Hebrews 9 — Verse 1

Then verily even that first Covenant, had ordinances of worship, and also a worldly Sanctuary.

Proceeding to the comparison designed between the old Covenant and the new, as to the services and sacrifices wherewith the one and the other was established and confirmed, He introduceth the [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] of the first by way of concession, as to what really belonged thereunto. And this is the constant method of the Apostle in all the comparisons he makes. He still allows full weight and measure to that comparate which he prefers the other above. And as this, on the one hand, taketh away all cause of complaint, as though the worth and value of what he determineth against, were concealed; so it tends to the real exaltation of that which he gives the preference to. It is an honor to the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ, that they are so much more glorious and excellent than those of the old Covenant, which yet were excellent and glorious also.

There is in this Verse,

1. An introduction of the concession intended. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. The contexture of these particles is somewhat unusual. Hence some would have, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], to be redundant; some join it in construction with [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] that follows. This was the judgment of Beza, whom our translators follow, For the word, Also; [had also Ordinances;] renders, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], in the original: and thereon they omit it in the first place, not saying, And then verily, but then verily, that is, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. If this be so, the assertion of the Apostle seems to be built on a tacit supposition that the latter Covenant has ordinances of worship. Hence he grants the first had so also. Even that had also ordinances of worship, as the new has. But I see not at all, that any such supposition is here made by the Apostle; yes, he does rather oppose those ordinances of divine worship to the privileges of the new Covenant, than allow the same things to be under both. And this is evident in the worldly Sanctuary, which he ascribes to the first Covenant, for he had expressly denied that there was any such under the new (Chap. 8:2). Therefore although [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and, seems to be redundant, yet it is emphatical and increaseth the signification of the other particles, as it is often used in the Scripture. And the introduction of the concession, intimated by this contexture of the notes of it, (then verily even that) shews both the reality of it, and the weight that he lays upon it. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; we render, then; most do it by igitur, therefore. But the connexion to the foregoing discourse is rather real than verbal. It is not an inference made from what was before declared, but a continuation of the same design. And yet moreover it is granted; or therefore it is granted; verily so it was. And so [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] serves to the Protasis of the comparison, whereunto [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] answereth, ver. 11th. But; Christ being come.

The subject spoken of is [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], the first, that is, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; that first Covenant whereof we treat. The Covenant made with the Fathers at Sinai, which as to the administrations of it the Hebrews as yet adhered to. The nature of this Covenant we have spoken to at large on the foregoing chapter, and there refer the Reader. Of this Covenant it is affirmed in general, that it had two things, (1) ordinances of worship, (2) a worldly Sanctuary; and the relation of them to it, is, that it had them.

1. It had them [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. It refers to the time past. The Apostle says not it has them, but, it had them. That is, say some, it had so while that Tabernacle was standing, and while these things were in force; but now the Covenant is abolished and it has none of them. But this answers not the Apostle's intention. For he acknowledgeth that Covenant and all its ordinances de facto to have been yet in being, in the patience and forbearance of God. Only he affirms that it was [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (chap. 8:13), ready to disappear. Nor was he to take for granted, what was the principal [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] between him and the Hebrews, but to prove it, which he does accordingly. Hence he grants that there were Priests that offered Gifts according to the Law (chap. 8:4), and some who served at the Tabernacle (chap. 13:10). But the Apostle has respect to the time wherein that Covenant was first made. Then it had these things annexed to it, which were the privileges and glory of it. For the Apostle has in the whole discourse, continual respect to the first making of the Covenant, and the first institution of its administrations. It had them; that is, they belonged to it as those wherein its administration did consist.

Every Covenant of God had its proper privileges and advantages. Even the first Covenant had so, and those such as were excellent in themselves, though not comparable with them of the new. For to make any Covenant with men, is an eminent fruit of goodness, grace and condescension in God, whereon he will annex such privileges thereunto, as may evince it so to be.

2. This first Covenant had two things in general. 1. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] Both translations and interpreters have cast some difficulty on the meaning of these words, in themselves plain and evident.

