Комментарии к Библии

CHAPTER 9

Hebrews 9:1. ἡ πρώτη] Elz.: ἡ πρώτη σκηνή. But the addition σκηνή is condemned as a gloss by the fact of its being wanting in all the uncial MSS., in many cursives, in Syr. utr. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg., with Gregory Thaumaturgus, Cyril, Chrys. Damasc. Theoph. Photius, al. On the ground, too, of internal evidence it is to be rejected, since, on the one hand, the coherence with Hebrews 8:13, and through that with Hebrews 8:7 ff., leads to διαθήκη as the main idea to be supplemented; and, on the other hand, the expression ἡ πρώτη σκηνή, Hebrews 9:1, would be made to denote something quite different from that which the same expression denotes in Hebrews 9:2. For, while in Hebrews 9:2 the outer division of the tabernacle is indicated thereby, in Hebrews 9:1 only the first or Old Testament, earthly tabernacle, in opposition to the New Testament, heavenly one, thus something entirely dissimilar, could be intended by this expression.

Hebrews 9:2. After ἄρτων, B, Basmur. add καὶ τὸ χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον, and in return omit the words χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον καί, Hebrews 9:4. Violent intentional transposition, with a view to the removal of the archaeological difficulty.

Instead of ἅγια, Lachm. writes ἅγια. ἁγίων, after A (αγια· αγιων) D* E, It. But ἅγια ἁγίων is a mere slip on the part of the copyist, occasioned by Hebrews 9:3, and is to be rejected as devoid of sense.

Hebrews 9:5. Χερουβίμ] A: Χερουβείμ, B D*** (and so Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8): Χερουβείν, D* א: Χερουβίν. In the case of the LXX., too, the MSS. are wont equally to vary as regards the final syllable of the word.

Instead of the Recepta δόξης, Griesb. and Scholz have erroneously placed in the text κῆς δόξης. The article has against it all the uncial MSS. and other witnesses.

Hebrews 9:9. In place of the Recepta καθʼ ὅν (D*** E K L, min. It. Copt. Sah. Basm. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph.), Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Delitzsch, Alford have, rightly preferred the reading καθʼ ἢν, in accordance with A B D* א, 17, 23* 27, al., Vulg. Slav. codd. Damasc. Oecum. (comment.). Already approved by Mill, Prolegg. p. 1046, and placed by Griesb. upon the inner margin. The καθʼ ὅν, as affording an easier mode of appending to that which precedes, is a later correction of the more difficult and ill-understood καθʼ ἥν.

Hebrews 9:10. The Recepta reads: καἰ δικαιώμασι σαρκός. But καί is wanting in A D* א* 6, 17, 27, 31, al., with Cyr. (twice) in Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. al.; and in place of δικαιώμασι, A B א, ten cursives, Cyril., and many versions have δικαιώματα, while in D* It. Sahid. there is found δικαίωμα. Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford have therefore adopted δικαιώματα σαρκός, which was already approved by Grotius, Mill, Prolegg. p. 1355, and Bengel, and recommended by Griesb. Delitzsch and Reiche likewise give it the preference. This reading is in reality to be regarded as the original one. For it is more easily explicable that δικαιώματα should, on account of the foregoing datives, be changed into δικαιώμασι, and joined on to them by means of καί, than that the καί δικαιώμασι, if it already existed, should, on account of the closing word ἐπικείμενα, be converted into δικαιώματα.

Hebrews 9:11. In place of the Recepta τῶν μελλόντων, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after B D* It. Syr. utr. (yet the Syr. Philonex. has the Recepta in the margin) Arab. petropol. and some codd. of Chrys.: τῶν γενομένων. Defended by Ebrard. But the reading is not in keeping with the carefully chosen diction of our author, and its sense: “High Priest of the good things which have arisen,” does not commend itself. It is manifestly a transcriber’s error, occasioned by the presence of the foregoing παραγενόμενος.

Hebrews 9:12. εὐράμενος] D* (E?), 27, 44, 80, al., and some Fathers: εὑρόμενος.

Hebrews 9:13. Elz.: ταύρων καὶ τράγων. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, to be transposed into τράγων καὶ ταὑρων, in accordance with the decisive authority of A B D E א, Cyr. Theodoret, Bede, Syr. Copt. Basm. It. Vulg. al.

Hebrews 9:14. πνεύματος αἰωνίου] D* א*** many cursives, Copt. Basm. Slav. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Didym. (?) Damasc. al.: πνεύματος ἁγίου. Interpretative gloss.

In place of the Recepta συνείδησιν ὑμῶν, Bengel, Knapp, Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 2, Alford read more suitably, in accordance with A D* K, 44, 47, 67, al., Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. al. Athan. Cyr. Chrys. (comment.) Theodoret, Theoph.: συνείδησιν ἡμῶν. Recommended likewise by Griesb., and already placed in the text in the Edd. Complut. Genev. Plant.

