John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 9

Then verily the first, and so on. After having spoken generally of the abrogation of the old covenant, he now refers specially to the ceremonies. His object is to show that there was nothing practiced then to which Christ’s coming has not put an end. He says first, that under the old covenant there was a specific form of divine worship, and that it was peculiarly adapted to that time. It will later appear by the comparison what kind of things were those rituals prescribed under the Law.

Some copies read, πρώτη σκηνὴ, the first tabernacle; but I suspect that there is a mistake regarding the word “tabernacle.” Nor do I doubt that some unlearned reader, not finding a noun for the adjective, and in his ignorance applying to the tabernacle what had been said of the covenant, unwisely added the word σκηνὴ, tabernacle. I indeed greatly wonder that the mistake had become so prevalent that it is found in the Greek copies almost universally. But necessity constrains me to follow the ancient reading. For the Apostle, as I have said, had been speaking of the old covenant; he now comes to ceremonies, which were, as it were, additions to it. He then intimates that all the rites of the Mosaic Law were a part of the old covenant, and that they shared the same antiquity, and were therefore to perish.

Many take the word λατρείας as an accusative plural. I agree with those who connect the two words, δικαιώματα λατρείας, as meaning institutes or rites, which the Hebrews call חוקים, and the Greeks have rendered by the word δικαιώματα, ordinances. The sense is that the whole form or manner of worshipping God was annexed to the old covenant, and that it consisted of sacrifices, ablutions, and other symbols, together with the sanctuary.

And he calls it a worldly sanctuary, because there was no heavenly truth or reality in those rites. For though the sanctuary was the effigy of the original pattern which had been shown to Moses, yet an effigy or image is a different thing from the reality, especially when they are compared, as here, as things opposed to each other. Hence, the sanctuary in itself was indeed earthly and is rightly classed among the elements of the world, yet it was heavenly in what it signified.

For there was a tabernacle, etc. As the Apostle here touches only lightly on the structure of the tabernacle, so that he might not be detained beyond what his subject required, so I will also intentionally abstain from any refined explanation of it. It is therefore sufficient for our present purpose to consider the tabernacle in its three parts: the first was the court of the people; the middle was commonly called the sanctuary; and the last was the inner sanctuary, which they called, preeminently, the holy of holies.

Regarding the first sanctuary, which was adjacent to the court of the people, he says that there were the candlestick and the table on which the shewbread was set; he calls this place, in the plural, the holies. Then, the most secret place is mentioned, which they called the holy of holies, even more remote from the view of the people, and it was even hidden from the priests who ministered in the first sanctuary. For just as a veil closed off the sanctuary to the people, so another veil kept the priests from the holy of holies. There, the Apostle says, was the θυμιατήριον, by which name I understand the altar of incense, or fumigation, rather than the censer; then the ark of the covenant, with its covering, the two cherubim, the golden pot filled with manna, the rod of Aaron, and the two tables. This is as far as the Apostle proceeds in describing the tabernacle.

But he says that the pot in which Moses had deposited the manna, and Aaron’s rod that had budded, were in the ark with the two tables. However, this seems inconsistent with sacred history, which in 1 Kings 8:9, relates that there was nothing in the ark but the two tables. But it is easy to reconcile these two passages: God had commanded the pot and Aaron’s rod to be laid up before the testimony; it is therefore probable that they were deposited in the ark, together with the tables. But when the Temple was built, these things were arranged in a different order, and reliable history relates it as a new development that the ark contained nothing else but the two tables.

Of which we cannot now, etc. Since nothing can satisfy overly inquisitive people, the apostle cuts off every occasion for elaborations unsuitable for his present purpose, so that a longer discussion of these things does not break the thread of his argument. If, therefore, anyone should disregard the Apostle’s example and dwell on the subject in greater detail, he would be acting very unreasonably.

There might, indeed, be an opportunity to do this elsewhere; but it is now better to focus on the subject he is addressing: it may further be said that to philosophize beyond proper limits, which some do, is not only useless but also dangerous. There are some things which are clear and suitable for building up faith; however, discretion and sobriety should be observed, so that we do not seek to be wise beyond what God has been pleased to reveal.

Now, when these things were thus ordained, etc. Omitting other matters, he undertakes to address the chief point in dispute: he says that the priests who performed sacred rites were accustomed to enter the first tabernacle daily, but that the high priest entered the Holy of Holies only once a year with the appointed sacrifice. From this, he concludes that while the tabernacle under the Law was standing, the sanctuary was closed. Only through its removal could the way to the kingdom of God be opened for us. We see that the very form of the ancient tabernacle reminded the Jews that they were to look for something else. Then they acted foolishly, those who, by retaining the shadows of the Law, willfully obstructed their own way.

He mentions πρώτην σκηνὴν (the first tabernacle) in Hebrews 9:2, in a different sense from what it means here. Here, it means the first sanctuary, but there it means the whole tabernacle. For he contrasts it with the spiritual sanctuary of Christ, which he will mention shortly. He contends that this tabernacle fell for our great benefit, because through its fall, a more direct access to God has been obtained for us.

For himself and for the errors of the people, or for his own and the ignorances of the people. The verb shagag in Hebrew means to err or to mistake, and so shgagah, derived from it, properly denotes error or mistake. Yet it is generally taken for any kind of sin; and doubtless, we never sin except when deceived by the allurements of Satan.

The Apostle does not understand this to mean mere ignorance, as some say; on the contrary, he also includes voluntary sins. But, as I have already said, no sin is free from error or ignorance. For however knowingly and willfully anyone may sin, he is nevertheless so blinded by his lust that he does not judge rightly or, rather, forgets himself and God. For men never deliberately rush headlong into ruin but, being entangled in the deceptions of Satan, they lose the power of judging rightly.