13When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear. 1That first covenant between God and Israel had regulations for worship and a place of worship here on earth. 2There were two rooms in that Tabernacle. In the first room were a lamp stand, a table, and sacred loaves of bread on the table. This room was called the Holy Place. 3Then there was a curtain, and behind the curtain was the second room called the Most Holy Place. 4In that room were a gold incense altar and a wooden chest called the Ark of the Covenant, which was covered with gold on all sides. Inside the Ark were a gold jar containing manna, Aaron’s staff that sprouted leaves, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the Ark were the cherubim of divine glory, whose wings stretched out over the Ark’s cover, the place of atonement. But we cannot explain these things in detail now.
6When these things were all in place, the priests regularly entered the first room as they performed their religious duties. 7But only the high priest ever entered the Most Holy Place, and only once a year. And he always offered blood for his own sins and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8By these regulations the Holy Spirit revealed that the entrance to the Most Holy Place was not freely open as long as the Tabernacle and the system it represented were still in use. 9This is an illustration pointing to the present time. For the gifts and sacrifices that the priests offer are not able to cleanse the consciences of the people who bring them. 10For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies—physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established.
Hebrews 8:13-9:10
No, there’s no direct link between the statement Neil Armstrong made when stepping onto the surface of the moon on the 20th July 1969 and what the author of Hebrews had to say about the quantum leap between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. I just couldn’t resist the analogy when I realised the wording the author of Hebrews used. It’s complicated and has sent the commentators into a multiplicity of explanations. You will notice I have reformatted the above quote in a different way from what I gave you in Gem 2115. In that Gem I was intent on picking out the themes or titles of the passage. In this one I am wanting you to see how all of this is a bridge to what is to come. All of this belongs together; hence my move to reformat it.
The author of the letter is not at all concerned with the details of the Tabernacle for which he has various terms he used. He was instead focused on two Covenants or two Testaments – The Old Covenant and New Covenant; the Old Testament regulations for priestly duties and for worship and the New Covenant or the New Order contained in the New Testament. He is concerned about two tabernacles, the real one in heaven and the copy on earth. But it is also true to say he switched the use of skēnē (‘tent’ or ‘tabernacle’) to refer to the outer area of the tabernacle per se and the inner area. It is like he is referring to the part of the tabernacle entered first and then the part entered second. Literally he has written the ‘first tent’ and the ‘second tent’. By the use of that phrase he appears to be viewing the tabernacle in two parts. All of which relates to what he wanted to say about the two different priestly systems, the two Great High Priests and the two eras.
He was juggling terms and thought processes in this bridge he created for us. Notice in the passage above, by combining these thoughts together, he has placed the emphasis on a higher level of comparison than merely the inner workings of the priestly order of the Levitical system. No wonder he doesn’t wish to discuss the inner workings of the Tabernacle and the Levitical system of religious obeisance. I have tried to put the salient thoughts into a visual form.
Juggling The Key Thoughts of Hebrews 9:1-10
It struck me that the writer of Hebrews was juggling terms in ways that they were not usually used. He was not sticking strictly to the religious terms and their normal usage but rather using them in more general ways. That leads us and the commentators to question or comment on things that appear to be anomalies. Like the question Mike asked in the Comments section in Gem 2115 which I have answered already. But depending on whether or not I can make this current Gem clear enough, I may have to address Mike’s question in a different way. Allow me some leeway. All of these terms in the diagram I have made above are a summary of this section of Hebrews 9. The author is juggling with terms usually used in set religious ways but he is applying them to the whole general issue of us fulfilling the requirements of the Old Order of the Old Covenant. He contrasts the two systems in terms of the regulations for worship, the minutiae of rules and requirements not only for us to perform as laity (the common people) in need of being free from the religious laws, but also what the priests themselves had to do in order to perform their priestly duties.
