Hebrews 9:1

Ει῏χε μὲν ου῏ν καὶ ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν.

Some things must be premised unto the reading of these words. ῾Η πρώτη, “the first,” doth in the original answer in gender unto all things which the apostle treats of, namely, the priesthood, the tabernacle, and the covenant. But many Greek copies do expressly read σκηνή, “the tabernacle.” So is the text expressed in Stephen's edition, wherein he followed sixteen ancient manuscripts, adhering generally unto the concurrent agreement of the greatest number; and the word is retained in the most common edition. But there are ancient copies also where it is omitted: and they are attested unto by all ancient translations, as the Syriac and Vulgar Latin; the Arabic supplying “covenant,” in the room of it. Wherefore Beza left it out, and is followed by the generality of expositors, as he is by our translators. Cameron contends for retaining it. But the reasons for its rejection are cogent and undeniable; as,

1. In the last verse of the preceding chapter, whereunto this immediately succeeds, the apostle mentioning the old covenant, calleth it absolutely τήν πρώτην, “the first,” without the addition of διαθήκην; and immediately repeating ἡ πρώτην, that is, “that first,” it is irrational to think that he refers it to another subject.

2. His design requires that the first covenant he intended; for he is not engaged in a comparison between the tabernacle and the new testament, but between the old covenant and the new. And the words of the text, with those that follow, contain a concession of what belonged unto the old covenant, particularly in the administration of divine worship; as is observed by Photius and OEcumenius.

3. The expression in the close of the verse, “A worldly sanctuary,” is no more nor less but the tabernacle; for it is that which the apostle immediately describes in its parts and furniture, which are the parts of the tabernacle, and no other. And if the word σκηνή, “the tabernacle,” be here retained, the sense must be, “And verily the first tabernacle had ordinances of worship and a tabernacle.”

4. In the next verse, adding an account of what he had affirmed, he saith, “For there was a tabernacle prepared; the first:” which would render this sense to the context, ‘For the first tabernacle had a tabernacle; for there was a tabernacle prepared.'Wherefore I shall adhere unto the supplement made by our translators, “the first covenant.”

Δικαιώματα λατρείας. Some read these words by an ἀσύνδετον, and not in construction, from the ambiguity of the case and number of λατρείας, which may be either of the genitive singular or accusative plural,” ordinances, services.” This it is supposed the following phrase of speech doth intimate, Τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν, “And also a worldly sanctuary:” which requires that the preceding words should be construed by apposition. And a difference there is between δικαίωμα and λατρεία; but whereas it is evident that the apostle intends no λατρεία or “service” here but what was performed ἐν δικαιώμασιν, “by virtue of ordinances or institutions,” the word ought to be read in construction, “ordinances of worship.”

Ει῏χε μὲν ου῏ν καί. Syr., “but in the first there were in it;” as the Arab.,” in the first covenant there was contained.” Vulg. Lat., “habuit quidem et prius,” the comparative for the positive, unto the sense of the apostle: “and the first truly had also.” Beza,” habuit igitur prius foedus et;” transferring καί unto the words following: “wherefore the first covenant had also;” as we after him. Others, “habuit igitur etiam prius.” Most, in rendering the particles μὲν οὗν, have principal respect unto the note of inference ου῏ν, and include the assertory particle μέν in it. I think the principal respect is to be had thereunto, as it is in the Vulgar Latin, “and verily that first also had.” Δικαιώματα λατρείας. Syr., “commands of ministry,” or “precepts;” which gives us the plain sense and true meaning of the apostle, as we shall see afterwards. “Ordinances concerning the administration of divine worship.” Vulg. Lat., “justificationes culturae;” Rhem., “justifications of service,” most obscurely, and in words leading from the sense of the Holy Ghost. Others, “ritus cultus;” “constitutos ritus cultuum,” “appointed rites of worship” or “service.” All agree what it is the apostle intends, namely, the ordinances of Levitical worship; which are expressed in the Vulgar by “justificationes culturae,” both barbarously and beside the mind of the apostle.

῞Αγιον κοσμικόν. Syr., “a worldly holy house.” The tabernacle was frequently called” the house of God,” and “the house of the sanctuary.” Vulg., “sanctum seculare;” Rhem., “a secular sanctuary:” which the Interlinear changeth into “mundanum.” “Seculare” denotes duration; but it is not the design of the apostle to speak of the duration of that which he is proving to be ceased. Beza, “sanctuarium mundanum.” Some respect the particles τό τε, and render them “illudque.” [1]

[1] VARIOUS READING. An absurd jealousy against the critical amendment of the sacred text has sometimes been imputed to our author, from his controversy with Walton. The extent to which Owen's views have been misapprehended has been indicated in vol. 16 of his miscellaneous works, p. 345. In this verse we have proof that his mind was under no servile thraldom to the textus receptus. That text inserts σκηνή after πρώτη. Our author omits it, and argues strongly for the omission of it. Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, agree in rejecting it. In Wright's edition of this work the word was inserted in the text of the verse, although Owen himself in the original edition had omitted it. ED.