To the mere θεῷ ζῶντι in the Recepta, Lachm., with A, 21* 31, 66 (in the margin), Copt. Slav. Chrys. (comment.) Macar. Theoph., has added the words καὶ ἀληθινῷ. These words are, however, to be deleted. They are a gloss from 1 Thessalonians 1:9.

Hebrews 9:17. μήποτε] D* א* and Isidor. Pelus. iv. 113 (… οὕτω γὰρ εὗρον καὶ ἐν παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις): μὴ τότε.

Hebrews 9:18. Instead of οὐδʼ in the Recepta, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, to write οὐδέ, in accordance with A C D E L, 4, 44, 52, Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.

ἡ πρώτη] D* E* It.: ἠ πρώτη διαθήκη. Exegetical gloss.

Hebrews 9:19. Elz.: κατὰ νόμον. But the better attestation by A C D* L א*** 21, 47, 71, al., Copt. Basm. Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theoph. requires the reading preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tiseh. 1, and Alford: κατὰ τὸν νόμον.

In like manner is the article τῶν wanting in the Recepta before τράγων to be added, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with the weighty authority of A C D E (D E, Aeth.: τῶν τράγων καὶ τῶν μόσχων) א* 80, al. mult. It. Vulg. Theodoret, ms.

So, in place of the Recepta ἐῤῥάντισε here and Hebrews 9:21, we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with all the uncials, to write ἐράντισεν.

Hebrews 9:24. The order of the words followed by Lachm. in the stereotype edition, as well as recently by Tisch. in the ed. 7 and Hebrews 8 : εἰσῆλθεν ἅγια, rests only upon the testimony of A א, 37, 118. In the larger edition of Lachm., therefore, this has rightly given place to the Recepta ἅγια εἰσῆλθεν.

Better attested than the Recepta ὁ Χριστός is the mere Χριστός (A C* D* א, al. [Cod. B in its original form extends only to συνείδησιν, Hebrews 9:14]), preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford.

Hebrews 9:26. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, Delitzsch: νῦν δέ. Better Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with A C L (?) א, 37, 39, 40, Orig. Chrys.: νυνὶ δέ.

ἁμαρτίας] A א, 17, 73. Lachm.: τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Against C D*** E K L, almost all the min. Orig. (once) al. mult.

Hebrews 9:28. οὔτως καί] Elz. has only αὕτως. Against decisive witnesses (all the uncial mss., most min., many translations and Fathers).

After εἰς σωτηρίαν, Lachm. in the stereotype edition had added, with A, 31, 47, al., Syr. Philonex. Slav. codd. Damasc., the words διὰ πίστεως. Rightly, however, has he deleted them in the larger edition. The addition is a complementary gloss, which has against it the testimony of C D E K L א, many min. versions, and Fathers, and betrays its character as a gloss by its changing position (Arm. 27, 31, 57, 61, al., have it before εἰς σωτηρίαν).

Hebrews 9:1. Εἰχεν μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη] sc. διαθήκη. Against the supplementing of σκηνή (Cameron, Peirce, Whitby, Wetstein, Semler), see the critical remark.

εἶχεν] had. ἔχει is not written by the author, although the cultus of the Old Covenant was still continuing at the time when he wrote, not so much because—as is shown by Hebrews 9:2—it was his intention to describe the primitive arrangement thereof (comp. Hebrews 8:5), which is the opinion of Böhme, Kuinoel, Stengel, and Tholuck, as, what is more naturally suggested by the coherence with Hebrews 8:13, because the Old Covenant had already been declared by God in the time of Jeremiah to be feeble with age and nigh unto disappearing, and consequently now, after the actual appearance of the promised New Covenant, has no longer any valid claim to existence. Chrysostom: ὡσεὶ ἔλεγε, τότε εἶχε, νῦν οὐκ ἔχει· δείκνυσιν ἤδη τούτῳ αὐτὴν ἐκκεχωρηκυῖαν· τότε γὰρ εἶχε, φησίν. Ὥστε νῦν, εἰ καὶ ἕστηκεν, οὐκ ἔστιν.

μὲν οὖν] now truly. Admission that that which the author is about to detail is indeed something relatively exalted. The antithesis, by which again this admission is deprived of its value and significance, is then introduced by Hebrews 9:6 (not first with Hebrews 9:11, as is supposed by Piscator, Owen, Carpzov, Cramer, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bisping, Maier, M‘Caul, and others); yet in such wise that the material antithesis itself is first contained in the statement, Hebrews 9:8, which is connected syntactically only as a parenthetic clause.

καΐ] also. Indication that with the Old Covenant the New is compared, and possessions of the former are enumerated, which also (although, it is true, in a more perfect form) are proper to the latter.

δικαιώματα λατρείας] legal ordinances[87] in regard to worship, i.e. regulations made by virtue of divine authority respecting the cultus.