No wonder he didn’t want to get bogged down in explaining the Levitical laws and the significance of the layout of the Tabernacle and later on the Temple. He has already told us with his opening statement, “When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.” So why would he bother to belabour the significance of an obsolete system soon to disappear. Oops there’s our first challenge. ‘Soon to disappear’, what do you mean by that writer?
Also from verse 6 to the beginning of verse 9 – ‘This is an illustration pointing to the present time’ – the verbal tenses used are present tense. What is he doing? Well, in Jesus’ time and after Jesus’ time of ministry the temple system had been done away with but they were living in the transition period between the New and Old systems of dealing with our sin. It would take a while for Judaism to realise that. Even through to today. At the time of the author writing the letter it is highly likely he was waiting for the fulfilment of Jesus prophetic statement on the way to the cross –
“Daughters of Jerusalem, don’t weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are coming when they will say, ‘Fortunate indeed are the women who are childless, the wombs that have not borne a child and the breasts that have never nursed.’ People will beg the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and plead with the hills, ‘Bury us.’
Luke 23:28-30
Jesus had already much earlier told the disciples that the huge stones of the temple would not be left standing. The Temple and the system of worship would be destroyed. There was a new way coming. Look at verse 8 of our passage above. The destruction of the temple hadn’t taken place at time the author wrote that. The sanctuary and the system were still in place. He was not using the terms in the usual way. He was not using [skēnē] in the normal way. He wasn’t meaning the tabernacle per se. He was talking about the place for the Presence of God. He was not so interested in being technically correct in the terms he used. Hence he loosely associates the altar of incense with the Most Holy Place. He was not suggesting the altar for sacrifice was in the Holy Place, he was referring to its essential connectedness to all people being made holy and acceptable to God under the priestly system. The system which was already obsolete because Messiah had come.
Another switch of terms he uses is the ‘first tent’ or sanctuary and ‘the second’. What is that? He is clearly distinguishing between the outer area and the inner area of the sanctuary. Notice the difference between verses 6 and 7! In the outer court area many priests regularly went in and out, to and fro, going about their duties in order to deal with sins related to food and drink and ritual cleansing; the minutiae of the law. The verbs in verse 6 are suggesting regular, on-going, continual action. But in verse 7, concerning the major issue of sin, the sin of the priests themselves first and then sins of the people had to be dealt with. But only the High Priest went in, ONCE A YEAR. It is fair to say access to God’s Presence was extremely restricted. Contrast that with Jesus, the Great High Priest, Who is not entering the EARTHLY TABERNACLE [SKĒNĒ] but entering and remaining seated, ever ready to intercede for all people in the HEAVENLY TABERNACLE, without having to deal with His own sin first.
Which system would you rather have?
Now we don’t have to worry about relying on the lesser priests to take care of our minor infringements of the laws related to food, drink and ritual cleansings (weekly infringements). We don’t even have to be concerned for those bigger sins related to us and our fellow believers, the laws which govern the life of the community (monthly infringements). Most especially, we no longer have to wait for the High Priest to enter into the Presence of God one time in the year on the Day of Atonement in order to deal with our sin related to God. Hoping against hope that the High Priest will not be slain because he didn’t cover his own sin well enough. [Read the account about Eli’s sons Hopni and Phinehas in 1 Samuel 2]
I believe I have explained well enough what is going on in this bridging passage. It is a big picture bridge not one focused on the minor details. Hence the author didn’t want to get bogged down in the minor details. He wanted to spell out the nature of the giant leap forward enabled by Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest. Rather than dealing with the priestly action required to fulfil the rituals needed to cleanse themselves and the people.
Realise that you have immediate access to the throne room of heaven because of the action of the One who became the sacrifice for you.
Ian
Can you imagine what it’s like to be a child of the King? Just ask William. He can enter into the King’s presence at any time on the basis of relationship.
Ian
Do you know you are a child of God? If you are, you have access rights 24 / 7.
Ian
Do you wonder if you are a child of God? Is there a family resemblance? Are you like your Father?
Ian
But to as many as did receive him, to those who put their trust in his person and power, he gave the right to become children of God.
John 1:12