter is addressed (5:11-14; 6:4-6; 10:25ff).

16

9:25 “Nor was it that He should offer Himself often”: Here is another point that the Holy Spirit wants to drive home. Jesus’ superior ministry in heaven is also demonstrated by the fact that sins has been dealt with once for all. The term “nor” continues the negative found at the beginning of verse 24. “Jesus did not enter a man-made tabernacle” nor does He have to keep entering again and again. Jesus’ presence in heaven proves that sin has been put away forever. It does not need annual atonement as it did in the Old Covenant system. “Readers must not conclude that Christ has entered heaven in order to secure access for repeated offerings” (Kent p. 180). The phrase “offer Himself” probably includes both His sacrifice on the cross and His subsequent presentation of Himself before the Father in heaven.

9:25 “As the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own”: When the Levitical high priest went into the holy place on the Day of Atonement, he carried the blood of others, that of bulls and goats. What a contrast! Compare what Jesus did with the claims and practices of all other faiths. Jesus does not serve in a man-made earthly sanctuary, but in the very presence of God. Jesus does not offer a victim; rather He gave His own life. “He uses His own blood, all the while doing it voluntarily and knowing exactly what He was doing” (Reese p. 163). “The superiority of Jesus’ offering is seen in that He does not press into service some offering like the blood of some non-cooperating, non-comprehending animal” (p. 163). “For He did not painlessly present the blood of others but offered Himself” (Wilson p. 115). Jesus does not need to keep offering sacrifices; rather He offered Himself, one time for all time.

9:26 “Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world”: “The sufficiency of this offering is proved by its finality, for the benefits did not extend to former generations, then He must have suffered continually from the time that man first became a sinner (first sinned). But since He did not so suffer, it is evident that His offering needs no supplement” (Wilson p. 115). The very fact that Jesus has not given His life every year since the beginning of time stands as proof that His offering is of such validity and that it never needs to be repeated. The fact that the Day of Atonement had to happen every year is proof that it did not provide the final sacrifice. In fact, every religion today that offers something for atonement is admitting that they do not have the final sacrifice for sin.

17

Consider the expression “since the foundation of the world”. This phrase refers to the time when the world was established or founded, i.e., created. If Jesus’ sacrifice was like the sacrifices under the Law then why would there need to be such a repetition since “the foundation of the world”? Because man himself goes all the way back to the foundation, and man sins almost immediately after the world was created (Genesis 3). This verse stands as proof that man has been around since the foundation of the world, and that the arrival of man is not billions of years after Genesis 1:1.

9:26 “But now once at the consummation of the ages”: Note the term “once”.

Jesus only had to become man and die for our sins one time to deal effectively with sin. The phrase “consummation of the ages” seems to say that the Christian age is the last in the succession of ages in God’s management of history (Hebrews 1:1-2). Similar expressions would be “in the fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4); “Upon whom the end of the ages have come” (1 Corinthians 10:11); “has appeared in these last times” (1 Peter 1:20). Jesus came at the end of the Jewish age, died for our sins, and instituted the final covenant and the final time period that would happen upon the earth. The expression also emphasizes that Jesus’ death on the cross is the focal point of God’s plan. It is the “climax of history”, “here is where all the various facets of God’s plan for saving man came together” (Reese p. 164). “What He had been doing in the Patriarchal and Mosaic ages previous to this all led up to Calvary” (p. 164).

9:26 “He has been manifested”: That is, God became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1,14). By the time this letter was written, Jesus’ incarnation (manifestation) was a past event. “To put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”: This is the purpose for which Jesus came (1 John 3:5). The reader should note that Jesus did not come to abolish sin from the face of the earth, rather by His sacrifice atonement and forgiveness for sins is available to anyone who will come to God on God’s conditions (Mark 16:16). This putting away of sin is not automatic, but rather is only available to those who submit to God (Hebrews 5:9).

“Thus the debt of sin which holds every man in its grip was fully paid and its penalty is now set aside or annulled for all those who avail themselves to Christ’s sacrifice” (Kent p. 181).