λατρείας] is genitive. To take the expression as accusative (Cameron, Grotius, Hammond, al.), according to which δικαιώματα, λατρείας, and τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν would as three members be made co-ordinate with each other, is untenable; because the signification of δικαιώματα in itself would be too extensive to fit in with the further development of Hebrews 9:1, to which the author himself at once passes over, from Hebrews 9:2 onwards. For as the statement τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν receives its more full explication by means of Hebrews 9:2-5, so does the discourse in Hebrews 9:6-7 return to the unfolding of the twofold δικαιώματα λατρείας, blended as this is in a logical respect into a unity of idea.

τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν] and the mundane sanctuary. Since, in accordance with the καί, possessions of the Old Covenant are to be mentioned, such as this has in common with the New,—while to the New Covenant there pertains no mundane, earthly sanctuary,

τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν must be regarded as a concise mode of designation for καὶ ἅγιόν τι, τὸ κοσμικόν, “and a sanctuary, namely the mundane.” That such is the meaning of the author, is indicated by the fact that the article is placed before this second member, although it ought properly to have been inserted before κοσμικόν also. Yet the omission of the article in the case of adjectives placed after their substantives is not a thing unknown among other writers of the later period. See Bernhardy, Synt. p. 323; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 126. Forced is the explanation of Delitzsch, with the adherence of Kurtz and Woerner, that κοσμικόν as an adjectival predicate is to be taken in association with εἶχεν: “the first covenant had likewise δικαιώματα λατρείας, and its sanctuary as mundane, i.e. a sanctuary of mundane nature.” Had the author intended the readers to suppose such a conjoining, he would also—equally as Hebrews 7:24, Hebrews 5:14—have indicated the same to them by the position of the words. He must, in order to be understood, at least have written: εἶχεν μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας κοσμικόν τε τὸ ἅγιον. Under an entire misapprehension, further, does Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 408 f., 2 Anfl.) suppose that τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν is not to be taken as a second object attaching itself to the δικαιώματα λατρείας, but as a second subject joining itself on to ἡ πρώτη,—a construction which, upon the presupposition of the Recepta ἡ πρώτη σκηνή being the correct reading, already Olearius adopted (comp. Wolf ad loc.), and upon the same supposition also more recently M‘Caul maintained, in connection with which, however, τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν would limp behind in an intolerable manner, and would afford evidence of a negligence of style, such as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews would least of all have been guilty of.

The view of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Zeger, Carpzov, and others, that ἅγιον is to be taken not in the local sense (sanctuary), but in the ethical sense (holiness, ἁγιότης, sanctitas, mundities), is altogether erroneous; since the expression chosen would be a remarkable one, the immediate sequel does not point thereto, and the more exalted seat of the cultus of the New Covenant forms the theme of the fresh train of thought opened up with the beginning of chap. 8

Quite as much to be disapproved is the opinion of Wolf, who will have ἅγιον to mean “vasa sacra totumque apparatum Leviticum.”

κοσμικός] means: belonging to the world, worldly, mundanus. Comp. Titus 2:12. The expression is equivalent to ἐπίγειος, and to it ἐπουράνοις stands opposed, as in general ὁ κόσμος in the N. T. very frequently has its tacit contrast in ὁ οὐρανός. Τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν is consequently nothing else than ἡ σκηνή, ἣν ἔπηξεν ἄνθρωπος (comp. Hebrews 8:2), or ἡ σκηνὴ χειροποίητος, τουτέστιν ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως (comp. Hebrews 9:11), or τὰ χειροποίητα ἅγια (Hebrews 9:24), and a twofold idea is expressed in the adjective, first, that the sanctuary of the Old Covenant is one existing in the terrestrial world, then, that it is accordingly something only temporary and imperfect in its nature. Remote from the connection are the suppositions of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others: that the Jewish sanctuary was called κοσμικόν, because the access to the same stood open to the κόσμος, i.e. the Gentiles; a statement, moreover, which possesses historic truth only with reference to a part thereof, the court of the Gentiles (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 2; Acts 21:28), while here the sanctuary as a whole must be indicated;—of Theodorus Mopsuesten., Theodoret,[88] Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Böhme, Paulus, and others: because the Jewish sanctuary symbolically represented the universe; the holy place, earth; the most holy, heaven; and the curtain before the latter, the firmament;—of Kypke, because the sense is: toto terrarum orbe celebratum (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. iv. 5. 2, where the Jerusalem high priests, Ananus and Jesus, are represented as τῆς κοσμικῆς θρησκείας κατάρχοντες, προσκυνούμενοί τε τοῖς ἐκ τῆς οἰκουμένης), which, however, could only be said with reference to the temple, not with reference to the tabernacle itself, of which the author is here specially thinking.

Entirely baseless, finally, is the opinion of Homberg, that ΚΟΣΜΙΚΌΝ is to be apprehended in the sense of “adorned, well-ordered.” For only ΚΌΣΜΙΟς, ΚΟΣΜΗΤΙΚΌς, and ΚΟΣΜΗΤΌς are used for the expression of this notion; never is ΚΟΣΜΙΚΊς put for it. See the Lexicons.

