Chapter 9

The next two chapters of Hebrews set up a contrast between shadow and reality. The key to these two chapters is found in chapter 10:1, so we will review that verses as the introduction to chapter 9.

The explanatory use of the conjunctive particle gar indicates that this is the key to the context. It is one of those particles that explains why we have some of the most difficult Greek in the New Testament in the first half of chapter 9.

“the law” — o( nom refers to the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law is a divine authorising agent. It is the divine commission that authorised the priesthood and the environment under which the priesthood would function. The environment would be a specialised, limited priesthood dealing with ritual and shadows. Those shadows were just as important to them as the reality is now to us as members of the royal family of God. The holy of holies was forbidden to everyone except royalty, and Jesus Christ was the only person who dwelt continually in the holy of holies in the Age of Israel. With the veil rent or torn it is now open and you and I are positionally in the holy of holies today.

“having” — the present active participle of e)xw which means to have and to hold. The present tense is a retroactive progressive present in which something begun in the past continues into the present time. The active voice: the law produces the action of the verb. The participle is circumstantial.

“a shadow” — even today the law has a shadow. Even though the law is not operational today the law is still in the Bible. How is that resolved? Very simply. The law still casts a shadow. The law casts a shadow forever because the law is a part of the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever. The word “shadow” here is the accusative singular, the direct object of the noun skia. Skia means a shadow in contrast to reality. It refers to a shadow caused by the interruption of light. The Mosaic law interrupts the light portraying it in image form. Therefore a shadow is not the substance, not the reality, but an image portrayal of the substance. While the shadow is not the reality it depicts the presence of reality. The shadow, therefore, verifies the presence of the reality. In this concept Christ is the reality and Codex #2 of the Mosaic law is the shadow portraying the reality to come.

The Mosaic law is the authorising agent for all of these things. Therefore we need to review the doctrine on the Mosaic law.

The doctrine of the Mosaic law

1. The Mosaic law is divided into three parts. The first section, Codex #1, is the moral code. It includes the decalogue which relates morality to freedom and makes it possible for us to understand the true concept of freedom. The ten commandments are not trying to define morality or even to define sin as such, for that would be very limited, but they are the clearest and best and foremost delineation of what freedom really is and how it relates to various aspects of life. In addition to the ten commandments we have hundreds of others which form the moral code. The moral code indicates the basis for the function of the laws of divine establishment. Codex #1 defines morality in terms of not only absence of sin but in terms of patriotism, loyalty, capacity for love, relationships in life, and so on.

The second part of the Mosaic law, Codex #2, is the spiritual code. This is called in the scripture, the ordinances. It is a complete Christology designed to present Jesus Christ as the only saviour. The presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ through the tabernacle is one of the many areas of Codex #2. In addition, Codex #2 has a complete list of holy days, including the Passover, Firstfruits, Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles. All of these portray some aspect of the Person of Christ. In addition, Codex #2 portrays the Levitical offerings, the modus operandi of the Levitical priesthood. And again, basically speaking, all Bible doctrine in the Old Testament was portrayed through ritual as well as through the written page and its communication.

Codex #3 is the social code known in the scripture as the judgements. It presents the laws of divine establishment which are designed for the freedom, the privacy, and the continuation of the human race in the angelic conflict. It includes the function of the divine institutions plus diet, sanitation, quarantine, soil conservation, taxation, military service, and so on.

2. The recipients of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law has various names. It is called the covenant, the first covenant, the covenant to Israel, the law, and so on. It is therefore specifically given to Israel, not to the Church — Exodus 19:3; Leviticus 26:46; Romans 3:19; 9:4. It is not given to the Gentiles — Deuteronomy 4:8; Romans 2:12, 14. It is not given to the Christians, they are not under the law — Acts 15:5, 24; Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:19.

3. Christ fulfilled the law — Matthew 5:17. He fulfilled Codex #1 by living a perfect life on earth during the incarnation. Impeccability fulfils Codex #1. Codex #2 was fulfilled by His death on the cross. Codex #3 was fulfilled by both the patriotism of our Lord plus His observation of the laws of divine establishment, as per Matthew 22:21.

4. Christ is therefore the end of the law for the royal family of the Church Age — Romans 10:4.

5. Believers in the Church Age are under the higher law of spirituality, the law of the filling of the Spirit — Romans 8:2-4; Galatians 5:18, 22,23; 1 Corinthians chapter 13.

6. The limitations of the Mosaic law. There are four specified. a) The Mosaic law cannot justify — Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:20, 28; Acts 13:39; Philippians 3:9. b) The Mosaic law cannot give life — Galatians 3:21. c) The Mosaic law cannot provide the Holy Spirit — Galatians 3:2. d) The Mosaic law cannot solve the problems of the old sin nature — Romans 8:3. The Mosaic law can reveal the existence of the old sin nature, as per the tenth commandment, but it cannot solve any problem regarding it.

7. The present purpose of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law is no longer the authorising agency for the Levitical priesthood. We no longer have the ritual, we now have the reality. With Christ dying on the cross, rising again, being seated at the right hand of the Father, we now have that glorious, wonderful reality which is so beautifully recorded for us in the New Testament scriptures. So since the Mosaic law is recorded in the scripture, what is its present purpose? Codex #1 is designed to convince by divine standard that the unbeliever is a sinner and needs a saviour — Romans 3:20, 28; 1 Timothy 1:8-10. Codex #1 is also designed to define the principles of freedom as related to the laws of divine establishment, and to define further the responsibility of every individual in the field of freedom, and where freedom and discipline meet. Codex #2 is designed to communicate God’s grace both in salvation and in rebound. Codex #3 is to provide national function and freedom under the laws of divine establishment, to preserve nations under the principle of divine institution #4. The past purpose of the Mosaic law was an authorising agent for the Levitical priesthood — Hebrews 7:11,12.

8. The Mosaic law is called the book of the covenant. It is not only known as the first covenant but it is also called the book of the covenant — Exodus 24:7,8; 34:27,28; Deuteronomy 4:13, 16, 23, 31; 8:18; 9:9, 11. In Deuteronomy 29:1 to the end of the book we have an addendum to the Mosaic law. We also have the prophecy of the breaking of the covenant in Deuteronomy 31:16,20. This book of the covenant is the subject of Jeremiah chapter 11, and it is not to be confused with the New Covenant to Israel — Jeremiah 31:31-34.

9. The keeping of the law is not a way of salvation. It is a way of human freedom and prosperity under the laws of divine establishment but it is not the way of salvation — Galatians 2:16.

10. The Mosaic law was the authorising agent for the function of the nation Israel in the dispensation of Israel. From the time that the Jews came into freedom — the Exodus — until they were finally wiped out by the fifth cycle of discipline the Jews as a nation always had the perfect norm and standard.

“For the law kept having a shadow.” The shadow is described — “of good things”, a descriptive genitive plural of the noun a)gaqoj. A)gaqoj refers to something of intrinsic value. Here in the plural it means profitable things, intrinsically profitable things, things that are always profitable. Any time God promotes it is always profitable regardless of the dispensation. What God provides is always valuable, always intrinsically profitable. The descriptive genitive, then, describes good things or profitable things related to the cross. In other words, the plural brings out everything pertaining to the person and the work of Christ on the cross and how it becomes the basis of our blessing. It must be remembered that all of our blessing is the result of the strategic victory of the cross, and we therefore share the plunder of victory. All blessing for the royal family is based upon victory. Therefore, no matter how we fail experientially we can never be a loser. And that is important. The plural is necessary to bring out the multiplicity of plunder that comes to us as members of the royal family through the strategic victory of our Lord Jesus Christ. The plunder of victory for the royal family is hooked up to the plural of a)gaqoj. And remember, this plunder is permanent!

There are three things that keep the believer from being the winner that he really is:

a) The criterion block — this is a refusal to accept the Word of God as the absolute criterion of life, and its compromising the fact that the absolute criterion is the Word by accepting reality in experiential things — how you feel, reality in programs, reality in what people say contradicting the Word of God. Your reality is in the Word of God and not in anything else and the criterion block keeps you from realising that you are on the winning side.

b) The ignorance block — the Word is accepted as the criterion but it’s ignorance of the technique of appropriation of doctrine, it’s ignorance of the balance of residency which is so important in the royal family. The sign of the royalty is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There was no indwelling by the Holy Spirit of anyone in the Old Testament. That indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the badge of royalty, and there was no royalty in the Old Testament, there was no royalty until the ascension and session of Christ. Once you are filled with the Spirit, if you are under the ignorance block, then you are lopsided. You were designed to be balanced and the balance of residency comes from filling up one side with doctrine so that when you are filled with the Spirit your life is meaningful. If you are filled with the Spirit and you have no doctrine then you are lopsided. It doesn’t mean anything. But if every time you are filled with the Spirit you have balance of residency then it is meaningful.

c) The volitional block — the Word is accepted as the criterion, the techniques of the function of GAP are understood, but the individual refuses to come under the teaching of his right pastor-teacher and submit to his authority in the teaching of the Word.

One or more of these blocks can cut the believer off from the victory that belongs to him in time.

“to come” — present active participle of mellw. The present tense is a futuristic present, it denotes an event which has not yet occurred but is regarded as so certain in thought that it may be contemplated as already coming to pass. The active voice: good and profitable things — loot, plunder — produces the action of the verb. It is about to come. The participle is ascriptive, that is, a participle used as an adjective to ascribe a certain quality to a noun. “For the law possessing a shadow of coming good things.”

“not the very image” — or literally, “not the real image.” The word “image” is the accusative singular of e)ikwn. It means a real or exact image. The exact image is the person of Christ in hypostatic union on the cross, resurrection, ascension, and session, seated at the right hand of the Father in the place of permanent victory.

“of the things” — the genitive plural of pragma means events. The events refer to the victory of our Lord Jesus Christ — strategical: cross, burial, resurrection, ascension, session, the right hand of the Father.

This much of the verse indicates that the law was a shadow but not the reality. The shadow indicated the presence of substance but the shadow is never the substance. The Mosaic law teaches various aspects of our Lord’s strategical victory. it does not teach the function of the royal family because that was a mystery not revealed until New Testament times. These shadows all have great significance.

Returning to chapter nine: In the 28 verses of chapter 9 we have four shadows of the cross, four shadows of the victory, four shadows which are related to the royal family. The royal family didn’t exist in the Old Testament, but the shadow was there, the reality is here.

Shadow #1, the tabernacle — verses 1-11.

Shadow #2, the blood — verses 12-14.

Shadow #3, the testament — verses 16-23.

Shadow #$, the appearances — verses 24-28.

