The Christadelphian 1934, John Carter

“The Letter to the Hebrews” 

An Analysis and Exposition

XII.—The Priesthood of Christ: (G) The Tabernacle (9:1–28)

ALREADY the subject of the tabernacle has been broached; when bringing the subject of Christ to one view (8:1–2) Paul said that Jesus was a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. The Mosaic tabernacle was only a “copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Being a copy, it had its instruction concerning the “heavenly things,” both in its structure and in the ordinances which were performed in connection with it. This is the subject of chapter 9.

The Mosaic Tabernacle: Its Structure (verses 1–5)

The tabernacle was a structure of gold-covered boards with a covering of ten curtains of “fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet.” Over it was a tent of goat’s hair, which in turn had a covering of ram’s skins dyed red with a covering of sealskins above. The length of the structure was three times its breadth. It was divided into two chambers, the innermost of which was of the same length, breadth and height. A veil divided the two chambers, each of which had their furniture appropriate to the typical meaning of the whole structure.

The detailed meaning of the several items of furniture Paul does not stay to discuss; of them he “cannot now speak particularly.” There are certain broad lessons bearing on his argument to shew how much superior Christ is to Aaron, and the offering of Christ to the offerings of Aaron and the offerings of the priests, and the tabernacle connected with Christ to the tabernacle in which Aaron and his sons ministered. Therefore Paul contents himself with a description of the structure.

“Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary (Holy place). And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.”

The R.V. substitutes in its margin “altar of incense” for “censer.” This might with advantage have been put in the text.

There are one or two things in this description which call for remark. First, while the tabernacle was one structure, Paul treats the two portions as separate tabernacles. “There was a tabernacle made, the first . . .”; this is the holy place. Then there is the “tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies.” The reason for this division will be apparent as he develops his argument.

A difficulty has been found in the association of the altar of incense (R.V. margin) with the Holiest of all. It actually stood in the holy place, before the veil; and some have not been slow to accuse the writer of the epistle of making a mistake. From an ordinary point of view, inspiration apart, it is hardly likely that a writer who is discussing such a subject with fellow Hebrews to shew them the inner meaning of it all, would be guilty of such a blunder.

There is a simple and satisying explanation. Whereas he speaks of the candlestick and table of shewbread being “in” the holy place, he says the Most Holy “had” the altar of incense. It is so connected with the Most Holy in the instructions to Moses concerning its preparation. The record concerning the table of shewbread and the candlestick is in Ex. 25., but it is not until chapter 30. that we are told how the altar of incense had to be made, and then Moses is told to “put it before the veil” (verse 6; 40:5). The reason for the connection between the altar of incense and the ark emerges in the ritual of the Day of Atonement. When the curtain was pulled aside by the High Priest the altar stood before the ark, and both were sprinkled with the atoning blood (Lev. 16:14–18). This connection is also apparent in the temple of Solomon; the altar is described as “the altar that belonged to the oracle” (1 Kings 6:22, R.V.).

While Paul does not speak particularly of the several items of furniture, their import is discernible and is convincingly set forth in chapters 13. to 26. of The Law of Moses by Brother Roberts.

We may note here that Paul does not discuss the temple or the ritual as observed in his day. He is concerned with the tabernacle and its ceremonies as they are described in the foundational arrangements of Israel’s polity in the writings of Moses. He is concerned with the tabernacle and its services as at first divinely appointed.

Its Ordinances (verses 6–10)

What purpose did this two-chambered tabernacle serve in Israel’s approaches to God? Do the arrangements made in connection with them throw any light on the real value of the services? Paul points out that the two chambers were set apart for particular uses. The outer one was the scene of the daily service of the priests who never had access to the inner chamber. The latter was used by the High Priest, and that only on the annual Day of Atonement. The instruction was definite, negatively and positively. And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.” “This shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year” (Lev. 16:2, 34).

The two chambers were never in use together. The type is explicit on this point. “And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he (Aaron) goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel” (Lev. 16:17). It would appear that in a way the importance of this was discerned by the Jews, for the High Priest was required to offer the ordinary sacrifices on the Day of Atonement.

Here then are the facts to which Paul draws attention. “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people” (verses 6, 7). Many priests served in the first, and continually and freely entered therein: one priest served in the holiest, and entered once yearly, and then only with blood. Many servants and frequent service is set over against one distinctive servant with a single service of a particular kind. And it is the latter who enters into God’s presence to make atonement.

What is the meaning of it? Paul answers: “The Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing; which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation” (verses 8–10).

We mark once more the authoritative position assigned to Moses’ writings “The Holy Spirit thus signifies”; whether this has particular reference to the appointment of the tabernacle services, or the record of the arrangements matters little. The tabernacle was not a humanly devised structure; neither were its ordinances humanly arranged. The critical imagination which puts the temple first in time and claims that the idea of the tabernacle was a priestly invention of the exile presents us with an inverted pyramid which will not stand. The critics in effect deny any work of the Holy Spirit, and “blasphemously” set forward their theories which make the Bible a lie, pure and simple, however much the naked fact may be clothed in a lip service to the religious value of the Book.