[87] Wrongly Stengel: “Means of justification.”

[88] Τὴν σκηνὴν οὕτως ἐκάλεσε, τύπον ἐπέχουσαν τοῦ κόσμου παντός. Καταπετάσματι γὰρ μάσῳ διῃρεῖτο διχῆ, καὶ τὰ μὲν αὐτῆς ἐκαλεῖτο ἅγια, τὰ δὲ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων. Καὶ ἐμιμεῖτο τὰ μὲν ἅγια τὴν ἐν τῇ γῇ πολιτείαν, τὰ δὲ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων τὸ τῶν οὐρκνῶν ἐνδιαίτημα. Αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ στερεώματος ἐπλήρου τὴν χρείαν.

Hebrews 9:1-5. Description of the arrangement of the O. T. sanctuary as regards its essential component parts.

Hebrews 9:1-14. The author has in chap. 8 insisted upon the fact, as a second main particular of the superiority of Christ as a high priest over the Levitical high priests, that the sanctuary in which He ministers is a more excellent one, namely, the heavenly sanctuary. He has made good this proposition by the consideration that no place would be found for Christ, as regards priestly service, in the earthly sanctuary; and then has proceeded to show the naturalness of the fact that He accomplishes His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, by the proof that He is the Mediator of a better covenant. This train of thought is still pursued in the beginning of chap. 9, in that attention is now finally called to the fact that in the arrangement of the Mosaic sanctuary itself, and the order of the priestly service corresponding thereto, there lies an indication on the part of God that Mosaism is not itself the perfect religion, but only an institution preparatory thereto (Hebrews 9:1-8). With this, however, is then connected, by means of one of those sudden transitions of which the author is so fond, the reference to the further truth, that, indeed, the Levitical sacrifices also, since they belong to the domain of fleshly ordinance, are not able really to atone; whereas the sacrifice presented by Christ, by means of His own blood, possesses, by virtue of an eternal Spirit, everlasting power of atonement (Hebrews 9:9-14), and thus a third main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ is introduced, the development of which occupies the author as far as Hebrews 10:18.

Hebrews 9:2-5. Unfolding of the collective idea τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν, as regards its several essential component parts. That the author has before his mind the Jewish sanctuary in its original form, i.e. the Mosaic tabernacle, is evident alike from the expression σκηνή, as from the use of the aorist κατεσκευάσθη. That, however, he likewise thinks of this original disposition as still preserved in the temple of his day, is manifest partly from the present λέγεται immediately following, partly from the proposition: τούτων δὲ οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων … εἰσίασιν, Hebrews 9:6.

σκηνὴ γὰρ κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη] for a tent was prepared (set up), namely, the first or anterior one (the fore-tent). σκηνή stands first as the general notion, and only acquires its nearer definition by the ἡ πρώτη afterwards brought in, without, however, our having, with Beza, Bloomfield, and others, to place a comma after κατεσκευάσθη. That σκηνὴ ἡ πρώτη is not to be combined immediately in one, as expressing the signification: “the fore-part of the tent” (so Valckenaer, who compares in ultimis aedibus, and the like; also Delitzsch), is shown—although such acceptation presents no grammatical difficulty—by the corresponding σκηνὴ ἡ λεγομένη ἅγια ἁγίων, Hebrews 9:3, whence it follows that the author is regarding the two divisions of the tent separated by the veil in front of the Most Holy Place as two tents.

πρώτη] not temporal, but local.

κατεσκευάσθη] namely by Moses, at the behest of God (comp. Hebrews 8:5).

ἐν ᾗ ἥ τε λυχνία] sc. ἐστίν (not ἦν, Alford, Kurtz, against which λέγεται and Hebrews 9:6 are decisive): in which there is the candlestick (or lamp-stand). Comp. Exodus 25:31-39; Exodus 37:17-24; Bähr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd. I., Heidelb. 1837, p. 412 ff. In the temple of Herod, too, there was, according to Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5. 5, only one lamp-stand in the Holy Place, while in the temple of Solomon there were ten of them present; comp. 1 Kings 7:49; 2 Chronicles 4:7.

καὶ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων] and the table and the setting forth of the bread (or loaves), i.e. wherein is found the table, and the sacred custom is observed of placing thereon the shew-bread. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 590. Wrongly do Vatablus, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bloomfield, and others explain ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων as hypallage or antiptosis for οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως. Yet more unwarrantably do Valckenaer (and similarly Heinrichs) maintain that ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων is equivalent to ἡ τράπεζα τῶν ἄρτων τῆς προθέσεως. According to Tholuck, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, and Moll, πρόθεσις is, like the Hebrew מַעֲרֶכֶת, to be taken concretely, strues panum. But πρόθεσις never has the passive signification of strues. On the matter itself, comp. Exodus 25:23-30; Exodus 26:35; Exodus 37:10-16; Leviticus 24:5-9; Bähr, l.c. p. 407 ff.