Verse 1 — the tabernacle was the centre of Jewish worship in the Age of Israel. “Then verily” — this is a Greek series of particles, men o)un kai. This is used to denote a continuation of the last verse of the previous chapter. Men o)un kai means that someone divided the chapter at the wrong point because it doesn’t end at 8:13 which says, “In his citation of the new covenant he had made obsolete the first [the Mosaic law]. Now the one [Mosaic law] becoming obsolete and growing old is near destruction.”

kai is ascensive; men is an affirmative particle; o)un is an inferential particle. We have an affirmative participle plus an inferential particle plus the ascensive use of kai, and to smooth it out we have, “even so therefore.” “the first” — h( prwth, referring to the Mosaic law. The definite article indicates the existence of a concept in the noun but it does not indicate the quality.

“had” — imperfect active indicative of e)xw. The imperfect tense is a progressive imperfect, it contemplates a process having gone on in past time but is changed, of course, by the dispensation. This is called an imperfect of duration and it means that as long as that dispensation continued the Mosaic law was the authorising agent for that dispensation. But once that dispensation is interrupted, as it was after the ascension, we now have a new authorising agent. The old agent: the law; the new agent: the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ will do all of the authorising because He has one personal family, a royal family. So the authorising agent is now personal, a person. We should translate this, then, “Even so therefore the first [the Mosaic law] used to have.”

“ordinances” — the accusative plural of dikaiwma, “regulations” — “used to have regulations for worship”, not “of divine service”. The accusative plural of dikaiwma indicates a large number of regulations. The accusative is the direct object of the verb, “used to have.” And “of divine service” is simply a descriptive genitive singular of latreia, and it means “worship.” So we have “regulations for worship.” The Mosaic law authorised regulations for worship. Saturday was a day of worship, the holy days were all Sabbaths as well, a specialised priesthood when you have regulations, animal sacrifices, a sanctuary called the tabernacle, and later on the temple; “and a worldly sanctuary” — the Greek phrase is to te a(gion kosmikon. The definite article is to, and to plus the accusative of the noun a(gioj plus the accusative of the adjective kosmikoj means earthly in contrast to heavenly. But the whole thing put together is an idiom. The idiom means a sanctuary belonging to this world.

Translation: “Even so therefore the first [Mosaic law] used to have regulations for worship, and its sanctuary [the tabernacle] was right here in the world.”

Summary

1. The shadow is something real on the earth that can be seen by anyone with good vision. The tabernacle was hard to miss. So this verse refers to the tabernacle, a real tabernacle on the earth, but a shadow depicting heaven. 2. Heaven is the true tabernacle but not the actual tabernacle of Israel. We have never seen heaven but heaven is more real than that tabernacle was up and constructed in Israel. The thing that you can see with your eye isn’t nearly as real as the thing that you can’t see — “the things which are seen are temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal.” The tabernacle was put up so they could understand invisible things, doctrinal things. God is invisible but we understand Him through doctrine.

3. The tabernacle of Israel was an authorised building, a building which the Word of God said “Build”. It was authorised by the Mosaic law and provided a focal point of worship.

4. Animal sacrifices were made in front of the tabernacle. The people gathered at the tabernacle on holy days. Everything centred around the tabernacle. And there was one person who lived permanently inside the tabernacle: Jesus Christ. He lived in the holy of holies, and the reason He is said to have had His abode in the holy of holies is because He is the King of kings, He is royalty. Therefore, royalty must have its privacy — and all stay out is what the veil said. Why? That place was reserved for us and we couldn’t be there yet because our dispensation hadn’t come up. Our dispensation couldn’t come until Christ came. So obviously, as long as Christ doesn’t come that curtain means stay out. And until Christ comes everyone stays out of there. There is no royalty to live in their except the Lord Himself, the Shekinah glory. Once the Lord comes, and once He starts screaming “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” then from top to bottom this great thick curtain, which couldn’t even be cut with a sword, is ripped. And it is all over for Israel, their dispensation is interrupted, the royal family is coming into existence, and the royal family lives in there. No curtain any more, the curtain is destroyed. Why? Because now we have a royal family. 5. The actual tabernacle on earth was a shadow, a picture of the person and the work of Jesus Christ in salvation, a picture of the glorious strategic victory of Christ with promise of loot and plunder and wealth for the supergrace believer, royal family type.

6. Since the tabernacle was declared to be God’s dwelling place. only Jesus Christ dwelt there to depict the principle of grace — Exodus 25:1-9.

7. The regulations portray many spiritual truths, doctrines, functions, actions, a promise of great things to come when the royal family would be born, and blessing for those who derived or extracted from the shadows the pertinent Bible doctrine; for from these shadows great doctrines can be and will continually be extracted.

8. The tabernacle, then, was a way to teach doctrine and to teach the principles related to grace.

9. The analogies often related to the priesthood and the function of the Levitical priesthood anticipates the existence of the royal priesthood of the Church Age. For example, one regulation for worship specified that the priests of Israel were the only ones who could enter the tabernacle. However, they could only enter under certain conditions and do certain things. The Levitical priests in the holy place is a picture of the royalty priest in union with Christ. The tabernacle was located in the centre of the bivouac, therefore indicating that the most important function in life is doctrine, and doctrine is the way that we become occupied with the person of Christ. Another regulation said, You cannot enter the holy of holies. That regulation is a shadow, the had to stop there. And every time a priest stopped at the holy of holies and had to turn around and go out it was indicative of the fact that there is something better in the future. Everything about the tabernacle is significant. The outer court represents the world. We have the brazen altar representing Christ bearing our sins on the cross. The laver: rebound. The holy place represents the heavenlies of Ephesians, the area of positional truth. The priest in the holy place is analogous to the believer in union with Christ. The holy of holies represents the throne room, the actual presence of God. It depicts Christ at the right hand of the Father, it is the place of victory. And, by way of anticipation again, there was a veil or a curtain between the holy place and the holy of holies to keep out the Levitical priesthood. No one would be allowed in the holy of holies until the veil was torn from top to bottom. The holy of holies was for the royal priesthood, and the royal priesthood could not exist until Christ was glorified. Everything hinged on that. The Holy Spirit was not yet given because Christ was not yet glorified. And right now, positionally you occupy the holy of holies, and when you die you go to the holy of holies, the third heaven itself.

Verse 2 — we meet the greatest teaching aid that ever existed. We meet various parts of the tabernacle. The tabernacle is the greatest collection of Bible doctrine before Bibles were actually printed. One of the most important facts in all of the world is the fact that the tabernacle standard for over 500 years was the basic source of all Bible doctrine in Israel. A person could understand every facet of the tabernacle, every article that went into its construction, everything which had significance. And, in effect, this tabernacle was the Bible for Israel for over 500 years while certain books were being accumulated. For over 500 years the only books that were actually recorded in writing were the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.

The next few verses, 2-5, actually amplify the last phrase of verse 1 — to a(gin kosmikon, “a worldly sanctuary” which actually means “a sanctuary of this world”. In other words, there was a sacred building in this world which acted as all the Bible doctrine the Jews would need to go from spiritual babyhood all of the way to maturity and supergrace. It was David who became a supergrace believer by understanding the various parts of the tabernacle.

The word “for” which begins verse 2 is the explanatory use of the conjunctive particle gar. We are now going to get a brief explanation of the various parts of the tabernacle — not in detail.

“there was made” — the aorist passive indicative of kataskeuazw which means to construct. In the passive voice it is going to have to be translated “was constructed.” It should be translated “For a tabernacle was constructed.” The aorist tense is a constative aorist, it contemplates the action of the verb in its entirety. In other words, the constative aorist gathers up all of the time from the starting of the sewing of the materials, the weaving of the materials, the artwork, to everything that was involved in the construction of the tabernacle, and the aorist tense actually talks of the complete construction from point A to point Z. The passive voice: the subject receives the action of the verb, and the subject is skhnh which means a large tent. The indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of reality.

The tabernacle is divided into two large rooms. We have the words “the first”, h( prwth, and they refer to the holy place or the first room of this gigantic tent. In this verse “the first” is also called the sanctuary at the end of the verse.

“wherein” is literally, “in which”; “the candlestick” — this is not a correct translation. There was no candlestick in the holy place. There was a great wall of white cloth that went around the area where the tabernacle was posted. Inside was the outer court. Out in front of the first room was a brazen [brass] altar and a brazen laver. The brass altar speaks of the cross and the laver speaks of the rebound technique. Inside we have a lampstand and a table of shewbread. Just in front of the second curtain there was a golden altar which belonged to the second room but was outside of it. Then inside we have the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, the cherubs, and so on. This was the greatest collection of Bible doctrine that ever existed outside of the completed canon of scripture. Therefore, whatever is mentioned here becomes extremely important in orienting us to our royal priesthood, our purpose on earth, and our glorious future with the Lord.

“the candlestick” — h( Luina which means a lampstand. A luxnia is a system of light whereby oil is actually burned in the light. A candle is a piece of wax with a wick, and that is more or less a candlestick. Its light is relatively small. A lampstand is something entirely different and was the best system for giving light. There are lamps on it and each one of the lamps has oil in the lamp and the oil is burning. It is not a candlestick. The Lord isn’t trying to hide anything, He is trying to show us something.

This lampstand speaks of Christ as the light of the world. It was the only light in the holy place. Remember the tabernacle did not have windows and all of the light in the tabernacle came from the inside. This is a golden lampstand and it speaks of Christ as the living Word, just as the table of shewbread, also in the holy place, will speak of Christ as the written Word.

The golden lampstand

1. The golden lampstand is described in great detail in Exodus 25:31-40; 37:17-24. It stood on the south or the left side of the tabernacle, opposite the table of shewbread — Exodus 40:24.

2. The original construction of this lampstand: a talent of pure gold was used, it was actually hammered out into this beautiful form. Only the mercy seat and the lampstand are of pure gold.

3. There was a central branch or shaft which was beaten out with three branches on each side. In other words, this lampstand had a central branch and beaten our were three sub-branches. The central branch was higher. Each branch has at the top a bowl, inside of which was a wick and a system of oil flowing into it. There are a total of seven lamps.

4. It was the only light in the holy place, just as the Shekinah glory is the only light in the holy of holies.

5. The light from the lampstand revealed a scene of rare beauty. Remember that the light in the lampstand portrays Christ as the only source of understanding God. No one approaches God except through Christ, no one understands God apart from Christ. Christ is the revealed member of the Godhead. The light was kept burning all the time and as the Levitical priest would walk in he would see some beautiful things. First of all, he would see the walls. The walls were made with wood overlaid with gold, so the walls were made of gold. He saw the roof which was made of linen and it had embroidered cherubs of blue, purple, and scarlet, a reminder of the fact that only as the light shines and reveals the roof can people understand what God is like. Only as Christ, the light of the world, is received by the individual will the individual ever understand what God is like. The cherub refers to the character of God, His sovereignty and righteousness, His justice, love, eternal life, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutability and veracity. It is Christ who throws light on who and what God is and what God is like. It also showed the beautiful table of shewbread and the golden altar of incense. So when the priest walked in his eyes beheld a scene of great beauty. Everything spoke of who and what Christ is, and everything spoke of how Jesus Christ portrays who and what God the Father is. Jesus Christ is God, He is the revelation of the Godhead, He is the portrayer of what the Father is like and what the Holy Spirit is like.