18

9:27 “And inasmuch as”: Just as, this verse introduces a analogy, one drawn from human life. “It is appointed for men to die once”: This is the principle in view.

There had been exceptions, such as Enoch and Elijah. Lazarus had probably died twice, and then there were all the people that Jesus raised from the dead, yet the fact that man dies once is still the overwhelming rule in the history of mankind.

This verse clearly argues against the concept of reincarnation. It is interesting to note that some people who believe in reincarnation claim that the Bible originally contained many passages that taught reincarnation, but the Roman Catholic Church removed them from the Bible. Yet such a claim shows a very shallow understanding of the history of the Bible and the history of Catholicism. We have copies of the Old and New Testaments that are older than the Catholic Church that read just like our Bibles today. Other passages also teach that man lives and dies once (Luke 16:25). In addition, the whole doctrine of reincarnation is based on the false idea that man eventually saves himself. Reincarnation has no need for a personal Savior, for someone dying for our sins, or for the grace of God. The term “appointed” should also remind us that even though we have advanced technology today we still cannot escape death or it’s finality. In face of death, man, with all his attainments, still stands completely helpless. This verse also tells us that “near-death experiences” are exactly only that, being “near” death, but not yet dead. The verse also strongly infers that man will never be able to overrule the above principle.

9:27 “And after this comes judgment”: “Death ends man’s opportunity to alter his circumstances. He does not get a second chance, nor does he die over and over. Death closes the earthly scene for him, and then he must face the eternal issue of his life” (Kent p. 181). We see this same truth in the account of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19ff). For the rich man, death ended all opportunities to repent and be saved. The “judgment” in the above verse is probably the final judgment, that is, the next major event that man faces after death is the judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10). Yet, as in the case of the unrepentant, they are already in a sense judged or condemned right now (John 3:36). “For men, once physical death has ended life here on earth, the next thing to be faced is the Final Judgment. If He is ‘in all points like His brethren’, we would expect a similar schedule for Jesus too. Instead of having to become incarnate again, we would expect the Second Advent and Final Judgment to be the next thing on His calendar” (Reese p. 165).

19

Some groups do not believe that man has a soul, in that case, “what” is there to be judged after death? The above verse clearly teaches that man survives the death of the body for he or she faces “judgment” after the body has died.

9:28 “So Christ also”: As men die once, so Jesus died once. “Having been offered once”: The term here rendered “once” means “once for all”. “Were the first readers enamored with the annual sacrifice of the Jewish high priest rather than with the one sacrifice of Christ? Whatever He achieved by the offering of Himself is finished and settled for all time” (Kent p. 182). This idea of Jesus dying and being offered “once” goes against the idea behind the Catholic Mass: “Two main ideas are involved in the doctrine of the Mass. 1. The change whereby the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. 2.

The conception of the Mass as a sacrifice” (The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church p. 641).

“The sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross which is renewed” (Catholic Catechism, p. 43). “The mass is not merely a bare representation of the sacrifice of the cross, but it is the actual sacrifice of the cross which is renewed” (p. 167).

9:28 “To bear the sins of many”: Compare with Isaiah 53:11-12 and 1 Peter 2:24.

Note the term “the many”, is not limited merely to those that God predestined.

Jesus died for “the many”, yet only few will be saved (Matthew 7:13-14), for most will not accept Jesus’ terms for pardon. “Shall appear a second time”: Therefore, the phrase, “the Second Coming” is a legitimate term. “For salvation without reference to sin”: That is, Jesus will bring final salvation to those who “eagerly await Him”. He will bring eternal rewards for the obedient (2 Thessalonians 1:7).

The statement “without reference to sin” means that Jesus is not coming to offer Himself again or to give mankind another chance to accept Him. “To those who eagerly await Him”: (Revelation 22:20; Luke 16:1-13; Jude 20-21). When we are truly seeking those things above, we will be naturally eager for Christ’s return and our eternal reward in heaven.

20