ἥτις] sc. σκηνὴ ἡ πρώτη. Not conjoined with the mere ἥ, because the fact alleged is something which is familiar to the readers.

ἅγια] Holy Place (קֹדֶשׁ). So (as neuter plur.), not, with Erasmus, Luther, Er. Schmid, Mill, Whitby, Heinrichs, and others, ἁγία (as fem. sing.), have we to accentuate the word. It stands opposed to the ἅγια ἁγίων, Hebrews 9:3, and denotes the Holy Place, or the outer portion of the tabernacle, in opposition to the Most Holy Place, or the more secluded, inner portion of the same. Likewise with the LXX. and with Philo, the plural τὰ ἅγια in this sense is interchanged with the singular τὸ ἅγιον.

ἅγια, however, not τὰ ἅγια, is placed, because the author was less concerned about mentioning the definite name coined for the expression thereof, than about bringing out the signification which this name has.

Hebrews 9:3. Μετά] after or behind. Of local succession (Thucyd. vii. 58, al.), in the N. T. only here.

τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα] the second veil (פָּרֹכֶת). For before the Holy Place, too, there was a veil (מָסָךְ). On the former, comp. Exodus 26:31 ff.

σκηνή] sc. κατεσκευάσθη.

ἅγια ἁγίων] Most Holy Place. Periphrasis of the superlative (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 231), and translation of קֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים.

