Charles Ellicott Commentary Hebrews 9

The subject begun in the last chapter (Hebrews 9:1–6) is continued here. The mention of the “more excellent ministry” led to the description of the new covenant with which it is united (Hebrews 9:6–13).

This verse, then, connects to the fifth and sixth verses of Hebrews 8 (Hebrews 8:5–6): “Even the first (covenant), then, had ordinances of divine service and its sanctuary, of this world.” The “service” is spoken of again in Hebrews 9:6; the “ordinances” in Hebrews 9:10, where they are called “carnal.” Very similar is the language here, because the words so emphatically standing at the end of the verse are probably descriptive not of the “sanctuary” only, but also of the “ordinances.” Both place and ministrations belonged to this world, and thus stand in contrast with “the heavenly things,” of which the Tabernacle was a symbol and shadow (See Note on Hebrews 8:5).

The ordinary Greek text (here following the first printed Greek Testament) has “the first Tabernacle,” and this reading was followed by Tyndale and Coverdale. All ancient manuscripts omit the word; and, as “covenant” has been the leading thought in a long succession of verses, the rendering of the Authorized Version is certainly correct.

Tabernacle.—It must be carefully observed that the Epistle throughout refers to the Tabernacle, and not once to the Temples which succeeded it. Although they were formed on the same general model, their very nature and design necessitated changes of plan and detail which unfitted them for the writer’s argument here. Insofar as the Temple was a copy of the Tabernacle, and only to that extent, was it made “after the pattern” that Moses had seen; and only to that extent was its symbolism of divine and not human origin.

The first, in which was . . .—In Hebrews 9:6, when the writer passes from place to ministration, he uses the present tense, although it is of the Tabernacle that he is speaking. The explanation is the one that has come before us again and again: the arrangements prescribed in Scripture are to him ever present, abiding from age to age in that unchanging word. Hence, we should probably read are here instead of “were.”

The golden candlestick, the table, and the showbread are in the Holy Place as it is described in the Law. We are not concerned here with the symbolical meaning of the furniture of the Holy Place. The writer contents himself with words that plainly imply that none of the parts and arrangements of the Tabernacle were without significance.

For the golden candlestick (more strictly, lampstand), see Exodus 25:31-37; for the ten candlesticks of the Temple of Solomon, see 1 Kings 7:49; and for the table and the showbread, see Exodus 25:23-30 and Leviticus 24:5-9 (see also 1 Kings 7:48; 2 Chronicles 4:8).

It is somewhat remarkable that the table should be so distinctly mentioned here, because usually (both in the Bible and in Jewish tradition) no special importance appears to be assigned to it apart from the offering which was placed on it. (Compare, however, Leviticus 24:6; 2 Chronicles 13:11; Malachi 1:7; Malachi 1:12.) This offering is called “bread of the face” in Hebrew—that is, bread of the (divine) Presence; in Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4, it is called “loaves of the setting forth;” and here, “the setting forth of the loaves.”

Sanctuary.—Or, holy place. The same word is applied to the Holy of Holies in Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 12:24–25; Hebrews 10:19; and probably in Hebrews 13:11.

This verse and the next give the proper names of the two parts of the Tabernacle, which must be used when one is to be distinguished from the other. Where there is no risk of mistake, the simpler designation is sufficient (Leviticus 16:17; Leviticus 16:20). It will be observed that here, and in Hebrews 9:3 and Hebrews 9:6-7, these divisions are spoken of as if they were two distinct Tabernacles.

The tabernacle.—Rather, a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies. This literal translation of a Hebrew expression for “most holy” does not occur in the Bible, but has become familiar through the Latin sanctum sanctorum.

The inner chamber of the Tabernacle is mentioned separately in only a few passages in the Pentateuch as the “Most Holy Place” (Exodus 26:33–34), or “the Holy Place” (Leviticus 16:2, and others).

In the description of the Temple, a different word is employed, always translated as “oracle” (1 Kings 6:16, and others).

The veil separating the two divisions (Exodus 36:35) is here called the second veil, to distinguish it from the “hanging for the door” of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:36; Exodus 36:37).

Having a golden censer.—Or, having a golden altar of incense. Hardly any passage in the Epistle has given rise to more controversy than this, and even now, opinions are greatly divided. The question raised does not merely concern the interpretation of a single verse but has been brought into prominence in all recent discussions about the authorship of the Epistle. It will be possible to notice all important points in the controversy without entering into any discussion of the Greek, for it is allowed on both sides that the word here used—thumiaterion (which simply means an instrument or a place connected with the offering of incense)—will admit of either rendering.