Hebrews 9:1. Then verily even that first [covenant] had ordinances of worship, and also a worldly sanctuary.

Proceeding unto the comparison designed between the old covenant and the new, as unto the services and sacrifices wherewith the one and the other were established and confirmed, he introduceth the πρότασις of the first by way of concession, as unto 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 unto 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 unto the real exaltation of that which he gives the preference unto. It is an honor unto 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, Μὲν ου῏ν καί. The contexture of these particles is somewhat unusual Hence some would have καί to be redundant: some join it in construction with δικαιώματα that follows. This was the judgment of Beza, whom our translators follow; for the word “also” (“had also ordinances”) renders καί in the original: and thereon they omit it in the first place, not saying, “and then verily,” but “then verily,” that is, μὲν οὗν. If this be so, the assertion of the apostle seems to be built on a tacit supposition that the latter covenant hath ordinances of worship. Hence he grants the first had so also: ‘Even that had also ordinances of worship, as the new hath.'But I see not at all that any such supposition is here made by the apostle; yea, he doth rather oppose those ordinances of divine worship unto 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 unto the first covenant, for he had expressly denied that there was any such under the new, Hebrews 8:2. Wherefore although καί, “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,” shows both the reality of it and the weight that he lays upon it. Οι῏ν we render “then;” most do it by “igitur,” “therefore.” But the connection unto 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 μέν serves unto the protasis of the comparison, whereunto δέ answereth, verse 11, “but Christ being come.”

2. The subject spoken of is ἡ πρώτη, “the first,” that is, διαθήκη; ‘that first covenant whereof we treat,' the covenant made with the fathers at Sinai, which, as unto the administrations of it, the Hebrews as yet adhered unto. The nature of this covenant we have spoken unto at large on the foregoing chapter, and thither refer the reader.

3. 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 unto it is, that it had them:

(1.) It had them, ει῏χε. It refers unto the time past. The apostle saith not “it hath them,” but “it had them.” ‘That is,'say some, ‘it had so whilst that tabernacle was standing, and whilst these things were in force; but now the covenant is abolished, and it hath 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 ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ, Hebrews 8:13, “ready to disappear.” Nor was he to take for granted what was the principal χρινόμενον between him and the Hebrews, but to prove it; which he doth accordingly. Hence he grants that there were “priests that offered gifts according to the law,” Hebrews 8:4; and some “served at the tabernacle,” Hebrews 13:10. But the apostle hath respect unto the time wherein that covenant was first made. Then it had these things annexed unto it, which were the privileges and glory of it; for the apostle hath, in the whole discourse, continual respect unto the first making of the covenant, and the first institution of its administrations. It had them; that is, they belonged unto it, as those wherein its administration did consist.

Obs. 1. 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.] Δικαιώματα λατρείας . Both translations and interpreters have cast some difficulty on the meaning of these words, in themselves plain and evident. Δικαιώματα are חֻקִּים. And the word is generally rendered by δικαίωμα in the Greek versions, and next unto that by νομικόν ; that which is “legal” and “right.” The Vulgar Latin renders it by “justificationes;” from the inclusion of “jus,” “justum” in the signification of it. In the New Testament it is used, Luke 1:6; Romans 1:32; Romans 2:26; Romans 5:16; Romans 8:4; Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:10; Revelation 15:4; Revelation 19:8. And in no one place doth it signify “institution;” but it may be better rendered “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 חֻקִּים, determined both by its derivation and invariable use. Wherefore all inquiries on these words, in what sense the rites of the law may be called “justifications,” or whether “because the observation of them did justify before men,” or were signs of our justification before God, are all useless and needless. What there is of just 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; whence their observation on the part of the church was just and equal.

These ordinances or statutes were so λατρείας, “of service;” that is, as we render it, “divine service.” Λατρεία is originally of as large a signification as δουλεία, and denotes any service whatever. But it is here, and constantly in the New Testament, as is also the verb λατρεύω , restrained unto “divine service,” John 16:2; Romans 9:4; Romans 12:1; “cultus,” “of worship:” and so were it better rendered than by “divine service.” In one place it signifies by itself as much as δικαιώματα λατρείας doth here, Romans 9:4, “Unto whom belongeth the giving of the law, καὶ ἡ λατρεία, “and the worship;” that is, δικαιώματα λατρείΑς , “the ordinances of worship,” the ordinances of the ceremonial law. For although God was 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 judicial law; yet this λατρεία, or עֲבֹדָה, was the immediate worship of the tabernacle, and the services of the priests that belonged thereunto. Hence the Jews call all idolatry and superstition עֲבֹדָה זָרָה, “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 extremes 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 a 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 exorbitancies with respect unto both these extremes, 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:

Obs. 2. There was never any covenant between God and man but it had some ordinances or arbitrary institutions of external divine worship annexed unto 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 unto 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, 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 unto God, he would have it of his own prescription, and not, as unto the modes of it, left unto the inventions of men. And because God hath always, 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 unto the finding out and appointment of men; but he having done this himself, “let not us add unto his words, lest he reprove us, and we be found liars.” 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 mere will and pleasure.