6. It should be pointed out that only the priests could enter and behold the beautiful scene. Outside, all the people could see was a white wall and a badger-skin roof, but they could not see the beauties inside. That was only for the eyes of the priests, portraying the principle that in the Church Age there would be a royal priesthood. Every believer is a priest, every believer therefore has the right and the privilege of understanding who and what God is, understanding His plan of grace and operating under that perfect plan. It is the believer priest of today who has, as it were, the entire beauties of God revealed. We have the completed canon of scripture.

7. This illustrates how also the unbeliever cannot see the beauties of Christ. This is reserved for the royal priest of the Church Age. He is qualified by having the residency of God the Holy Spirit and the area for residency of Bible doctrine. This comes from knowledge of doctrine through the consistent function of GAP.

8. The result of the consistent intake of doctrine or beholding the beauties of God through the intake of doctrine is occupation with Christ which is the basic characteristic of maturity.

9. The golden lampstand, therefore, is a shadow or a type of union with Christ. In John 15:5 Jesus says, “I am the branches, you are the vine.” The branch is a vine is connected in the same way that these branches were connected to the main stem of the lampstand. Union with Christ is portrayed. Jesus Christ prophesied the relationship of Himself to the members of the royal family in John 14:20 when He said, “I in you and you in me.” We are in Christ and Christ is in us. 1 Corinthians 12:12 portrays the branches in relationship with the main stem. 1 Corinthians 12:13 tells us exactly how it occurs, we are in union with Christ. So actually, what is portrayed by the lampstand we portray in the principle that the moment you accept Christ as saviour you enter into union with Christ seated at the right hand of the Father.

10. The result. Six is the number for man in the scripture, also for incompleteness; seven in the perfect number and the point is, again, that there are six lamps representing humanity competed by the seventh lamp, by union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Colossians 2:10.

11. To portray in shadow form the royal family of the Church Age each branch is not only joined to the central branch, representing Christ, but joined to the branch on the other side to portray the basis for unity among members of the royal family. Our unity is not based upon solving our personality differences or solving our personality conflicts, the unity of the royal family is based upon the fact that at the point of regeneration each one of us was entered into union with Christ. Our unity is in the fact that we are all “in Christ”.

12. All six branches are lower than the central branch in this golden lampstand, indicting the fact that Christ is the head of the Church and Christ is the head of the royal family as the King of kings.

13. The central shaft gives light because Christ is the light of the world — John 8:12; 1:4; Luke 1:78. Christ as the light of the world not only reveals God but He reveals the way to God. He is the saviour. No one can ever be saved apart from believing in the Lord Jesus Christ — Acts 4:12; John 14:6.

14. The six branches give light because the royal family of the Church Age is also light. The significance is first found in Matthew 5:14 where Christ prophesied this. He said, “You are the lights of the world”. Matthew 5:16 — “Let your light so shine before men.” Ephesians 5:8 tells us that we are light. Why? We are the royal family on earth, we represent the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore our life has meaning and purpose and definition no matter how insignificant our life may appear to be. The lampstand burned in the tabernacle for over 500 years and in the temple for 1000 years to remind us of a principle: You as a believer have a life with meaning and purpose and definition.

15. The value of the lampstand is determined on the basis of the talent of gold from which it was made. A talent of gold is worth around US$20,000. So the very material out of which the lampstand was made was worth $20,000 and under our system of inflation that would be worth more than a quarter of a million dollars today, just for material.

16. The principle of value is enhanced as the talent is beaten. Since the lampstand was constructed of one talent, and since it was beaten and shaped in order to do this, it denotes the royal family in the palace forever based upon the work of Christ on the cross. The beating indicates the cross, the hammering of the metal into a shape of something meaningful. Positional sanctification and eternal security are also indicated by the fact that they did not break off any part of this lampstand which was shaped out of one talent. We would say carving except that we are dealing with metal. The branches, the believers, cannot be separated from the central shaft. The talent of gold not only had value but when you shape it into an art object, the golden lampstand, it increases its value. Our Lord has ultimate, complete, maximum, total value. But when you shape our Lord as one Son into many sons, those who are saved in the Church Age, He now has increased His value. And since He was maximum value at the beginning, one Son bringing many sons into glory, now increases the value. So never look at the lampstand without thinking of value, and when you think of value you have to remember that you are a part of that value and that the fact that you are in union with Christ and a member of the royal family means that you have value to Him forever. It means that you are of infinite interest to God, and no matter how you feel cut off or no matter how you say ‘God has forsaken me’ or ‘God has let me down’, or other blasphemies that you may utter from time to time, you remember that you are of infinite value to God the Father, of infinite value to God the Son, and that you have enhanced the entire value of heaven by being a member of the royal family forever.

17. The gold represents the deity of Christ which was also presenting the hypostatic union at the cross. The beating of the gold portrays the cross, as per Isaiah 53:5,10. And so the whole principle: a talent of pure gold of extreme value is now of extreme ultimate value because of being shaped into something meaningful. The Lord Jesus Christ, by coming into the world and going to the cross and bearing our sins and taking our place, was shaped into something meaningful. And right now the six branches are in the process of formation during the Church Age. And when the last believer of the Church Age receives Christ as his saviour the lampstand will be complete and lifted up into its proper place, heaven itself. That is the basis for the Rapture of the Church.

18. The cross brings something of greater value into history. The cross brings the royal family into history. The talent was alone before its construction but it became seven lights after the construction was completed. When Christ was on the cross He was alone but now Christ has multiplied Himself — members of the royal family. He is seated at the right hand of the Father and we who have responded by personal faith to His so great salvation are a part of the golden branches of the lampstand. The cross became the basis for the calling out of a permanent royal family.

19. One Son left glory to bring many sons into glory — Hebrews 2:9-14. This is also portrayed by the oil in the lamps. There was oil in the central lamp, speaking of the residency of God the Holy Spirit in Christ during the period of His life on this earth, the period of the first advent. There is also oil in the six lamps of the lampstand which are from the branches from the main stem. This speaks of the fact that for the first time in history God the Holy Spirit makes His residency in the body of every believer. That is because we are royal family. And when we are filled with the Spirit He also controls our soul, therefore the light burns through the filling of the Spirit. This wick, then, is burned and every day the priest had to come in and trim off the dead wick so it would continue burning. The dead wick is service performed in the power of the ministry of the Spirit and it was put into a golden snuff box which represents the Lord’s memory and the basis of our reward in eternity. All divine good is burnt wick and the burnt wick is stored in the golden snuff box.

The priest did not understand anything about the golden lampstand except as it related to Christ bearing our sins, Christ in the second advent. But he did not understand the details of the royal family in the Church Age, that was a part of the doctrine of the mystery.

“and the table of shewbread” — the word for “table” is trapeza. This table is described in great detail also in the Old Testament.

The table of shewbread

1. Scripture: Exodus 25:23-30; 37:10-16; Leviticus 24:5-9.

2. Description: It was constructed of wood plated over with gold. The acacia wood was the basis for forming the table and the wood was overlaid with gold. The table, therefore, portrays the uniqueness of the person of Christ. The gold represents His deity and the wood represents His humanity. So the table also speaks of our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. There was bread on the table, and the bread on the table speaks of Bible doctrine by which we have come to know and to love the Lord Jesus Christ. You could not put bread on the table unless there was a table. The table speaks of Christ and basically all doctrine is courtesy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

4. The table was located on the north side of the holy place, facing the lampstand — Exodus 40:22.

5. Around the edge of the table was what is called in the King James version a crown. Actually, it is a moulding of gold which projected above the table to keep the bread from falling off. This reminds us of the eternity of the Word of God and its content, Bible doctrine. Bible doctrine lives and abides forever, it cannot be destroyed by experts. Satan has tried to destroy it, many have tried to neutralise it, it has been distorted but it cannot be removed.

6. The bread of the table was called shewbread, but that is wrong. The Hebrew says “bread of the face” or “bread of the presence”. In other words, Bible doctrine portrays for you what God is like. It is the bread that shows His face, it is the bread that makes you understand His presence. The shewbread, then, represents not only who and what Christ is but it represents the basis of coming to know Him in supergrace status. The shewbread represents the supergrace life or occupation with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

7. The bread is composed of fine flower describing the impeccability of the humanity of Christ. Christ was perfect, therefore qualified to be our saviour, qualified to be our high priest, qualified to be the King of kings, qualified to have a royal family forever.

8. The absence of leaven in the bread is a reminder of the virgin birth. Christ was born of a virgin, therefore without a sin nature and without the imputation of Adam’s sin.

9. Baking of the bread with fire is a picture of the cross. Christ provided everything through becoming our saviour, bearing our sins on the cross. His efficacious death for our sins is the basis of the provision.

10. There was with the putting the bread on the table the offering of frankincense in golden bowls which were also located on the table. The offering of frankincense in the golden bowls on the table is a picture of the fragrance of Christ as far as God the Father is concerned, a picture of Christ propitiating God the Father, satisfying all of the requirements of the Father so that He could have a royal family forever.

11. The eating of the bread — only the priests and a few others could eat the bread; a king like David could — by the priests is a picture of the daily function of GAP by the believer priest in the Church Age. As the priest ate the bread it sustained him; as we live on Bible doctrine we are sustained in this life.

12. No leper could ever eat the shewbread, that was one of the no-no’s of Leviticus 22:4. It means that no reversionist can take in Bible doctrine and profit from it. Leprosy represents reversionism.

13. No stranger could eat the bread, according to Leviticus 22:10. The stranger is the unbeliever. The unbeliever cannot understand Bible doctrine — 1 Corinthians 2:14.

14. The shewbread cost the priests nothing. Therefore it is a picture of both salvation by grace and living by grace.

15. The twelve loaves of bread represented the twelve tribes of Israel, but this is a shadow of the doctrinal basis for unity in the royal family. As all twelve loaves of bread were on the table it meant that God intended for there to be unity among the tribes, but this unity was based upon their attitude toward Bible doctrine. The table represents Christ. On the table was doctrine. There were twelve loaves of bread on the table. The unity was based upon all Israel, members of each tribe, being positive toward Bible doctrine. Unity is always based upon perception of doctrine.