Hebrews 9:4. Θυμιατήριον] is either interpreted as altar of incense or as censer. The latter, and indeed as a golden censer, which was employed by the high priest on the great day of atonement, is thought of by Luther, Grotius, de Dieu, Calov, Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Whitby, Schulz, Böhme, M‘Lean, Stuart, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, Bisping, Alford, M‘Caul, and others, after the precedent of the Peshito, Vulgate (turibulum), and Theophylact. The altar of incense, on the other hand (מִזְבֵּחַ הַקְּטֹרֶת or מִזְבֵּחַ הַוָּהָב), of which mention is made as a constituent part in the Mosaic tabernacle, Exodus 30:1-10; Exodus 37:25-28; Exodus 40:5; Exodus 40:26, as a constituent part in the temple of Solomon, 1 Kings 7:48, 2 Chronicles 4:19, and as a constituent part in the Herodian temple (Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5), is understood in the case of the Latin translation in D E (altare), as well as by Oecumenius (ad Hebrews 9:7), Calvin, Justinian, Piscator, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Gerhard, Brochmann, Mynster (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 342 ff.), Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr: p. 489 f., Obs.), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Conybeare, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. Instances from the classical writers in favour of either reference, see in Bleek, II. 2, p. 480 f. That a censer is intended may be urged from the language of the LXX., since with them for the indication of the altar of incense the expressions: τὸ θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος (Exodus 30:1; Exodus 30:27; Leviticus 4:7), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τῶν θυμιαμάτων (1 Chronicles (1Chr. 7:49) 1 Chronicles 6:49, 1 Chronicles 28:18; 2 Chronicles 26:16; 2 Chronicles 26:19), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν (Exodus 40:5; Exodus 40:26, al.), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ (ὂν) ἀπέναντι κυρίου (Leviticus 16:12; Leviticus 16:18); and, where the altar intended is clear from the context, merely τὸ θυσιαστήριον (Leviticus 16:20, al.), are regularly employed, and only in unimportant MSS. of the same θυμιατήριον presents itself in some few passages as a variation of reading. To this usage of the LXX., however, is to be opposed the equally important fact of the usage of Philo and Josephus, according to which, at their time, τὸ θυμιατήριον was quite the ordinary appellation of the altar of incense. Comp. Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres. p. 511 sq. (with Mangey, I. p. 504): τριῶν ὄντων ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις σκευῶν, λυχνίας, τραπέζης, θυμιατηρίου; De vita Mos. p. 668 (II. p. 149): Ἅμα δὲ τούτῳ ἐδημιουργεῖτο καὶ σκεύη ἱερά, κιβωτός, λυχνία, τράπεζα, θυμιατήριον, βωμός. Ὁ μὲν οὖν βωμὸς ἵδρυτο ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ κ.τ.λ.; Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5 : καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον μέρος … εἶχεν ἐν αὐτῷ τρία θαυμασιώτατα καὶ περιβόητα πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἔργα, λυχνίαν, τράπεζαν, θυμιατήριον Antiq. iii. 6, 8 : μεταξὺ δὲ αὐτῆς (τῆς λιχνίας) καὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἔνδον … θυμιατήριον, ξύλινον μὲν κ.τ.λ., al. Of the altar of incense, accordingly, the expression must be understood in our passage. For the manner in which the χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον is mentioned, as a parallel member to τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης, shows that the former must be an object of equally great importance as the latter. But, since that is so, something as non-essential as a golden censer cannot be meant, but only the altar of incense, which formed an essential constituent part of the tabernacle. Besides, there is nowhere any mention in the O. T. (not Leviticus 16:12 either) of a particular censer, which had been set apart for the service on the great day of atonement. About the existence of such a censer at the time of the Mosaic tabernacle, which the author after all has mainly before his mind, nothing is known with certainty. Only from the Mishna, tract. Joma, iv. 4,[89] do we learn something about it. Moreover, according to tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4, this censer was first fetched out of the storehouse, carried by the high priest into the Most Holy Place, and upon the completion of the service again carried forth therefrom; even as it would be a priori improbable in the highest degree that such instrument should be kept within the Holy of Holies. For, according to Leviticus 16:12-13, the high priest was first to enter with incense into the Most Holy Place, in order that through the cloud thereof the glory of God, enthroned above the cover of the ark of the covenant, might become invisible to him, to the end that he died not. And yet ἔχουσα compels us to think of an abiding place of the θυμιατήριον; to explain ἜΧΟΥΣΑ of the mere appertaining of the θυμιατήριον to the Most Holy Place as an object of use for the latter, as is usually done by the one class of expositors (but also by some advocates of the opposite view, as Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, Owen, Mynster, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Conybeare, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 490, Obs.; Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and Woerner, with an appeal to הַמִּזְבֵּהַ אֲשֶׁר־לֵדְּבִיר, 1 Kings 6:22), is—inasmuch as the author sharply separates from each other in his description the two main divisions of the O. T. sanctuary, as well as the objects peculiar to each of these divisions, by means of ΜΕΤᾺ ΔΈ, Hebrews 9:3, and thus ἜΧΟΥΣΑ, Hebrews 9:4, unmistakably corresponds to the ἘΝ ᾟ, Hebrews 9:2—altogether arbitrary. If, then, we understand ΘΥΜΙΑΤΉΡΙΟΝ of the altar of incense, as we are compelled to do, there arises the archaeological difficulty that this altar had its standing-place not in the Most Holy Place, as is here presupposed by the author, but, on the contrary, in the Holy Place (Exodus 30:1 ff.). This point of inconsistency with historic truth is to be admitted, and therefrom the conclusion to be drawn, that the author did not himself live in the vicinity of the Jewish sanctuary, but had drawn his knowledge with regard to the same only from the Scriptures of the O. T., whence the possibility of an error is explicable. In favour of this possibility, Bleek rightly urges the following considerations: first, that Exodus 26:35 there are mentioned as standing within the Holy Place only the table and the candlestick, but not the altar of incense also. Then, that where the standing place of this altar is actually spoken of, the form of expression chosen certainly, by reason of its indefiniteness, admitted of misconstruction. So Exodus 30:6 : ΚΑῚ ΘΉΣΕΙς ΑὐΤῸ ἈΠΈΝΑΝΤΙ ΤΟῦ ΚΑΤΑΠΕΤΆΣΜΑΤΟς, ΤΟῦ ὌΝΤΟς ἘΠῚ Τῆς ΚΙΒΩΤΟῦ ΤῶΝ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΊΩΝ; ibid. Exodus 40:5 : καὶ θήσεις τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν εἰς τὸ θυμιᾶν ἐναντίον τῆς κιβωτοῦ; Hebrews 9:26 : ἀπέναντι τοῦ καταπετάσματος; Leviticus 4:7; Leviticus 16:12; Leviticus 16:18 : ἐναντίον or ἀπέναντι κυρίου. Finally, that in the Mosaic law the altar of incense was brought into peculiar significance in connection with the solemnity of the atonement, since on this day it was sprinkled and cleansed by the high priest with the same blood which the high priest had carried into the Most Holy Place (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16:18 f.).

χρυσοῦν] since the emphasis rests on it, is prefixed. The article, however, is wanting, because the sense is: a golden altar, namely, the altar of incense, in distinction from the brazen altar existing in the court, namely, the altar of burnt-offering.

καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης] and the ark of the covenant; comp. Exodus 25:10 ff; Exodus 37:1-9.

ΠΕΡΙΚΕΚΑΛΥΜΜΈΝΗΝ ΠΆΝΤΟΘΕΝ ΧΡΥΣΊῼ] overlaid on every side (within and without; comp. Exodus 25:11) with gold (plating of fine gold). According to 1 Kings 8, the ark of the covenant was also brought into the temple of Solomon. On the destruction of this temple by the Chaldeans it was lost, and the second temple was without an ark. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5 : Ἔκειτο δὲ οὐδὲν ὅλως ἐν αὐτῷ, ἄβατον δὲ καὶ ἄχραντον καὶ ἀθέατον ἦν πᾶσιν, ἁγίου δὲ ἅγιον ἐκαλεῖτο.