Obs. 3. It is a 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 unto it, but continually wandered into one of the extremes 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 turned into an occasion of neglecting more important duties. And the reason of this difficulty is, because faith hath not that assistance and encouragement from innate principles of reason, and that sensible experience of this kind of obedience, as it hath in that which is moral, internal, and spiritual.

[2.] 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 τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν, “also a worldly sanctuary.” He renders מִקְדָּשׁ by ἅγιον properly a” holy place,” a “sanctuary” And why he calls it κοσμικόν, or “worldly,” we must inquire. And some things must be premised unto the exposition of these words:

1st . The apostle, treating of the services, sacrifices, and place of worship, under the old testament, doth 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 doth for the ensuing reasons:

(1st.) Because his principal design is to confirm the pre-eminence of the new covenant above the old. To this end he compares them together in their first introduction and establishment, with what did belong unto 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 unto 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 principal reason why in this disputation he hath all along respect unto the tabernacle, and not unto the temple.

(2dly.) Although the temple, with its glorious fabric and excellent order, added much unto 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 whence it derived all its glory; and therefore these Hebrews principally rested in and boasted of the revelation made unto 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.

2dly . Designing to treat of this holy tent or tabernacle, he confines himself unto the first general distribution of it, Exodus 26:33, “And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony: and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy and the most holy;” the holy utensils of which two parts he afterwards distinctly describes. The whole was called מִקְדָּשׁ; which he renders by τὸ ἅγιον , “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;

1st . Because so soon as God had made that covenant with the people, he prescribed unto them the erection and making of this sanctuary, containing all the solemn means of the administration of the covenant itself.

2dly . Because it was the principal mercy, privilege, and advantage, that the people were made partakers of by virtue of that covenant. And it belongs unto 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. And,

(1st.) 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 thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.”

And when it rested he said, “Return, O LORD, unto the many thousands of Israel.” And thence the ark was called “the ark of God's strength” (see Psalms 68:1-2; Psalms 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 unto 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 4:3-11. 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, verses 8-10. But none can trust in God unless he relinquish all sin whatever; all other pretended trust in him is but the entitling of him unto our own wickedness.

(2dly.) 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; Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:44-46; Numbers 5:3. And the consideration hereof was a powerful motive unto holiness, fear, and reverence; unto which ends it is everywhere pressed in the Scripture.

(3dly.) It was a fixed seat of all divine worship, wherein the truth and purity of it were to be preserved. Had the observation of the ordinances of divine service been left unto 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 12:8-11. Here was the book of the law laid up; according unto the prescript whereof the priests were obliged in all generations to take care of the public worship of God.

(4thly.) 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 unto 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 this sanctuary the apostle calls κοσμικόν, “worldly.” Expositors both ancient and modern do even weary themselves in their inquiries 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 unto it by the Latin translation, which renders the word “seculare,” which denotes “continuance” or duration. This expresseth the Hebrew עוֹלָם; but that the apostle renders by αἰών, and not by κόσμος, and therefore here hath no respect unto it. The sense that many fix upon is, that he intends the outward court of the temple, whereinto the Gentiles or men of the world were admitted, whence it was called “worldly,” and not sacred. But this exposition, though countenanced by many of the ancients, is contrary unto the whole design of the apostle. For,

1 st . 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 dly . The whole sanctuary whereof he speaks he immediately distributes into two parts, as they were divided by the veil, namely, the holy and the most holy place; which were the two parts of the tabernacle itself.

3 dly . He treats of the sanctuary only with respect unto the divine service to be performed in it by the priests, which they did not in any outward court whereinto the Gentiles might be admitted.

Wherefore the apostle terms this sanctuary “worldly,” because it was every way in and of this world. For,

1 st . The place of it was on the earth, in this world; in opposition whereunto the sanctuary of the new covenant is in heaven, Hebrews 8:2.

2dly . Although the materials of it were as durable as any thing in that kind that 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.

3dly . All the services of it, all its sacrifices, in themselves, separated from their typical, representative use, were all worldly; and their efficacy extended only unto worldly things, as the apostle proves in this chapter.

4thly . On these accounts the apostle calls it worldly; yet not absolutely so, but in opposition unto 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,

Obs. 4. That divine institution alone is that which renders any thing acceptable unto God. Although the things that belonged unto 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.

Obs. 5. God can animate outward, carnal things with a hidden, invisible spring of glory and efficacy. So he did this sanctuary with its relation unto Christ; which was an object of faith, which no eye of flesh could behold.

Obs. 6. 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.”

Obs. 7. A worldly sanctuary is enough for them whose service is worldly; and these things the men of the world are satisfied with.