Now let’s notice, “For the first tent was constructed in which there was both a lampstand and a table, and shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.” The word “shewbread” is literally “a table”, but it doesn’t tell us what kind until we get a little further on. A proqesij of bread is what the Greek says. The KJV has simply “and shewbread”, which is wrong. It is h( proqesj twn a)rtwn, and literally it is “the proqesij of the bread.” It is translated “shewbread”, so what does it mean “the proqesij of the bread”? Well proqesij means the setting forth, the putting forth, the presentation, it means a purpose or a plan. So it means bread which is planned, or a predetermined plan of God is involved in this bread, so it should be translated “and the way of thinking of the bread,” which is a reference to the table of shewbread. It doesn’t say “table of shewbread”, it simply says “trapeza of the way of thinking.” So it is “the table of the way of thinking of the bread.” What does it mean? It means that the twelve loaves on the table represent God’s way of thinking. God’s way of thinking is Bible doctrine, divine viewpoint. The bread was never seen without the light shining on it. Remember that on opposite sides we have a lampstand and then the table. The light shines on the table or you do not see the table and the bread. You must be a believer in Christ before you can understand God’s way of thinking. God’s way of thinking is understood by the bread. The bread represents Bible doctrine, and the bread is made to be eaten. You must eat the bread, you must function under GAP on a consistent basis in order to understand God’s plan for your life, what God is like, and all of the wonderful plunder He has for you from His great strategical victory of being seated at the right hand of the Father. So we have here a descriptive genitive of the plural word a)rtoj, and it is translated therefore “breads.” It is a descriptive genitive, it actually portrays Bible doctrine. The bread was located on the table, which means there is no understanding of Bible doctrine apart from personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and after that personal faith a positive attitude toward the Word. The believer, of course, starts out by receiving the living Word as his saviour; now he must understand what his role is in life and eternity. He does not understand apart from the daily function of GAP. He eats of the proqesij bread, the way-of-thinking bread. Jesus made some reference to this when He said man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. He was talking about doctrine as bread. So this is analogous to the fact that Bible doctrine is the spiritual food for the royal priesthood in the Church Age.

Next we have the word “which”, a nominative singular of o(stij, a relative pronoun but a relative pronoun of a special type. It is called a qualitative relative pronoun. The antecedent of this qualitative relative pronoun is all of the furniture in the holy place, both the lampstand and the table of shewbread. It should be translated “which category of thing is called.” The present passive indicative of legw means “is designated.” The present tense is a customary present denoting what habitually occurs. The passive voice: the tent and all of its furniture receive the action of the verb, it receives nomenclature. The indicative mood is the declarative indicative confirming that the nomenclature of the first tent is a part of Bible doctrine, a part of the heritage of those that are born again, and therefore designed to be understood, not simply designed for ritual. All of the ritual of the Old Testament was meaningless unless they had doctrine resident in their souls. That was the purpose for the tabernacle.

Notice it is “called the sanctuary.” That is wrong. We have the nominative neuter plural of a(gia which means “holies” and it should be translated that way, “holies” or “holy place.”

Translation: “For the first tent was constructed in which there was both the golden lampstand and the table of the proqesij bread [way of thinking loaves]; which categorically is designated the holy place.”

So here are things in the holy place, things that have meaning, things which portray doctrine. The Levitical priesthood dealt with the shadows, the royal priesthood deals with the reality. The shadows look forward to doctrine, we have the historical doctrine portrayed and reserved for us in the Word of God. So behind these shadows is reality. Reality has come. The Age of Israel has been interrupted, we now have a new dispensation, we now have believers with a new meaning in life. So the challenge of this passage is really to the royal priesthood. That is why it is placed in Hebrews. This same information taught in Exodus is a challenge to the Jew of that day and an illustration to us. But when you bring that information into the ninth chapter of Hebrews you are now speaking to the royal family. Specifically this speaks to the royal family in 67 AD — Jews living in Jerusalem who are dabbling in the shadows, who actually go into the temple where they had reproductions of these very things, the golden lampstand and the table of shewbread. But these things are obsolete. We now have the interruption of the Age of Israel, we now have a new dispensation, we now have a royal family. And what a tragedy for royal family to be living in shadows when God has provided for them the reality.

Until the day that you, as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, are consistent in the intake of doctrine, consistent in understanding who and what Christ is, consistent in being occupied with the person of Christ, consistent in the volume of doctrine which is resident in your soul, you will be like those early Christians in 67 AD in Jerusalem. Jerusalem, the spiritual capital of the world, was now the capital of apostasy. Those believers had failed, and they had failed for one reason: lack of Bible doctrine in the soul by which these things can be related.

Verses 3-5 introduces the holy of holies.

Verse 3 — “And after the second veil”, the preposition meta plus the accusative of deuteroj. Meta plus the accusative means “behind.” Deuterojis the adjective, the noun also being in the accusative, katapetasma which means a curtain or a veil. Literally, “And behind the second curtain.”

The first veil is the one that separates the holy place from the outside. Out in front of the first veil we have the brass altar and the brass laver. Inside we have the lampstand and the table. Now the second veil is in view, the second veil which separates the holy place from the holy of holies.

The second veil

1. The second veil or curtain divides the holy place from the holy of holies.

2. The curtain or veil is hung upon four pillars which represent the incarnate person of Christ as presented by the four gospel writers. Matthew emphasises Christ as the King; Mark emphasises Christ as the servant of Jehovah; Luke portrays Christ as the Son of Man; and John emphasises Christ as the Son of God. This is a very big veil and four pillars are used to suspend it. Actually, we have four pillars representing the person of Christ and this veil is hung upon these four pillars.

3. The colours in the veil or the curtain are blue, depicting the deity of Christ; purple, the kingship of Christ; scarlet, the redemptive work of Christ; and white, the impeccability of the incarnate person of Christ.

Already we see in the veil those things which portray who and what Christ is.

4. Embroidered on the curtain were cherubs. The cherubs represent the essence of deity as well as a reminder to those who faced that curtain of the existence of the angelic conflict; it is a reality.

5. The hooks on which the curtain was hung referred to the sustaining ministry of God the Holy Spirit to the humanity of Christ during His first advent. As royalty His body was indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and His soul was filled with the Spirit.

6. The Levitical priesthood could not go past the veil. It was reserved for the royal priesthood after the strategic victory of Christ. Until Christ came in the flesh through the virgin birth, lived His 33 years, went to the cross and died for us spiritually and then died physically, was buried, rose again and ascended to the right hand of the Father, the holy of holies was off limits to all people, including the Levitical priesthood. The only exception was the high priest once a year on the Day of Atonement, and then after seven days of ritual purification, and then after very stringent ceremonies outside. He was permitted to enter the tabernacle three times. Once into the holy place to offer incense on the golden altar, and twice he entered the holy of holies, once with the blood of a goat and once with the blood of a young steer or bullock. So this veil is the most important of all.

“the tabernacle” — skhnh, meaning tent. It is a reference to the holy of holies. Actually, the definite article does not occur here in front of “tent” or skhnh. The absence of the definite article calls attention to the qualitative aspect of the noun. The Greeks emphasised nouns from two viewpoints: identity and quality. Identity was always emphasised by the use of the definite article; quality by the absence of the definite article. The absence of the definite article calls attention to the quality of the noun and is therefore the antithesis of English grammar. So the tent involved here is of the highest possible quality of all of the aspects of the tabernacle — obviously, then, a reference to the holy of holies.

“which is called” — present passive participle of legw meaning to call or to designate. The present tense is the present tense of description which is one of the progressive presents, also construed as the customary present since this was the habitual way to indicate or designate the holy of holies. The passive voice: the holy of holies receives the action of the verb, it actually has nomenclature. The participle is circumstantial.

“the Holiest of all” — simply a(gioj repeated twice, once in the nominative singular, once in the genitive plural, and should be literally translated “Holy of holies”.

Translation: “And behind the second curtain [or veil], a tent which is called [or designated] the Holy of holies.”

Verse 4 — “Which had” is simply a present active participle of e)xw. The present tense is retroactive progressive in which something is begun in the past and continued into the present time. This is also a customary present tense as well. The active voice: the holy of holies produced the action of the verb, having certain articles of furniture or, as e)xw can also mean, possessing them. The participle is circumstantial, indicating that while the golden altar was not located in the holy of holies it is furniture which belongs to the holy of holies.

Basically, there are two articles of furniture for each of the three areas of the tabernacle. Outside were the brazen altar and brazen laver. In the holy place is the golden lampstand and the table of shewbread. In the holy of holies is the golden altar and on the other side of the veil is the mercy seat and ark of the covenant which is all one piece of furniture.

“the golden censer” — this is mistranslated. We have the accusative singular direct object of the adjective xruseoj which is the adjective for gold, and therefore correctly translated “golden.” However, the next word is not a censer. We have qumiathrion which is an altar, and it is the golden altar of incense, a smaller altar on which incense is poured and burned.

The golden altar of incense is described in great detail in Exodus 30:1-10; 34-38; 37:25-28. Like most of the articles of furniture it was constructed of acacia wood, overlaid with gold. This always represents the hypostatic union, the fact that Jesus Christ is undiminished deity and true humanity in one person forever. He is absolutely unique.

The golden altar of incense

1. While just outside the veil or the second curtain the golden altar of incense belongs to the furniture of the holy of holies. It was placed outside because the golden altar of incense was constantly used, whereas the ark and the mercy seat was used once a year.

2. The golden altar of incense depicts Jesus Christ after His strategic victory, seated at the right hand of the Father as the King of kings and royal high priest.

3. The basic ingredients of the golden altar include not only its construction of wood and gold but a crown, fire, and incense. So there are five articles in the structure of the golden altar: wood, the humanity of Christ; plated with gold, the deity of Christ — therefore the altar itself is wood-gold, or a picture of the hypostatic union; then three more articles: a crown, fire, and incense.

4. The crown kept the fire from falling to the ground. The principle: the fire represent s judgement of Christ on the cross for our sins, and the crown kept this fire from falling to the ground.

5. Since the fire is held up by the crown, the crown means resurrection, ascension, and session. And when the fire was burning all the time, and the crown was holding it up, altogether it represented the strategic victory of our Lord Jesus Christ — His death, burial, resurrection, and session.

6. The validity of the work of Christ on the cross is found in resurrection, ascension, and session, the strategic victory of the angelic conflict. Therefore, the incense represents several things. First of all, that the work of Christ on the cross is acceptable and therefore a part of the victory of our Lord. The incense refers to propitiation, so does the mercy seat — everything related to the holy of holies refers to propitiation. In addition to that, the incense represents prayer. First, the prayers of our Lord Jesus Christ making intercession for us, and secondly, the prayers of the royal priesthood and their dynamics in phase two, Church Age.

7. While the horns on the brazen altar speak of sacrifice and refuge the horns on the golden altar speak of power and prayer.

8. The golden altar also had rings for carrying it. The rings and the staves of the golden altar have significance. The rings speak of the perfection of God’s plan of grace, while the staves or the golden rods that carried it indicate the world-wide ministry of prayer. There is no place prayer cannot go.