[in non-Latin alphabet]; are [in non-Latin alphabet]. And the word is generally rendred by [in non-Latin alphabet] in the Greek Versions; and next to that by [in non-Latin alphabet], that which is legal and right. The Vulgar Latine rendets it by Iustificationes; from the inclusion of Ius, Iustum in the signification of it. In the new Testament it is used, Luke 1:6, Romans 1:32, chap. 2:26, chap. 5:16, chap. 8:4, Hebrews 9:1, ver. 10, Revelation 15:4, chap. 19:8. And in no one place does it signifie Institution, but it may be better rendred Righteousness when alone we so translate it (Romans 5:16). In the context and construction wherein it is here placed, it can have no signification, but that of Ordinances, Rites, Institutions, Statutes, the constant sense of [in non-Latin alphabet] determined both by its derivation, and invariable use. Therefore all inquiries on these words, in what sense the Rites of the Law may be called Iustifications, or whether because the Observation of them did Iustifie before men, or were signs of our Iustification before God, are all useless and needless. What there is of Iust and Right in the signification of the word, respects the Right of God in the constitution and imposition of these Ordinances. They were Appointments of God which he had Right to prescribe, from where their Observation on the Part of the Church was just and equal.

These Ordinances, or Statutes were so ([in non-Latin alphabet], of service) that is, as we render it divine service. [in non-Latin alphabet] is originally of as large a signification as [in non-Latin alphabet], and denotes any service whatever. But it is here, and constantly in the new Testament, as is also the verb [in non-Latin alphabet], restrained to Divine service (John 16:2, Romans 9:4, chap. 12:1). Cultus, of worship, and so were it better rendred, than by Divine service. In one place it signifies by it self, as much as [in non-Latin alphabet] does here: Romans 9:4, to whom belonged the giving of the Law, [in non-Latin alphabet], and the worship; that is, [in non-Latin alphabet], the Ordinances of worship. The Ordinances of the Ceremonial Law. For although God were served in and according to the commands of the Moral Law, or the unchangeable prescriptions the ten words; and also in the duties required in the due Observance of the Iudicial Law; yet this [in non-Latin alphabet] or [in non-Latin alphabet] was the immediate worship of the Tabernacle; and the services of the Priests that belonged thereunto. Hence the Jews call all Idolatry and superstition; [in non-Latin alphabet], strange worship.

And this was that part of Divine worship about which God had so many controversies with the People of Israel under the Old Testament. For they were always apt to run into noxious extreams about it: for the most part they were prone to neglect it, and to run into all manner of superstition and Idolatry. For the Law of this worship was an hedge that God had set about them to keep them from those Abominations. And if at any time they brake over it, or neglected it, and let it fall, they failed not to rush into the most abominable Idolatry. On the other hand, ofttimes they placed all their trust and confidence for their acceptance with God and blessing from him, on the external observance of the ordinances and institutions of it. And hereby they countenanced themselves not only in a neglect of moral Duties and spiritual Obedience, but in a course of flagitious sins and wickednesses. To repress these exorbitances with respect to both these extreams, the ministry of the Prophets was in an especial manner directed. And we may observe some things here in our passage, as included in the Apostle's assertion, though not any part of his present Design.

1. There was never any Covenant between God and man, but it had some Ordinances or Arbitrary Institutions of external Divine worship annexed to it. The original Covenant of works had the Ordinances of the Tree of Life, and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Laws whereof belonged not to that of natural Light and Reason. The Covenant of Sinai whereof the Apostle speaks had a multiplication of them. Nor is the new Covenant destitute of them or their necessary observance. All Public worship in, and the Sacraments of the Church are of this nature. For whereas it is ingrafted in natural Light that some external worship is to be given to God, He would have it of his own prescription, and not as to the modes of it, be left to the inventions of men. And because God has alwayes in every Covenant prescribed the external worship and all the Duties of it which he will accept, it cannot but be dangerous for us, to make any Additions thereunto. Had he prescribed none at any time, seeing some are necessary in the Light of nature, it would follow by just consequence that they were left to the finding out and appointment of men. But he having done this himself, let not us add to his words, lest he reprove us, and we be found lyars. And in his Institution of these Ordinances of external worship, there is both a Demonstration of his Sovereignty, and an especial trial of our Obedience in things whereof we have no Reason but his meer will and pleasure.

2. It is an hard and rare thing to have the minds of men kept upright with God in the Observation of the Institutions of Divine worship. Adam lost himself and us all by his failure therein. The Old Church seldom attained to it, but continually wandred into one of the extreams mentioned before. And at this day there are very few in the world who judge a diligent observation of Divine Institutions to be a thing of any great importance. By some they are neglected, by some corrupted with additions of their own, and by some they are exalted above their proper place and use, and turning into an occasion of neglecting more important Duties. And the Reason of this difficulty is because Faith has not that assistance and encouragement from innate Principles of Reason, and sensible experience of this kind of Obedience, as it has in that which is moral, internal, and spiritual.