ἐν ᾗ στάμνος χρυσῆ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα κ.τ.λ.] wherein was a golden pot with the manna, and Aaron’s rod which had budded, and the tables of the covenant. ἘΝ ᾟ does not refer back to ΣΚΗΝΉ, Hebrews 9:3 (Ribera, Justinian, Pyle, Peirce, and others),—for to the ἘΝ ᾟ, Hebrews 9:4, the ὙΠΕΡΆΝΩ ΔῈ ΑὐΤῆς, Hebrews 9:5, forms an opposition,—but it refers to ΚΙΒΩΤΌς. On the pot of manna, comp. Exodus 16:32-34; on Aaron’s rod, Num. 17:16–26 (Numbers 18:1-11); on the tables of the covenant, Exodus 25:16; Deuteronomy 10:1-2. According to 1 Kings 8:9, there was nothing more in the ark of the covenant, at the time of its removal into the temple, than the two tables of the law; and according to Exodus 16:33, Num. 17:25 (Numbers 18:10), the two first-mentioned objects were not to have their place within, but before the ark of the covenant. The same opinion, however, which the author here expresses as to the place of the preservation of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, is found likewise with later Rabbins, as with R. Levi Ben Gerson at 1 Kings 8:9 and at Numbers 17:10, and Abarbanel at 1 Kings 8:9. See Wetstein on our passage.

[89] Omnibus diebus reliquis suffitum facturus de altari accepit in turibulo argenteo … hoc vero die in aureo.

Hebrews 9:5. The author turns from the objects to be found within the ark of the covenant to that which is above the same.

ὑπεράνω δὲ αὐτῆς] sc. τῆς κιβωτοῦ.

Χερουβίμ] comp. Exodus 25:18 ff; Exodus 37:7 ff.; Winer, Bibl. Realwörterb. I. 2 Aufl. p. 262 ff.; Bähr, Symbolik des Mob. Cultus, Bd. I. p. 311 ff. There existed two of them, of fine gold, one at each end of the cover or lid of the ark of the covenant, upon which, with faces turned towards each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their outspread wings. In the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God enthroned (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16), and from this place God would speak to Moses (Exodus 25:22; comp. Numbers 7:89).

Χερουβίμ is here treated as a neuter, as likewise generally with the LXX., with whom the masculine οἱ Χερουβ. occurs but rarely (e.g. Exodus 25:20; Exodus 37:7). The neuter is not, however, to be explained by the supposition that πνεύματα is to be supplied to it in thought (comp. Drusius on our passage), but from the fact that the cherubim were regarded as ζῶα. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 6. 5, where the Mosaic cherubim are described as ζῶα πετεινά, μορφὴν, δʼ οὐδενὶ τῶν ὑπʼ ἀνθρώπων ἑωραμένων παραπλήσια. Comp. also Ezekiel 10:15 : καὶ τὰ Χερουβὶμ ἦσαν τοῦτο τὸ ζῶον, ὃ ἴδον κ.τ.λ. Ibid. Hebrews 9:20.

The cherubim are called Χερουβὶμ δόξης. That may mean cherubim of glory or brightness, to whom glory or brightness is proper (so Camerarius, Estius, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, Kuinoel, al.), or the cherubim which pertain to the divine glory, the כְּבֹוד יְהֹוָה, i.e. who are the bearers of the divine glory (so the majority). Grammatically the former is easier (on account of the absence of the article before δόξης). But the latter is to be preferred as yielding a more appropriate thought, and the omission of the article is to be justified from the usage of the LXX. Exodus 40:34; 1 Samuel 4:22; Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 10:18, al.

κατασκιάζοντα τὸ ἱλαστήριον] which overshadow the propitiatory (or mercy-seat). κατασκιάζειν in the N. T. only here. Comp. συσκιάζειν, Exodus 25:20; σκιάζειν, Exodus 37:9; 1 Chronicles 28:18. A more choice verb than περικαλύπτειν, 1 Kings 8:7. τὸ ἱλαστήριον (כַּפֹּרֶת), the cover of the ark of the covenant, which on the great day of atonement was sprinkled with the sacrificial blood for the expiation of the sins of the people. Comp. Leviticus 16:14 f.

περὶ ὧν] goes back not merely to the cherubim (Ebrard, p. 294), but also to all the objects before enumerated.

οὐκ ἔστιν] it concerns us not, or: is not the place, or: is impossible. Comp. 1 Corinthians 11:20. Of the same meaning as the more definite οὐκ ἔξεστιν. With Kurtz to supply τόπος is inadmissible.

κατὰ μέρος] in detail. The author does not design to set forth the typical significance of every single object enumerated; the indication of the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Jewish sanctuary is that which he at present aims at, and to this task he now addresses himself in that which immediately follows, comp. Hebrews 9:8.