9. Therefore the golden altar represents the concept of prayer in the utilisation of divine resources.

A contrast of the two altars

1. Outside was the brass altar, brass always speaks of judgement. We have the picture of the cross — Jesus Christ being judged for us. Inside was the golden altar speaking of the strategic victory of our Lord Jesus Christ which comes out of the cross.

2. Brass speaks of judgement; gold speaks of victory and plunder.

3. There is no crown on the brass altar, speaking of the humility of the cross. There is a crown on the golden altar, speaking of the victory and the glory of the angelic conflict.

4. The brass altar outside emphasises salvation and how it was accomplished. The golden altar inside emphasises victory and how it was accomplished.

The fire for the golden altar was from the brass altar. They carried coals in from the brass altar and put them in the crown which started the fire in the golden altar.

5. Without the brass altar and its fire there would be no worship at the golden altar — meaning apart from the cross and salvation there is no effective worship or prayer in mankind. You cannot ignore the brass altar! Don’t ever bother to pray until you believe in Jesus Christ.

6. Therefore, a principle emerges. All prayer and worship must begin at the cross. Only the born again believer is qualified to pray and to worship. There is no prayer for the unbeliever and there is no worship for the unbeliever. The brass comes before the gold; judgement comes before worship, just as the cross comes before the crown.

7. Without the fire in the brass altar there is no incense in the golden altar. Without the death of Christ on the cross there is no intercession of Christ, there is no victory, and there is no plunder.

8. Therefore no plunder means no royal family, no Church Age, no pastor-teacher, apart from the cross.

9. The cross must come before the crown. The cross must come before the royal family can be born.

10. In their revolution and reversionism there were two believers, sons of Aaron — Nadab and Abihu — went and started a fire with a torch in their tent. They were talking revolution and were about to take over. One of the first things they did was to bring strange fire before the Lord — Leviticus 10:1,2. Strange fire means they put on their priestly garments, started a fire in a tent with a torch, walked out of the tent and into the tabernacle, walked right past the brazen altar and did not stop. There was a brass shovel to shovel coals out of the brass altar to be carried to the golden altar, and they didn’t do it. They walked in with a torch and put down the fire in the golden altar. This was a revolution, they did not use the fire of the brass altar. This was total disobedience to the Word of God, it broke the type, they got their fire from another source, according to Leviticus 16:12, and when they put this fire on the golden altar they died the sin unto death.

The incense

1. The incense is a symbol of prayer as well as propitiation. The fact that incense was also used as a symbol of prayer is found in Psalm 141:2; Hebrews 13:15; Revelation 5:8; 8:3.

2. Therefore incense represents the intercessory prayer of Jesus Christ as high priest — Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25.

3. The prayers of all the believers which were processed through Christ at the right hand of the Father are also represented by the incense.

4. The composition of the incense portrays the strategic victory of Jesus Christ in the angelic conflict. According to Exodus 30:34 the incense was composed of four ingredients: stachte, onycha, galbanum, frankincense.

5. Stachte means to distil. It is so called because of the drops of gum which exuded from the tree producing it. Stachte refers to the uniqueness of the person of Christ in His first advent — the hypostatic union, the God-Man. He was different from God in that He is man, different from Man in that He is Man, different from man in that He is impeccable, perfect, qualified to bear the sins of the world — no personal sin, no imputed sin from Adam, and no old sin nature. Therefore, stachte speaks of the merit and the nobility of the life of Christ.

6. Onycha refers to scale or shell. It is derived from a shell fish which yields this perfume. It refers to the ministry of Christ on the cross in His two deaths.

7. Galbanum means fat or fertile. It is a resinous gum which adds strength and persistence to the other ingredients used in mixing. It is a reference to the resurrection of Christ.

8. Frankincense means to be white or white incense. It receives its name from the pure whiteness of the gum from which it was extracted. When it burns it also burns with a very pure white flame. it is a reference to the ascension and session of Christ as the completion of His glorification.

So, stachte: the ability of His life on earth; onycha: the courage and nobility of His death; galbanum: the greatness of His resurrection; frankincense: the greatness and nobility of His ascension and session. The incense goes up, just as Christ went up into the presence of God the Father.

“and the ark of the covenant” — kai thn kibwton thj diaqhkhj. The ark of the covenant is described in detail in Exodus 25:10-22; 37:1-9; Romans 3:22-25.

“overlaid round about” — perfect passive participle of perikaluptw which means to plate or to cover — “having been plated on all sides.” The perfect tense is the intensive perfect, it indicates a completed action with emphasis on existing results. When you looked at the ark it looked gold because it had been gold plated. The box was constructed of wood and plated with gold. The passive voice: the subject is the ark and it receives the action of the verb, it was plated with gold. The participle is circumstantial.

Then we have the instrumental of the noun xrusion, “gold”, used to represent the deity of Christ. The wood of the ark represents the humanity of Christ.

“wherein” is literally, “in which” — the preposition e)n plus the locative of the relative pronoun o(j, translated “in which [ark].” The antecedent to the relative pronoun is the ark.

“the golden pot” — not quite correct. It is stamnoj which is a golden urn, not a pot; “that had” — present active participle of e)xw, “having.” The present tense is a customary present. The active voice: the urn produces the action. The participle is circumstantial; “having the manna”.

“and Aaron’s rod that budded” — the word “budded” is the aorist active participle of blastanw. It means to germinate and sprout. This was a part of the great revolution. Aaron’s rod germinated and sprouted. “Aaron’s rod having germinated and sprouted.” The aorist tense is a constative aorist, it gathers into one entirety the action of the verb.

The ark of the covenant is a box 45 inches long by 27 inches wide and 27 inches high. It was constructed of acacia wood and plated with gold, the wood representing the humanity of Christ, the gold representing the deity of Christ, the plating being completed representing the hypostatic union of Christ. The content of the box is not only described here in Hebrews 9:4 but also in Numbers 17:8,10. There are three things: the urn of manna representing sin in the sense of rejection of God’s provision. it is just like some believers, they have neglected Bible doctrine and are therefore losing out on the fantastic blessings God has designed for them from eternity past. Secondly, we have Aaron’s rod which germinated and sprouted some kind of a flower. This represents sin in rebellion against God’s order and God’s authority. God chose Aaron as the high priest. When God sets up authority it may not look like much but if God sets it up it has His backing. The third item was the tables of the law. These represent sin as a transgression of God’s love. The content of the box represents Christ bearing our sins on the cross. Notice that they were all inside the box: Christ bearing our sins on the cross.

Translation: “Having belonging to it [the holy of holies] the golden altar of incense, the ark of the covenant having been plated on all sides with gold, in which was the golden urn having the manna, and Aaron’s rod having germinated and sprouted, and the tables of the covenant.”

Verse 5 — “And over it,” we have a transitional particle de which continues the discourse. plus the adverb u(peranw used as a preposition with the genitive of the intensive pronoun a)utoj. Altogether it mean literally, “And above it [the box].” In other words, above the ark.

“the cherubim of glory” — Xeroubin, which should be translated “cherubs”; “of glory”, a descriptive genitive of doca. Doca refers to the essence of God — “All have sinned and come short of the doca [the essence] of God.” The cherubs represent essence. In this case there are two cherubs, one represents God’s righteousness and the other represents God’s justice. The two cherubs together represent the holiness of God — righteousness + justice = holiness. They are said to be shadowing, but that is wrong. It is a present active participle of kataskiazw which means “overshadowing.” The present tense is an historical present in which a past event is viewed with the vividness of a present occurrence. In other words, this is so written that you ought to be able to visualise it. The active voice: the two cherubs produce the action of the verb. The participle is circumstantial.

“the mercy seat” — i(lasthriwn. The word is found here in Hebrews 9:5 as well as in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 4:10. Sometimes it is translated “propitiation” and sometimes “mercy seat”. it means both. The mercy seat represent propitiation. Notice that the noun means both mercy seat and the place of propitiation. The mercy seat was fashioned out of pure gold — Exodus 25:17-22; 37:6-9.

1. At each end of the mercy seat a cherub representing pertinent essence involved in propitiation is found. One represents righteousness, one represents justice.

2. It is divine righteousness and justice which would be compromised by saving and loving man apart from the cross.

3. Therefore, righteousness and justice must be propitiated or satisfied so as not to compromise them.

4. On the Day of Atonement the high priest entered the holy of holies with the blood of animal sacrifices. This blood was sprinkled over the mercy seat to indicate that God’s righteousness and justice was satisfied by the saving work of Christ on the cross.

5. Therefore, because of the propitiatory work of Christ on the cross God the Father is satisfied and the essence of God is not compromised in loving and saving sinful man.

6. Because of propitiation God the Father is free to love the believer without compromising His righteousness or justice, represented by the cherubs.

7. Therefore, propitiation inevitably emphasises the celebrityship of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of propitiation

1. There are three words which every believer ought to know and understand. The Godward side of salvation whereby the essence of God is made compatible with man’s salvation through Jesus Christ is propitiation. Remember that propitiation is always Godward, taking care of the essence of God so that it is in no way compromised. Reconciliation is manward. That is the removal of the barrier between God and man. Redemption is sinward. Propitiation means satisfaction. God the Father is satisfied with the work of God the Son on the cross. He is satisfied with the person of Christ — impeccability; He is satisfied with the work of Christ bearing our sins.

2. Propitiation was communicated to Israel through the mercy seat — Exodus 25:17-22; 37:6-9.

3. Propitiation is appropriated by faith and is the basis for imputation of divine righteousness — Romans 3:25,26.

4. Propitiation is related to the work of Christ on the cross — Leviticus 16:13-16.

5. The mercy seat represents the presence of God — Exodus 25:22; Leviticus 16:2; Numbers 7:89.

6. The New Testament confirms the importance of the mercy seat — Hebrews 9:5.

7. The mercy seat or propitiation is related to unlimited atonement — 1 John 2:2.

8. Propitiation demonstrates the perfect love of God — 1 John 4:10.

9. Therefore propitiation is used to express the celebrityship of Jesus Christ — Romans 3:25. Celebrityship is established on the basis of propitiation.

10. The importance of propitiation can be observed from the existence of the tables of the law in the ark of the covenant. Note, then, the true function of the law: a) The law is not an instrument of justification — Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; b) The law is an instrument of condemnation to both Jews and the entire race — Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:21-28; 1 Timothy 1:9,10. c) The purpose of the law is to curse mankind with a hopeless curse — Galatians 3:10 — and only the work of Christ on the cross can remove that curse — Galatians 3:13; d) The law does not produce a righteousness which has credit with God. Therefore the law cannot produce a righteousness having credit with God and cannot compare with the imputation of divine righteousness received by faith in Jesus Christ — Philippians 3:9. e) Many Jews of the previous dispensation failed because they attempted to be saved on righteousness based on keeping the law — Romans 9:30-33; f) They failed — like the rich young ruler — and the conclusion is obvious: the law cannot provide justification — Acts 13:39. Therefore the prayer of the publican is not only mistranslated but as it stands in translation it is a very subtle and vicious form of apostasy. He said, “O God, be merciful to me a sinner”. That is not correct. Luke 18:13, “O God be propitious to me a sinner.”

