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 9:1-14. The insufficiency of the first covenant is further illustrated from the character of its ordinances. For it was not devoid of elaborate and impressive appointments and regulations for worship, but these only pictured their own inefficiency. Especially did the exclusion from the holiest place of all but the High Priest, who himself could only enter once a year and with blood, signify that so long as these ordinances remained there could be no perfect approach of the worshipper to God. But this approach was achieved by Christ who ministered in the tabernacle not made with hands, and by His own blood cleansed the conscience and thus brought men into true fellowship with God.1. Then verily the first tabernacle had also ordinances] Rather, “To resume then, even the first (covenant) had its ordinances.” No substantive is expressed with “first,” but the train of reasoning in the last chapter sufficiently shews that “Covenant,” not “Tabernacle,” is the word to be supplied.

had] Although he often refers to the Levitic ordinances as still continuing, he here contemplates them as obsolete and practically annulled.

and a worldly sanctuary] Rather, “and its sanctuary—a material one.” The word kosmikon, rendered “worldly,” means that the Jewish Sanctuary was visible and temporary—a mundane structure in contrast to the Heavenly, Eternal Sanctuary. The adjective “worldly” only occurs here and in Titus 2:12.Hebrews 9:1. Ἡ πρώτη, the first) Supply διαθήκη, testament or covenant; not σκηνή, tabernacle. For the tabernacle itself was the worldly sanctuary, which we shall presently see. By a very elegant ellipsis, the word διαθήκη is left out, because it is rather appropriate to the New Testament; whence also, Hebrews 9:15, it is called διαθήκης καινῆς, the substantive being put before the adjective. [We have here an admirable description of Christ’s entrance into the true sanctuary, as far as to ch. Hebrews 10:18.—V. g.]—δικαιώματα, regular duties, or ordinances) those by which the duties of the sacred office were fulfilled [Hebrews 9:6]. The same word occurs, Hebrews 9:10.—λατρείας, of worship) external.—ἅγιον κοσμικὸν, the worldly (mundiale) sanctuary) An Oxymoron. That sanctuary was worldly (which word [mundiale] of Sidonius is well fitted to express the idea ‘material’), or mundane [mundanum] (as Paul speaks of the elements of the world, Galatians 4:3), and carnal, ch. Hebrews 7:16. It consisted of precious materials, but still it was material. This verse may be thus divided: first, the duties are set before us (as the Proposition), then the sanctuary; there follows the discussion, first, concerning the sanctuary, Hebrews 9:2-5, next concerning the duties, Hebrews 9:6, etc. (Paul has a very similar Chiasmus, 1 Corinthians 9:1, note): the antithesis to both is in Hebrews 9:11-12.Verse 1. - Then verily (or, now indeed) the first covenant also (or, even the first covenant) had ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary (rather its sanctuary of this world (τὸ ἅγιον κοσμεκόν). The definite article points to the well-known one of the Mosaic dispensation, which, unlike the true one, was in its bearings, as well as locally and materially, of this world only). This sanctuary itself is now first described in necessary preparation for an account of priestly ministrations in it. Ordinances of divine service (δικαιώματα λατρείας)

For δικαίωμα ordinance, see on Romans 5:16. For λατρεία service, see on Luke 1:74; see on Revelation 22:3; see on Philippians 3:3; see on 2 Timothy 1:3. The meaning is ordinances directed to or adapted for divine service.

A worldly sanctuary (τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν)

The A.V. misses the force of the article. Rend. and its sanctuary a sanctuary of this world. Τὸ ἅγιον in the sense of sanctuary only here. Elsewhere the plural τὰ ἅγια. of this world in contrast with the heavenly sanctuary to be mentioned later.

Hebrews 9:1 Interlinear
Hebrews 9:1 Parallel Texts


Hebrews 9:1 NIV
Hebrews 9:1 NLT
Hebrews 9:1 ESV
Hebrews 9:1 NASB
Hebrews 9:1 KJV

Hebrews 9:1 Bible Apps
Hebrews 9:1 Parallel
Hebrews 9:1 Biblia Paralela
Hebrews 9:1 Chinese Bible
Hebrews 9:1 French Bible
Hebrews 9:1 German Bible

Bible Hub