Hebrews 9:6-7. After the collective expression τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν, Hebrews 9:1, has been analyzed into its single constituent parts, Hebrews 9:2-5, and a recapitulatory reference has been made to the total result of this given analysis by means of τούτων οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων,—the opposition to μέν, Hebrews 9:1, being formally introduced by δέ, and then receiving its more precise material defining by means of the statement, Hebrews 9:8, which is attached in a grammatical respect as a subsidiary clause,—the discourse advances to the development of the further general idea, which is placed in the forefront, Hebrews 9:1, but has hitherto remained unnoticed, the twofold expression δικαιώματα λατρείας.

From the present εἰσίασιν, as from προσφέρει, Hebrews 9:7 (comp. also Hebrews 9:8 f.), it follows that the Mosaic cultus was still continuing at the time when the author wrote. The participle perfect, κατεσκευασμένων, however, denotes that which is extending out of the past into the present, and is still enduring in the present (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 254). The present hereby indicated can, of course, only be that in which the author himself is living and writing. The endeavour to explain it of a present into which the author only mentally places himself, is as little warranted grammatically as is the asserting, with Hofmann, that the present in which the discourse here moves is “not a past, nor actual, nor something still continuing, but that set forth in the word of God, where it is to be read how the sanctuary erected by Moses was constituted, and what priests and high priests do in the same;” or with Mangold (in Bleek’s Einleit. in das N. T. p. 617), to find the Scripture picture of the tabernacle drawn in our passage as a “purely ideal magnitude, which by no means guarantees the actual continued existence of the temple worship.” For, in order to render possible suppositions of this kind, the conjoining of the presents with a participle aorist would have been indispensably necessary. From the form of discourse chosen: τούτων οὕτως κατεσκενασμένων (“in that these objects have been in such wise regulated”), in union with the present tenses εἰσίασιν and προσφέρει, it therefore follows of necessity that the author, although here entering only upon the presentation of the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary, nevertheless thinks of these two main divisions, together with all that appertains to them,—which he has just now enumerated,—as still preserved in being, thus also as still present in the Jewish temple of his day; by which supposition, it is true, he becomes involved in contradiction with the historic reality, inasmuch as alike the ark of the covenant as the vessel of manna and Aaron’s rod were wanting in the second temple. Vid. supra ad Hebrews 9:4. With very little reflection does Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 491, Obs.) object to this conclusion, that “with just the same right one might infer from the present in Hebrews 13:11 that the author supposed the Israelites of his time to be still dwelling in a camp.” The passage Hebrews 13:11 has nothing whatever in common with ours, since it is here a question of the combination of a participle perfect with verbs in the present. That, too, which Delitzsch sets against it, that the τούτων οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων, pointing back to κατεσκευάσθη, Hebrews 9:2, certainly shows that the author has the Mosaic period before his mind, utterly collapses, inasmuch as the participle perfect, and not the participle aorist, has been employed. Phrases, however, like those met with in Delitzsch: that the author was writing for just such readers as would not have given him credit for an ignorance like this, are peremptory decisions, for which the result is already fixed before the investigation, and consequently intimidations of the grammatical conscience.

ἡ πρώτη σκηνή] as Hebrews 9:2, the fore-tent or Holy Place.

διὰ παντός] continually, i.e. day by day. Opposite ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, Hebrews 9:7.

οἱ ἱερεῖς] opposite μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, Hebrews 9:7.

τὰς λατρείας ἐπιτελοῦντες] performing the religious actions. Daily, morning and evening, an offering of incense was presented, and daily were the lamps of the sacred candlestick placed in readiness and kindled. Comp. Exodus 30:7 ff.

Hebrews 9:7. Ἡ δευτέρα] sc. σκηνή, the Most Holy Place.

ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ] once in the year, i.e. only on a single day of the year, namely, on the tenth of the seventh month (Tisri), on the great solemnity of atonement. The supposition that the high priest on this day more than once entered the Most Holy Place is not excluded by the expression, and the disputed question as to how many times this took place has no bearing on our passage. That the high priest was obliged to enter the Most Holy Place at least twice on this day, follows from Leviticus 16:12-16. That he entered into it as many as four times is the teaching of the Talmud (tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4) and Rabbins.

μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς] sc. εἴσεισι.

προσφέρει] is not to be explained, as by Calov and others, of the sacrifices outside of the Most Holy Place. For in this case we should have to expect the aorist. It is employed of the blood of the victim before slain, which blood the high priest carries into the Most Holy Place, and here in the Most Holy Place presents to God (the Socinians, Grotius, Bleek).

ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων] for himself and the transgressions of the people. To make ἑαυτοῦ likewise depend upon ἀγνοημάτων (for his own sins and those of the people: Vulgate, Luther (?), Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Storr, Stuart, Paulus, and others), is, although the thought is not thereby altered (comp. Hebrews 7:27), grammatically false; because in that case the article τῶν could not have been wanting before ἑαυτοῦ.

ἀγνοημάτων] see at Hebrews 5:2, p. 198.