That these Ordinances of divine worship might be duly observed and rightly performed under the first Covenant, there was a Place appointed of God for their solemnization. It had, [in non-Latin alphabet]; also a worldly Sanctuary: He renders [in non-Latin alphabet] by [in non-Latin alphabet]; properly an holy Place, a Sanctuary. And why he calls it [in non-Latin alphabet], or worldly, we must enquire. And some things must be premised to the exposition of these words.

The Apostle treating of the services, sacrifices, and place of worship under the Old Testament, does not instance in, nor insist upon the Temple, with its fabric, and the order of its services; but in the Tabernacle set up by Moses in the wilderness. And this he does for the ensuing reasons.

1. Because his principle design is to confirm the preeminence of the New Covenant above the Old. To this end he compares them together in their first introduction and establishment with what did belong to them therein. And as this in the New Covenant was the priesthood, mediation, and sacrifice of Christ; so in the old it was the Tabernacle with the services and sacrifices that belonged to it. These the first covenant was accompanied with and established by; and therefore were they peculiarly to be compared with the Tabernacle of Christ, and the sacrifice that he offered therein. This is the principle reason why in this disputation he has all along respect to the Tabernacle, and not to the Temple.

2. Although the Temple with its glorious fabric and excellent order added much to the outward beauty and splendor of the sacred worship, yet was it no more but a large exemplification of what was virtually contained in the Tabernacle and the institutions of it, from where it derived all its glory. And therefore these Hebrews principally rested in, and boasted of the revelation made to Moses and his institutions. And the excellency of the worship of the New Covenant being manifested above that of the Tabernacle there is no plea left for the additional outward glory of the Temple.

Designing to treat of this holy tent or Tabernacle, he confines himself to the first general distribution of it. Exodus 26:33: And you shall hang up the veil under the taches, that you may bring in there the Ark of the Testimony, and the veil shall divide to you, between the Holy and the most Holy; the holy utensils of which two parts he afterwards distinctly describes. The whole was called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which he renders by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the holy place or sanctuary. The Tabernacle of witness erected in the wilderness in two parts, the Holy and the most Holy, with the utensils of them, is that whose description he undertakes.

It is observed by the Apostle that the first covenant had this sanctuary; (1) because so soon as God had made that covenant with the people, he prescribed to them the erection and making of this sanctuary, containing all the solemn means of the administration of the covenant itself. (2) Because it was the principle mercy, privilege and advantage that the people were made partakers of by virtue of that covenant. And it belongs to the exposition of the text, as to the design of the Apostle in it, that we consider what that privilege was, or wherein it did consist.

1. This Tabernacle with what belonged thereunto was a visible pledge of the presence of God among the people, owning, blessing and protecting of them. And it was a pledge of God's own institution, in imitation whereof, the superstitious heathens invented ways of obliging their idol-gods to be present among them for the same ends. Hence was that prayer at the removal of the Tabernacle and the Ark therein (Numbers 10:35, 36): Rise up Lord and let your enemies be scattered, and let them that hate you fly before you. And when it rested he said, Return O Lord to the many thousands of Israel. And from there the Ark was called the Ark of God's strength (see Psalms 68:1, 2; 132:8; 2 Chronicles 6:41), because it was a pledge of God's putting forth his strength and power in the behalf of the people. And according to this institution it was a most effectual means to strengthen their faith and confidence in God. For what could they desire more in reference thereunto, than to enjoy such a gracious earnest of his powerful presence among them? But when they ceased to trust in God, and put their confidence in the things themselves, which were no otherwise useful but as they were pledges of his presence, they proved their ruin. Hereof we have a fatal instance in their bringing the Ark into the field, in their battle against the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:5, 6). And it will fare no better with others who shall rest satisfied with outward institutions of divine worship, neglecting the end of them all, which is faith and trust in God (Jeremiah 7:4). But men of corrupt minds had rather place their trust in any thing but God: for they find that they can do so, and yet continue in their sins, as those did in the Prophet (ver. 8, 9, 10). But none can trust in God, unless he relinquish all sin whatever. All other pretended trust in him, is but the entitling of him to our own wickedness.