Paul says that God arranged the structure and services to have a signification all the time “the first tabernacle,” that is, the holy place, “had standing.” Both A.V. and R.V. mislead by suggesting that Paul is speaking of the “way” being closed while the building existed; “was (or ‘is’) standing.” He is speaking of status and not existence. The tabernacle had long since ceased to exist, and the temple had taken its place. But the holy place had a “standing” because it was divinely appointed. When the arrangements ceased to serve because of the appearance of the great high priest, they then had no standing, although the temple offerings were still continued. The evidence that the holy place no longer had a standing was dramatically shewn in tangible form when the veil of the temple was rent at the death of Christ.

So long as the first tabernacle had standing, so long did it signify that the way into the holiest was not made manifest. The very existence of the place where the priests performed their daily service was a testimony that God’s presence was inaccessible. This outer tent was a “parable” of the Mosaic constitution; “it foreshadowed” translates Moffatt, “the present age”; and the whole service of the priests witnessed to its inefficacy to open the way to God. There was the veil, barring the way. None of the priests dare pull it aside; none could bring men to God. “Touching the conscience” their gifts and sacrifices did not make the worshipper perfect.

Yet it did serve a purpose—but this again demonstrated its inefficiency in the essential things. Its sacrifices were on a par with meats and drinks and divers washings; all ordinances pertaining to the flesh. It might declare a man ceremonially clean whose uncleanness was due to the law’s own enactments. It could regulate the food he ate, but did not make him morally pure.

While the “outer tent” testified to the inability of the Mosaic services to bring men to God, the presence of the inner tent was a prophecy that approach to God was a possibility yet to be accomplished. There was a place of meeting—a place of communion, but it was “there” within, over the ark of testimony. That a way would be opened the annual service of the high priest shewed. Then, stripped of the regalia of office as head of the priestly system of the law, and clothed in white linen, he entered into the presence of God. The accompaniment of his entry, the blood of animals slain, was a prophecy of how the way should be opened. “Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place,” in the one way prescribed. It tells of the way being opened by a sinless man, robed in righteousness, whose life had been given as “an offering for sin.”

The two parts of the tabernacle thus represent two systems; two priesthoods; and two covenants. The outer place speaks of the mortal service of the priests under the law-covenant; the inner of the immortal service of Christ, the great high priest, in the presence of God. The rent veil (rent “from the top to the bottom”—shewing the rending was God’s work) made impossible the continuance of the Mosaic system. The rent might be humanly repaired, and men might persist in doing the service, but the indication had been given that they could not now, after Christ’s death, continue to come into the holy place to do their service for the very reason that the law forbade them to be there when the inner place was open to view. God had now opened the way to Himself; He rent the veil of the temple: He made Christ’s “soul an offering for sin.”

There is an involution of idea in the tabernacle type. Viewed as a structure irrespective of the priestly work connected with the two parts of the tabernacle, it is a figure of the way of approach to God. The holy place, in keeping with it being the place of service of the mortal priests, is a figure of the mortal life of the saints. They are constituents of the tabernacle of God. The shewbread speaks of the Bread of God which came down from heaven; the candlestick—the enlightenment of the Word; the altar of incense—the prayers of the saints. The veil is Christ in the days of his flesh. Beyond is the immortal state; the law within the ark, the uncorrupted manna, and the rod that budded, all telling of immortality.

The whole from this point of view is thus summarised by Brother Roberts: “The analogy of the Mosaic parable to the realities in Christ is complete. The process of drawing men from alienation to glorification is clearly discernible in all its appointments. Humility of mind—circumcision of heart—enters the Christgateway, on receiving the gospel; offers the Christ-sacrifice, in being baptised into the death of Christ, washes in the Christlaver in coming under the purifying power of his commandments; enters the preliminary “holy” place of the divine Tabernacle, in becoming a member of the body of Christ; to radiate the candlestick light of the truth, and offer the incense-sacrifice of praise continually, and eat of the bread of Israel’s hope, and wait for the manifestation of the glory of God in the great Day of Atonement, when all things reconciled will be gathered together in the “holiest” under one head—even Christ: and the true tabernacle of God will be with men, and there shall be no more curse and no more pain and no more death” (Law of Moses, p. 153–4).

The More Perfect Tabernacle and Christ’s Entry (verses 11–14)

The law was something imposed—a “burden” they could not bear. But God had in view a “time of reformation,” when the law and its ordinances would become inoperative. This “time” was when the high priest of the antitypical tabernacle appeared. So Paul proceeds: “But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.”

The principal sentence is: “But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come . . . entered in once for all into the holy place.” Christ is here introduced to us in the work which corresponds to Aaron’s on the day of atonement: and in the title “Christ” Paul recalls that it is the Messiah who also does this priestly work. The “being come” (A.V.) and “having come” (R.V.) are replaced by Rotherham, “When Christ approached as High Priest”; the attention being thereby fixed, not on Christ’s birth but on his entry as High Priest into the antitypical holiest of all.