11. Propitiation is the only approach to God — Luke 18:13. a) He said, “O God be propitious to me a sinner”; b) Dr Chafer: “God cannot be merciful toward the sinner in the sense of being generous or lenient, and the publican did not ask God to do the impossible”; c) God cannot be merciful without propitiation which removes the compromise to His righteousness and justice; d) The publican asked God to be propitious, he did not ask Him to be merciful. Why? Because propitiation is compatible with the divine plan and divine essence, mercy is not; e) Being merciful excludes Christ, but being propitious includes Christ; f) What the publican said — o( qeoj, O God, i(lasqeth which is the aorist passive imperative of i(laskomai. I(laskomai does not means to be merciful, it means to be propitious. The aorist tense of i(laskomai is a constative aorist, it contemplates the action of the verb in its entirety, it sees the perfection of God, His essence.

“of which” — the preposition peri plus the genitive plural of the relative pronoun o(j, meaning “concerning which.”

“we cannot now speak” — o)uk e)stin nun legein. The word o)uk is “not”; e)stin is “it is”; nun is “now”; legein means to teach, it is the present active infinitive of legw. When you put it all together it means “it is not now time to teach”.

Then we have “particularly”, and that is a prepositional phrase, also idiomatic — kata meroj which is “according to its parts”, but it means “in detail”.

Translation: “And above it the cherubs of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; concerning which mercy seat it is not now time to teach in detail” — or, “there is no time to teach in detail.”

In verses 6-8 we have a new paragraph dealing with the function of the Levitical priesthood.

Verse 6 — the words “these things” includes a genitive plural of the demonstrative pronoun o(utoj. It is a reference to the tabernacle, the articles of furniture, and the various types of structure. The transitional particle de indicates the new paragraph but relates it to the old one, and we have a perfect passive participle from kataskeuazw. Kataskeuazw is a part of a genitive absolute. The verb actually means to build, to construct, rather than ordain. The intensive perfect tense indicates the completed action of the verb with existing results. The existing results: a tabernacle stood until the temple.

The question was asked if the tabernacle and the temple stand simultaneously, and the answer is no, they did not. One replaced the other. If the tabernacle had continued then the great appreciation for the art objects of the tabernacle would have caused idolatry. As long as every item of furniture outside of the brazen altar is inside of the tabernacle idolatry is avoided. No one ever got down on his knees outside and worshipped a white sheet with badger skin on top of it. And that is why the Jews, even though they had actual articles of furniture, never ever worshipped them in idolatry. In other words, the only people who actually saw those articles of furniture were the priests, and the priests were so indoctrinated that they would not be inclined to get involved in any idolatry. They functioned with these articles of furniture but they never worshipped the articles of furniture. Why? The articles of furniture were designed to teach doctrine. It was the greatest volume on Bible doctrine that ever existed until the completion of the canon of scripture.

So we have “construction” in the perfect tense. The passive voice: the subject is the tabernacle. The tabernacle and all of its furniture receive the action of the verb. All of these things were hidden from view from the people. The knew about these things because the tabernacle was presented in two different places. First of all, in the book of Exodus. So it was in the scroll called “Torah”, the scroll of the law, the first five books of the Old Testament. Then it was constructed where all the people could see the outside. Here was the test. The could see the outside, and some people are positive and some are negative. A negative person could walk by that tabernacle every day and never wonder what was inside. A positive person wanted to know what was inside and would go to the priest and ask. That is how they joined Bible class! The priests would pull out the scrolls, unroll them, and describe, and then talk about the articles of furniture and their significance. That is the way David reached supergrace. So we have a beautiful picture here and a very important picture. The tabernacle was constructed but once it was constructed the furniture couldn’t be seen. Only the priests could see it. The participle is a temporal participle, and the temporal participle plus the adverb o(utoj, means “in this manner.” So we have as a corrected translation: “Now when these things had been constructed in this manner.” Notice that “when” is the temporal participle. You translate a temporal participle like a temporal clause.

Notice the significance of all of this. First of all, this was written in the Bible, the canon of scripture — Exodus 30 and 37. Then it was constructed but not until it was completed did they have a perfect correlation. Once the structure goes up they cannot see inside that tent. They see white walls made of heavy cloth and a badger skin roof. So all the information on what is inside they learn from the page of the Word of God, the scroll. And eventually there are two ways in which it is recorded: the scroll, and then the actual tabernacle. Remember, the people never went inside, ever. They listened to the teaching of the priest as he exegeted Exodus and Leviticus, and that is the way they learned. They understood the ritual, they understood the function, they understood everything that went on because it was all related to principles of doctrine. These were the shadows. Wherever there is a shadow there is reality. The reality is Christ. The shadows all point to the reality.

“the priests” — nominative plural of i(ereuj. That stands for the Hebrew kohen. It refers to the Levitical priesthood authorised by the Mosaic law for the Age of Israel. Notice, it all goes together. The tabernacle demands upkeep. The upkeepers of the tabernacle are the priests. The people cannot enter the tabernacle. Once again you see that great principle that comes out throughout the ninth chapter of Hebrews: There is always some “Forbidden” sign around. No one could enter the tabernacle except the priests. No one could carry the ark except the priests. No one could offer animal sacrifices on the brass altar except the priests.

The doctrine of the priesthood

1. Definition. A priest is a member of the human race, male type, representing the human race to God. A priest is taken from the male population of the human race but never from angels. The exception is the royal priesthood, male and female believer. The priest must partake of the nature of the person or persons for whom he acts. This means that when he officiates he represents the human race — Hebrews 5:1; 7:4,5, 14, 28; 10:5, 10-14. Jesus Christ could not be our high priest unless He was a member of the human race.

2. The sphere of the priestly function. The priest and the high priest must function in the sphere of spiritual phenomena. Therefore he is appointed for man’s benefit in spiritual things. The Levitical priest functioned in two spheres of spiritual phenomena: the Torah, the tabernacle. The only person who could deal with these things was the Levitical priest. Notice that the priests of the Old Testament dealt with shadows, and the shadows came in two forms: a) written. The written shadow came before the constructed shadow for the writing tells how to construct. In other words, the building called the tabernacle did not go up until they had the blueprint, and the blueprint is in the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever. b) constructed. And when it is all finished, whether you are talking about the written Word, the Torah, or you are talking about the tent, the tabernacle, you are talking about something sacred, something wonderful but, with all of that, a shadow. You can learn from a shadow. David went to supergrace because of his positive volition toward doctrine. He learned from the tabernacle, from a shadow.

The sphere of the priestly function always remains the same. When Jesus Christ died on the cross His spiritual death, the blood of Christ representing His saving work on the cross, the veil was “rent in twain”, which means the curtain was torn or ripped to pieces from top to bottom. There was no curtain. Why? Because entrance into the holy of holies was now provided for a new priesthood. You and I are members of the royal priesthood. We have access into the holy of holies, we live in the holy of holies. And being a priest we are to deal with spiritual phenomena, only the shadows are all gone and we have the reality starting with Christ, the living Word, and the canon of scripture, the written Word. With the completion of the canon of scripture you as a priest must now deal with spiritual phenomena.

In the Old Testament we have the priest plus the tabernacle and we have only the priest dealing with this. Now we have the royal priest plus his Bible. What’s wrong with that? Nothing, but it is only a start. The royal priest has to transfer the content of the Bible to his frontal lobe by the function of GAP.

3. The categories of the priesthood. a) The royal priesthood in which Melchizedek is the stated pattern — Hebrews 7-3. b) Melchizedek was both a king and a priest but without any emphasis on his parents, his genealogy, his birth or his death certificate. The thing that made him important for us is that he was a royal high priest. c) Melchizedek and Abraham had a confrontation and when they came together it was Melchizedek who ministered to Abraham. Two priesthoods are involved here. Abraham’s line in the Levitical priesthood. Melchizedek is not the line but the pattern for the royal priesthood. Why does the royal priesthood minister to the Levitical priesthood in that face to face confrontation between Melchizedek and Abraham? Because the Levitical priesthood deals with shadows, we have the reality. The one who has the reality is superior to the one who has the shadow. The priest dealt with an animal whose volition was not involved in the sacrifice. Our priesthood deals with the sovereignty of the second person of the Trinity who billions of years ago said yes to the cross of His own free will. With His sovereign will He agreed to go to the cross in the fullness of time. d) Melchizedek appeared once to Abraham ministering to him bread and wine, the symbols of the royal priesthood. What are the symbols of the Levitical priesthood? Animal blood and incense. e) Under the Levitical priesthood the cross was symbolised by animal sacrifices but under the royal priesthood the precious blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb without spot and without blemish. f) The royal priesthood is the greatest because it is not hereditary, it is perpetual. g) The appointment of the royal priesthood is not based on physical birth and we are not disqualified by physical blemishes.

The second priesthood is the Levitical priesthood. a) It began with Aaron, the older brother of Moses. b) The concept of this priestly ministry of spiritual things is found in Numbers 16:5 — “commissioned, holy, and allowed to come near.” They were qualified by their birth record. But being born a male in the line of Aaron didn’t do it either. They had to be without any kind of physical blemish. They were commissioned as a priest and then from then on they were considered set apart or holy. Their job was to “come near” When you are dealing with shadows you can only come near. We of the royal priesthood don’t come near, we are in — in union with Christ. c) This priesthood was perpetuated through the natural line of Aaron. d) Physical defects caused the elimination of a priest in the priestly line — Leviticus 21:17-21. e) The Levitical priesthood was supported by thirteen Levitical cities — Joshua 21:13-19. f) In addition there was a special annual tithe, a tax for the support of the Levites — Leviticus 23:10. g) Other support came from redemption money of the firstborn — Numbers 18:16. h) The spiritual phenomena of the Levitical priesthood was limited to shadows. They had shadow doctrines, shadow ritual — Hebrews 10:1-4.

The third priesthood was the family priesthood which existed in the Age of the Gentiles. The patrician of the family functioned also as a priest, as in the case of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

4. The royal high priest and the Church Age. a) Jesus Christ is the royal high priest. b) As such He has fulfilled the first function of the priesthood, the offering of a sacrifice. c) From this function comes the first strategic victory of the angelic conflict: resurrection, ascension, and session — Hebrews 10:5-14. d) The royal high priest was appointed forever under the divine decrees — Hebrews 5:6. e) He was also given authorisation for a royal priesthood — Hebrews 5:10. f) The priesthood is assigned to the Melchizedek battalion in Hebrews 6:20 because that is a royal priesthood. g) The appointment of Jesus Christ as a high priest was accompanied by the divine oath of Hebrews 7:21.