2. It was the pledge and means of God's residence or dwelling among them, which expresseth the peculiar manner of his presence mentioned in general before. The Tabernacle was God's house; nor did he promise at any time to dwell among them but with respect thereunto (Exodus 15:17; chapter 25:8; chapter 29:44, 45, 46; Numbers 5:3). And the consideration hereof was a powerful motive to holiness, fear and reverence; to which ends it is every where pressed in the Scripture.

3. It was a fixed seat of all divine worship wherein the truth and purity of it was to be preserved. Had the observation of the ordinances of divine service been left to the memories of private persons, it would quickly have issued in all manner of foolish practices, or have been utterly neglected. But God appointed this sanctuary for the preservation of the purity of his worship, as well as for the solemnity thereof: see Deuteronomy 12:8, 9, 10, 11. Here was the Book of the Law laid up, according to the prescript whereof the priests were obliged in all generations to take care of the public worship of God.

4. It was principally the privilege and glory of the Church of Israel, in that it was a continual representation of the incarnation of the Son of God; a type of his coming in the flesh to dwell among us, and by the one sacrifice of himself to make reconciliation with God, and atonement for sins. It was such an expression of the idea of the mind of God concerning the person and mediation of Christ, as in his wisdom and grace he thought meet to intrust the Church withal. Hence was that severe injunction that all things concerning it, should be made according to the pattern showed in the mount. For what could the wisdom of men do in the prefiguration of that mystery, which they had no comprehension of?

But yet the Sanctuary the Apostle calls [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; worldly. Expositors both ancient and modern do even weary themselves in their enquiries why the Apostle calls this Sanctuary worldly. But I think they do so without cause, the reason of the appellation being evident in his design and the context. And there is a difficulty added to it by the Latin translation which renders the word Seculare, which denotes continuance or duration. This expresses the Hebrew [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]: but that the Apostle renders by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] not by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; and therefore here has no respect to it. The sense that many fix upon is, that he intends the outward court of the Temple, whereunto the Gentiles or men of the world were admitted, from where it was called worldly and not sacred: but this exposition though countenanced by many of the Ancients, is contrary to the whole design of the Apostle. For (1) He speaks of the Tabernacle, wherein was no such outward court; nor indeed was there any such belonging to the Temple, whatever some pretend. (2) The whole Sanctuary, whereof he speaks, he immediately distributes into two parts, as they were divided by the Vail; namely, the Holy and the most Holy Place, which were the two parts of the Tabernacle itself. (3) He treats of the Sanctuary only with respect to the divine service to be performed in it by the Priests, which they did not in any outward court whereunto the Gentiles might be admitted.

Therefore the Apostle terms this Sanctuary worldly, because it was every way in and of this world. For (1) The place of it was on the earth in this world, in opposition whereunto the Sanctuary of the new Covenant is in Heaven (chap. 8:2). (2) Although the materials of it were as durable as any thing in that kind could be procured, as gold and Shittim wood, because they were to be of a long continuance, yet were they worldly; that is, caduca, fading and perishing things, as are all things of the world; God intimating thereby that they were not to have an everlasting continuance. Gold, and wood, and silk, and hair, however curiously wrought and carefully preserved, are but for a time. (3) All the services of it, all its sacrifices in themselves, separated from their typical representative use, were all worldly; and their efficacy extended only to worldly things, as the Apostle proves in this chapter. (4) On these accounts the Apostle calls it worldly; yet not absolutely so, but in opposition to that which is heavenly. All things in the ministration of the new Covenant are heavenly. So is the Priest, his sacrifice, Tabernacle, and Altar as we shall see in the process of the Apostle's discourse. And we may observe from the whole,

1. That divine institution alone is that which renders any thing acceptable to God. Although the things that belonged to the Sanctuary, and the Sanctuary itself, were in themselves but worldly; yet being divine ordinances, they had a glory in them, and were in their season accepted with God.

2. God can animate outward carnal things with an hidden invisible spring of glory and efficacy; so he did their Sanctuary with its relation to Christ; which was an object of faith, which no eye of flesh could behold.

3. All divine service or worship must be resolved into divine ordination or institution. A worship not ordained of God is not accepted of God. It had ordinances of worship.

4. A worldly Sanctuary is enough for them whose service is worldly; and these things the men of the world are satisfied with.