The usage of the LXX., in most cases peculiarly helpful in this Epistle, throws little light on the matter; for this word is entirely absent from the descriptions in the Pentateuch and occurs only twice in later books (Ezekiel 8:11; 2 Chronicles 26:19—both times for “censer”). The Pentateuch, indeed, makes no mention of a special censer for the use of the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:12); but, as we learn from the Mishna, the later law not only prescribed a censer of gold but also laid stress on the particular kind of gold.

On the other hand, in Philo and Josephus the word used here is the regular designation of the altar of incense. That altar, it is true, was not of gold, only overlaid with gold; but as one of its names in common use was “the golden altar” (Exodus 40:5, and others); this point is of no importance. If we look at internal probabilities, it is hard to decide which would be more surprising—the special mention of the censer (by the side of the ark and the cherubim) in this description of the Most Holy Place, or the absence of all notice of the incense-altar, which held so important a place in connection with the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement.

Hence, though “censer” has (mainly through the influence of the Vulgate) been the more familiar rendering, the most eminent modern commentators have, with some marked exceptions, adopted the other view. Probably there would be little difference of opinion on the question, were it not that the words used here seem to assign to the altar of incense a place within the veil.

However, since there are the strongest reasons for believing that the golden censer was not kept in the Holiest Place, this difficulty applies almost equally to both interpretations. At first sight, the difficulty is very great.

The incense-altar and the ark are coupled together, and the word which describes their relation to the Holiest Place is that which, a little later in this verse, distinctly signifies “containing.” So weighty is this consideration that many have been unable to avoid the conclusion that the writer has erred in this matter of detail, and various suppositions have been resorted to in explanation of his mistake.

But, to take the lowest ground, surely ignorance on such a point is inconceivable. Not only are the notices in Exodus perfectly plain, but passages in Philo and Josephus show how customary it was in the writer’s own age to speak of the three sacred objects in the Holy Place—the candlestick, the table, and the golden altar. There must exist some special reason for this connection of the altar with the Most Holy Place—a connection which (we may well believe) would have been expressed differently if the writer had thought it possible that readers, familiar with the facts, could regard his language as even ambiguous.

Such a reason is suggested by the language of the Pentateuch and by the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement. In Exodus 30:6, Moses receives special injunction to place the altar of incense “before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony;” similarly in Exodus 40:5. The purification of this altar is most expressly associated with the purification of the Holiest Place on the Day of Atonement: this stands out in strong relief both in the Pentateuch (Leviticus 16:18) and in the Mishna.

The typical significance of the altar of incense (Revelation 9:13) could also be shown to be in full harmony with the thought presented here. There is, however, one passage in the Old Testament (1 Kings 6:22) which appears to give direct expression to what these other passages imply; for there the true translation must be, “also the whole altar that belongeth to the oracle he overlaid with gold.”[10]

[10] Some interesting remarks on this passage will be found in a paper by Dr. Milligan in the Bible Educator (vol. iii., p. 230). His suggestion is that the writer, having in mind the Day of Atonement, sees the Tabernacle with its inner veil withdrawn.

Ark of the covenant (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 31:26, and others), often called “the ark of the testimony,” i.e., the ark containing the tables of the Ten Commandments, which were the symbol of the covenant of God with the people .

Wherein was . . .—Rather, wherein are a golden pot having the manna, etc.

In Exodus 16:33-34 and Numbers 17:10-11, the pot containing “an omer of manna” and also Aaron’s rod are said to have been laid up “before the testimony.” This is often understood as meaning “before the ark of the testimony;” but it is as natural to suppose that these memorials were placed inside the ark, in front of the tables.

1 Kings 8:9 clearly suggests that the ark had at one time contained more than the tables of stone, and so it has been understood by Jewish commentators.

There is no mention of a “golden” vessel in the Hebrew of Exodus 16:33; the word is added in the LXX. It will be observed that this epithet is mentioned three times in the verse: such splendour was natural in the sanctuary “of this world” (Hebrews 9:1).

Cherubims of glory.—See Exodus 25:18-22; Exodus 29:43; Numbers 7:89; Ezekiel 10:19–20. As these passages will show, the reference is to the glory which appeared above the mercy seat. (See Note on Hebrews 1:3.) This is the only express mention of the cherubim in the New Testament; but see the Notes on Revelation 4:6 and following.

The mercy seat (literally, the propitiatory) is the rendering adopted in the LXX. for the Hebrew Capporeth, signifying the golden covering of the ark (Exodus 25:17). Whether the Hebrew word properly denotes covering or bears the meaning which is expressed by the Greek translation, is a disputed question, into which we cannot here enter. The act of expiation with which the Greek name at all events stands connected is that of Leviticus 16:10-14. It is noteworthy that in 1 Chronicles 28:11 the Most Holy Place itself is called the house of the mercy seat. (See the Note on Romans 3:25.)

Of which—namely, all things that the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies contained.

Particularly—that is, severally, one by one.