5. The royal priesthood of the Church Age. Every believer of the Church Age is a priest — 1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10, 26.

6. The purpose of the royal priesthood: to reach supergrace — Hebrews 6:17-20; Ephesians 3:17-21; 4:11-16. The objective is to reach supergrace. Why? The priest deals with spiritual phenomena. We have a canon of scripture and a priest. The objective is to get the canon inside of the priest, and when you get the canon inside of the priest he grows to the supergrace life and occupation with the person of Jesus Christ. Here is the whole point. You and I as royal priests live in the holy of holies, and there is just one thing to do if you are going to live in the holy of holies and that is to be occupied with the Shekinah glory, to be occupied with the person of Jesus Christ. And why are you and I here? To be occupied with Christ. And there is only one way to do it: study, study, study, transfer the page of the Word to the frontal lobes, to the human spirit, convert gnwsij into e)pignwsij, etc. That is the only way.

7. The function of the royal priesthood is delineated in Hebrews 13.

“went” — wrong. It is the present active indicative of e)ijeimi and it means to enter: “the priests entered.” That was the privilege they had, to enter the tabernacle, a privilege that no one else had. The present tense is the customary present, denoting what habitually occurs. The active voice: the Levitical priesthood produces the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of reality.

“always” — this is the preposition dia plus the genitive of paj. Dia means “through”; paj means “all”. So actually it is really “through all”. It is an idiom which means “constantly” — “the priests entered constantly into the first tent” — e)ij plus the accusative of skhnh, and also prwtoj for “first”. The first tent is the holy place. That is the only place they could go.

“accomplishing the service” — the word “accomplishing” is the present active participle of e)pitelew. The word means to complete, to accomplish, to perform, and “performing” is probably the best translation here. The present tense is a retroactive progressive present, it denotes what was begun in the past and continued right up to the present time. They were still doing it in Jerusalem in 67 AD contrary to the change in dispensation. The active voice: the Levitical priesthood produced the action of the verb in the holy place. It is a circumstantial participle. That is the only place they could function. They could not enter the holy of holies.

The word “service” is the accusative plural latreia which really means here “spiritual functions.” Latreia means worship functions or spiritual functions. There were a tremendous number of detailed sacred functions relating to the first tent or the holy place and these they could do.

Translation: “Now when these things had been constructed in this manner, the priests constantly entered into the first tent, performing the sacred functions.”

Summary

1. Only the priests were permitted to enter the holy place.

2. Their entrance was the daily routine in order to maintain the various items of sacred furniture and to perform the sacred functions related to doctrine, namely the trimming of the lamp, the replacement of the shewbread.

3. The function of the priests in the holy place — the first tent — illustrates the royal priest entering daily into the local church to fulfil his sacred worship of perception of the Word of God.

4. This way the royal priest fulfils the balance of residence between the filling of the Spirit and maximum Bible doctrine in the soul. Your job as a royal priest on this earth is to get balance of residency.

5. While the Levitical priests enter the holy place the holy of holies was forbidden, except the high priest once a year. The only reason he could go in once a year was to depict the ascension of Jesus Christ.

6. All of this that we have had up through this verse is a reminder of the great significance of a shadow. When God creates a shadow it is a perfect shadow. But the shadow points to the reality, and the reality is absolute perfection. The reality is Jesus Christ.

7. The outer court has two articles of furniture: the brass altar, speaking of the cross; the brass laver, speaking of rebound. The outer court represents the area of the world, and in that sense this is where evangelism occurs, and the first thing a believer should learn is how to rebound.

8. The holy place with its lampstand and the table of shewbread represent the believer in phase two and his relationship with God. Notice the simplicity of it. Remember that the golden altar is also in that room but it belongs to the holy of holies. The lampstand: Christ the living Word; the table of shewbread: doctrine, the written Word.

9. Furthermore, it depicts the analogy of the royal family in union with Christ. The priest was inside the tent; we are in union with Christ. In the Church Age every believer is a priest and only the priest can deal with the sacred phenomena of the Word.

10. Therefore, the whole thing portrays positional truth. The holy of holies represents the throne room of God in the third heaven, and we positionally are in the third heaven. While we function in the first tent we are in the second tent positionally. Christ is at the right hand of the Father in the place of strategic victory. That is the significance of the holy of holies. Only the royal priesthood can function daily in the holy of holies. That is why we can “come boldly to the throne of grace and obtain mercy, to find grace to help in time of need.”

11. Our high priest, Jesus Christ, sits in the real holy of holies in the third heaven. Therefore, the way into the holy of holies is now revealed in this dispensation. The holy of holies is for the royal priest only. That is why the Levitical priest was barred at the second veil.

Verse 7 starts out with “But.” This is the particle de used as an adversative conjunction. This particle has many uses. One of them, and the one used here, is to set up a contrast between the fact that the Levitical priesthood could enter the holy place, which was permitted, and not the holy of holies. The only exception is now stated, and the exception is the high priest once a year on the Day of Atonement. We will see later on that the death of Christ opened the holy of holies to the royal family of God. Many times when the Mosaic law said no it was related to the fact that something had been reserved for the royal family.

“into the second” — the preposition e)ij plus the accusative of deuteroj, deuteroj referring to the holy of holies.

“once” — a(pac, and then it should reach “for each year only the high priest.” Notice several things here:

1. The first thing we should not is the genitive of time from the noun e)niautou, meaning each year, rather than one year as it appears.

2. With this there is a contrast to the adverb pote, meaning any time. There is definitely no pote here because the entrance into the holy of holies could not occur at any time.

3. The high priest could not enter at any time that he wanted to. There was a specific day in which he entered and for the rest of the time the second curtain or veil was also forbidden to the high priest.

4. The day specified was the Day of Atonement. He could enter the holy of holies on that day according to certain prearranged specifications. He had to spend seventy days in purification rites. He had to follow the principles of Leviticus 16:14-18. The high priest alone could enter and he entered for one reason only: there had to be at least once a year the teaching of the doctrine of the ascension and session of Christ.

5. The high priest alone, who portrays the Lord Jesus Christ forsaken by God and forsaken by man in bearing our sins, could enter the holy of holies speaking of the third heaven. And he could only enter because the ascension had to be taught.

6. There were three entrances into the entire tabernacle on the Day of Atonement by the high priest. a) He entered with incense in a shovel — Leviticus 16:13. b) he entered with the blood of a bullock for his own sins — Leviticus 16:14. c) The first time he only went into the holy place with the incense. But remember that the golden altar of incense, while in front of the second veil, actually belongs to the holy of holies. He entered a third time all the way into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrificial goat. There were two goats on the Day of Atonement, the sacrificial goat and the scapegoat. One went out alive and one was executed. The blood of the goat was sprinkled upon the mercy seat for the people — Leviticus 16:15.

So in Leviticus chapter 16 verses 13,14, and 15 we have the function of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. First of all he went into the holy place, past the first curtain, and he went to the golden altar of incense. He put on the coals there and the incense, and incense went up — propitiation. Then he went out to the brazen altar and offered a young bull. He collected the blood in a basin and walked in past the first curtain, past the second curtain, and over the mercy seat he sprinkled blood for his own sins. Then he walked out and offered the goat, collected the blood of the goat, walked past the first veil, past the second, and sprinkled the blood of that goat over the mercy seat for the sins of the people. This was done once a year and it portrayed the strategic victory of our Lord Jesus Christ — the cross, resurrection [portrayed in the goat that they turned loose], ascension, and session. This was the only reason anyone was ever allowed in the holy of holies, to teach the strategical victory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The interesting thing is that we live in the holy of holies. We live where no one could go in all of the hundreds and even thousands of years before. No one ever went in the holy of holies. That means that your life has meaning.

So we read, “But into the second [the holy of holies] once each year only the high priest ...”

The next phrase says “not without blood”. We have a strong negative o)uk plus the adverb xwrij which means “apart from.” It is an adverb used as a preposition, and plus the genitive of the noun a(ima. Now a(ima is clearly defined in any good Greek lexicon as having a figurative as well as a literal connotation. First of all, Arndt and Gingrich, page 22, dealing with the word a(ima states in its second paragraph dealing with the figurative use of blood, “Blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice, especially the blood of Christ as a means of expiation” is figurative.

The doctrine of the blood

1. Animal blood defined. Animal blood is the seat of animal life. The animals of this world do not have souls. “The life of the flesh is in the blood” for animals only, and every time that phrase occurs in the Old Testament it refers to animals only because animals do not have a soul. The do not have self-consciousness, they do not have the two frontal lobes, they do not have emotion, volition. Leviticus 17:1-14 clearly enucleates the true meaning of “the life of the flesh is in the blood”. In the Old Testament the whole system of worship for Israel based on the Mosaic law and a specialised priesthood, the Levitical priesthood, was a shadow worship, as per Hebrews 10:1. The literal blood was the blood of the animals in the Old Testament, in the shadow days. Now the real days are here, the Church Age and the royal family, we have figurative blood in the New Testament. The blood of the animal was always real blood. In a representative analogy this literal blood portrays the figurative blood of Christ because the blood of Christ is simply the Bible designation for the saving work of Christ on the cross and relating it to the Old Testament portrayal.

2. The blood of Christ defined. Kiddel’s Theological Dictionary, says that the idea that the New Testament links with the blood of Christ is that it is a verbal symbol for the saving work of Christ. So the blood of Christ refers to His saving work on the cross, specifically to His expiatory work. The doctrine of expiation explains the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ refers to Christ bearing our sins — 1 Peter 2:24. The blood of Christ is Christ being judged for our sins as our substitute.

3. The representative analogy. An animal dying on an altar died physically. Physical death portrays the spiritual death of Christ on the cross. The literal shedding of blood portrays the figurative blood of the cross. The bleeding for the hands and feet of Christ on the cross has no significance in bearing our sins. He did not bleed to death. The bleeding of Christ doesn’t save anyone, it is Christ taking our sins upon Himself and being judged for them that saves. “He who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

a) While the animal blood was real and literal it represented the spiritual death of Christ on the cross — Colossians 1:26; Hebrews 10:19; 13:20; 1 Peter 1:2.

b) A real analogy would be a literal death compared to a literal death. The physical death of Christ has to do with the importance of Bible doctrine and the importance of having finished the work of the first advent. But there is no analogy between the physical death of an animal and the physical death of Christ.

c) In a real analogy the physical death of the animal would be compared to the physical death of Christ, but such is not the case. That comes out in Hebrews 10:1 — “shadow” is the word. The death of the animal was a shadow portraying the reality. The reality was Christ bearing our sins.

d) Therefore it should be noted that Christ did not die by bleeding to death.

e) We have in the term “blood of Christ” a representative analogy in which the physical death of the animal on the altar represents the spiritual death of Christ on the cross.

f) The fact that Christ died twice on the cross is established in Isaiah 53:9 which says, “While his burial would be assigned with criminals [in obscurity], nevertheless he would be associated with a rich man in his deaths [plural].” Two deaths on the cross. Spiritual: expiation; physical: work completed.

g) The representative analogy demands that the blood of Christ be taken figuratively. The word “shadow” demands that the blood of Christ be taken figuratively. The shadows were literal, historical, and real, and they portray that which is figurative and spiritual and efficacious to God.