The “greater and more perfect tabernacle” by which he entered the holiest is greater than the Mosaic tabernacle. It is “not of this building” or “of this creation” (R.V.). It is not a material structure of the elements in the world, such as wood and gold; it is a new creation—a moral being in whom God dwells. In the days of weakness Jesus was the Word made flesh, tabernacling among us. How much more is he the dwelling-place of God when raised from the dead and exalted to the divine nature. By this he entered the holiest—the full and perfect fellowship with the Father.

And as there is a contrast in the tabernacle, so there is in the offering. It is not the blood of goats and calves, such as Aaron took with him, when he entered within the veil; but it is through his own blood he entered once for all. Although Aaron’s offering was only once a year, it was repeated year after year, and continued by successive high priests. It was not efficacious to bring men to true fellowship with God. But Christ’s offering is “once for all”; and could not be otherwise. For the entrance to the true Holy of Holies is immortal fellowship—and this abides in its very nature. In fact the phrase “having obtained eternal redemption” explains of what entry within the veil consists in its bearing upon the physical nature of the one who enters.

It has many times been pointed out (Blood of Christ, page 9; Law of Moses, pages 91 and 172) that the italicised words “for us” in the A.V. are an unwarranted addition. They are omitted by the R.V. If any words are added they should be “for himself”—but the fact that he obtained eternal redemption involves this. And here it may be remarked that he needed redemption, otherwise how could it be said that he obtained it? And it was by his own blood that he obtained it. He was himself a sharer in the effects of his own sacrifice, because he was a member of a race that is mortal because of sin.

Paul adduces reasons for this effectiveness of the blood of Christ. “For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (verses 13, 14).

“The blood of bulls and goats” refers to the sacrifices on the day of atonement: “the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean” to the provision for defilement by contact with death (on the latter see ch. 28. of The Law of Moses, where the type of Numb. 19. is explained). The law imposed a ceremonial defilement contracted by touching a dead body, entering a house in which lay a dead body, or touching a bone; one thus defiled was unfit for worship. But the law provided for a cleansing. The defilement was bodily, and so was the cleansing. The defilement did not make a man morally worse, neither did the cleansing make him morally better. The limits were ceremonial and related to the flesh. Yet it could, and doubtless did in some cases, teach the reflective Israelite a lesson. Death had come by sin, and sin is defiling. But what could cleanse from sin?

Sin is on the moral plane, and its cleansing requires an appropriate sacrifice. It is to be found in the blood of Christ, who, though tempted like us, overcame sin, and laid down his life voluntarily to exhibit the righteousness of God as a condition of the exercise of forbearance in the forgiveness of sins. And this perfect obedience, this moral qualification, is, we believe, expressed by the words translated in our versions “through the eternal spirit.”

Let us notice first that Paul does not say “through the Holy Spirit”; and we should have expected the use of those words had he meant the Holy Spirit. That a difficulty has been felt in the words is seen by the fact that in a few MSS. of not sufficient weight to make the accepted reading at all doubtful, the transcribers have substituted “holy” for “eternal,” Then, Paul does not say “the eternal spirit”; Rotherham translates “through an ageabiding spirit.” Several times in Romans 8. the word spirit denotes moral character, and if used here in a similar sense the words have great cogency in the argument. And it is called “eternal” because it was of that perfect quality which has abiding worth and which qualifies for a permanent existence. A suggestive paraphrase, and it is a paraphrase and not a translation, is, “through the spiritual virtue of the divine holiness of life.”

Through this holiness of life Christ was without spot. The spirit he manifested provides the moral quality of his sacrifice which makes it able to cleanse the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

The conscience is satisfied. Disobedience brought death: by man came death; obedience brought life: by man came the resurrection from the dead. Christ offered himself; the animal offerings could never satisfy the moral bearings of the matter but only foreshadow it by freedom from physical blemish. In union with the redeemer there is the forgiveness of sins, and free approach to worship God.

The “dead works” in relation to those Hebrews might be found in the unsatisfactory offerings of the law which never gave them release from a conscience of sin The law was “imposed”; it was burden, and not a release. And “dead” works are in sharp contrast to the “living” God; He can only be served by the “living sacrifices” of His people, made through His son.

The living God finds pleasure in the voluntary approaches of the living creatures whom He has made in His own image The bringing of dead sacrifices had no intrinsic value; and when brought with no recognition of their meaning they became so much an “offence” to Him that He “hated” them.

“How much more shall the blood of Christ . . . ?” The ashes of an heifer—a dead body reduced to ashes—had its value for ceremonial purposes. When the arrangement was first made there was even a suggestion of another priest to come, for Aaron had not to slay the heifer. This was done by his son, Eleazer, the high priest elect. It was a priest to be who made the sacrifice with its limited ceremonial value. It was the high priest elect of another order than the Aaronic, who offered himself for the moral cleansing of those who come unto God by him. “How much more” superior in every way is the Christ-antitype.

John Carter.