4. Christ did not die on the cross by bleeding to death — John 19:30-34.

a) When Christ was dead on the cross a Roman soldier thrust a spear into His side, and that is when His blood came out.

b) The physical death of Christ on the cross occurred from His own free will, not from bleeding to death — John 10:18.

c) After His work on the cross was finished Christ exhaled after His last breath in which he uttered the words of Psalm 31:5, partially quoted in Luke 23:46.

d) Having exhaled His last sentence Christ did not inhale again — Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30.

e) Therefore the blood of Christ is part of a representative analogy between the physical death of the animal sacrifice and the spiritual death of Christ on the cross being judged for our sins — 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24.

5. The blood of animal sacrifices was a shadow. A shadow points to the reality — Hebrews 9:12-14.

6. Therefore the blood of Christ depicts the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Four doctrines are depicted by the blood of Christ: a) Expiation — Revelation 1:5; b) Redemption — Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18,19; Hebrews 9:12. c) Justification — Romans 5:9; d) Sanctification — Hebrews 13:12, sanctification here being the royal family in the holy of holies forever.

7. The blood of Christ in expiation is the basis for the rebound technique. Why can you simply name your sins privately to God and be forgiven? Because the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanses from all sin — 1 John 1:7 cf 1 John 1:9. This was taught by the shadows of the Old Testament, namely the non-sweet savour offerings. The sin offering of Leviticus chapter four is rebound with emphasis on the unknown sins, and blood was used in that offering. The trespass offering of Leviticus chapters five through six verse seven — rebound with emphasis on the known sins of the believer.

So no matter how you slice it the blood of Christ is literal under the shadows but figurative under the historical reality of the cross.

“not without blood” — xwrij plus the genitive of a(ima means “not without making use of blood.”

“which” — the nominative neuter singular from the relative pronoun o(j. The antecedent is a(ima — “blood.”

“he offered” — present active indicative of prosferw. The present tense is a customary present for what occurs as the ritual routine of the Day of Atonement. The active voice: the current or resident high priest produced the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative denoting dogmatic reality of the shadows — literal animal blood was used.

“for himself” — the preposition u(per plus the genitive of the reflexive pronoun e(autou. It should be translated “on behalf of himself.” U(perplus the genitive denotes substitution. That was the first trip into the holy of holies.

“and the errors of the people” is wrong. The word “errors” is a)gnohma and it means sins of ignorance. It should be “on behalf of the people their sins of ignorance.”

Translation: “But into the second [the holy of holies] once every year [Day of Atonement] only the high priest alone, not without making use of blood, which he offers on behalf of himself, and on behalf of the people their sins of ignorance.”

The offering by category is the sin offering of Leviticus chapter four which is rebound with emphasis on the unknown sins. The priesthood had to use the young bull offering of Leviticus chapter four, verses three through twelves. First of all, when he offered for himself he used the young bull. That was the sin offering. The goat is the sin offering of Leviticus 4:24, 28. So both of the animals used are found in Leviticus chapter four.

Verse 8 — “The Holy Ghost” — tou pneumatoj tou a(giou, meaning “The Holy Spirit.” Notice that tou pneumatoj tou a(giou is all genitive. We find in this chapter a predilection for genitive absolutes. A genitive absolute is a genitive case noun plus a genitive case participle which are isolated grammatically from the rest of the sentence, and the genitive case noun is the subject of the genitive case participle. It should be translated “The Holy Spirit” as the subject although it is in the genitive case [because it is a genitive absolute], then the present active genitive case participle of dhlow, the word “signifying.” Dhlow means to make clear or to make manifest or to reveal. “The Holy Spirit revealing this” is the correct translation of the genitive absolute. The present tense of the participle is a static present for a condition which perpetually exists. The active voice: God the Holy Spirit produces the action of the verb, not only as the author of scripture but as the teacher of doctrine. The participle is circumstantial as well as telic. A telic participle expresses a purpose. It was God’s purpose to teach through the shadows. The two ministries of the Holy Spirit in teaching are found in this statement. The first: He provided the information to the human authors of scripture which was written down, recorded, in the canonical books. This is a part of the doctrine of inspiration. Secondly, the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit in the function of GAP, as per John 14:26; 16:12-14; 1 Corinthians 2:9-16; 1 John 2:27. ]

“that” is not found in the original, but is sometimes used to introduce indirect discourse.

“the way into the holiest” — the accusative singular of o(doj means “entrance”; “the holiest” is in the plural here for the holy of holies — a(gioj in the plural.

“was not yet made manifest” — perfect passive infinitive of fanerow plus a very strong negative adverb mhpw. It should be translated “The Holy Spirit making it clear that the entrance into the holy of holies had not yet been revealed.” The holy of holies is where the royal priesthood lives. The holy of holies portrayed the third heaven. The believer is in union with Christ as of the moment he believes in Jesus Christ — the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ as our high priest ascended into heaven. He was seated at the right hand of the Father as our high priest. When you believe in Christ God the Holy Spirit enters you into union with Christ. You are in the holy of holies now and forever. You will always be in union with Christ. But the Holy Spirit could not reveal this information to the Old testament saints because it dealt with the royal family in the Church Age which was a mystery, and was not revealed at that time. The perfect tense of fanerow is intensive, it views the action of the verb as being completed with emphasis on the existing results. Every day when a priest went in to change the table of shewbread, or went in to trim the wicks on the lamps on the golden lampstand, or went in to perform some duty in connection with the golden altar, when he came to that second veil he always stopped. He never went past that second veil ever. Why? Because that was reserved for you, for royalty. And more than that, it was not only reserved for you but it is the place where you live and the royal family was never taught in the Old Testament. The passive voice: the subject receives the action of the verb. The subject is the way or the entrance into the holy of holies, and while the death of Christ was revealed in the Old Testament its significance was never revealed as far as the royal family is concerned. This is compatible with the doctrine of the mystery, the Church Age doctrine. The death of Christ necessitated a royal family because of resurrection, ascension, and session. There had to be a royal family. The entrance into the holy of holies could not be revealed because the entrance into the holy of holies is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit did not exist in the Old Testament, was never taught in the Old Testament, the first prophet of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was our high priest Jesus Christ. And just before His ascension He said “John really baptised with water but you shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” Ten days later it occurred. The baptism of the Spirit is the basis for forming the royal family of God. The royal family of God lives in the palace forever and you live in the holy of holies, and no one could go into the holy of holies under shadow worship. Israel and the Church are not the same. There is one of the great demonstrations of the dispensational principle, the difference between Israel and the Church.

“while” is not found in the Greek text but it is used to translate a second genitive absolute. Now we have again another genitive absolute. We have the genitive case and the participle, the present active participle of e)xw. The genitive this time is skhnh referring to the tabernacle. We have a noun in the genitive case, it will be the subject although the nominative case is the case for the subject ordinarily. The participle becomes the verb and the noun in the genitive case becomes the subject. In this case we even have another word, an adverb e)ti, meaning “yet.” So when we put it all together, “so long as the original tabernacle kept having existence.” E)xw,present active participle. Static present, always existed until the dispensation was terminated — or its equivalent. The tabernacle only lasted until the building of the temple. The temple took the place of the tabernacle.

Translation: “The Holy Spirit revealing this, that the entrance into the holy of holies had not yet been revealed, so long as the original tabernacle kept having existence.”

Summary

1. The tabernacle was a part of the function of the Levitical priesthood, the shadow worship of the Old Testament. As long as the Levitical priesthood was authorised the tabernacle or its equivalent, the temple, kept having existence.

2. However, the Levitical priesthood could not enter the holy of holies. Interestingly enough, the temple was still standing at the time of writing. It would be destroyed three years later. While it was still standing at the time of writing the whole point was this: You, believing Jews, should not be going to the temple. Here you are fooling around with shadows when the reality has come, and you are in the holy of holies! The believer in Jerusalem in 67 AD was in the holy of holies and yet he was running with animal sacrifices into the temple. That is the apostasy we studied in Hebrews chapter six. They were crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting Him to open shame.

3. Only the high priest once a year could enter on the Day of Atonement, and this depicted the ascension and session of Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father in the literal holy of holies which is the third heaven. The holy of holies on earth was a shadow portraying the third heaven.

4. Remember that the holy of holies is a type of the third heaven, the presence of God, and Jesus Christ went into the presence of God. The high priest could into go into that which was a shadow of the presence of God, once a year. The rest of the time the high priest and all of the Levitical priesthood stayed out. They could not go in. 5. When Christ died on the cross the veil which covered the holy of holies was torn from the top to the bottom — Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38.

6. This was done without any human hand ever touching it. God did this. Why?

7. The entrance into the holy of holies was now revealed. The way into the holy of holies had been forbidden to the Levitical priesthood but the way into the holy of holies was opened by our high priest, and it is where we live. We are now, we always will be, a heavenly people.

8. Christ being seated at the right hand of the Father led to the dramatic interruption to the Age of Israel. The Day of Pentecost interrupts the Age of Israel.

9. The interruption of the Age of Israel was based on the fact that God Himself lifts the veil that covered the holy of holies.

10. The royal family of the Church Age lives in the holy of holies through the baptism of the Spirit, positional sanctification.

11. Because Church Age doctrine is a mystery it was not revealed to the Old Testament saints, which is why the holy of holies was forbidden to the Levitical priesthood.

12. The holy of holies was reserved for the royal priesthood and the royal high priest. The veil which kept out the Levitical priesthood has been removed by God.

13. The dispensation of Israel has been interrupted. A new dispensation, the Church Age, and a new priesthood is authorised, and a royal family is now born.

At this point we need to anticipate the direction in which we are going.

1. We are getting ready to study the real blood and the shadow blood.

2. Only the shadow blood is real and the real blood is figurative.

3. The real blood of animals was a shadow pointing to the efficacious, expiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross — i.e., His spiritual death.

4. The reality and fulfilment of the shadows is the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ refers to His saving work upon the cross, bearing our sins and being judged for them.

5. Without the two deaths of Christ on the cross the new covenant would not be valid or operative.

6. The blood of Christ or His spiritual death ratifies the new covenant.

7. The physical death of Christ indicates that His work of the first advent was finished, i.e. the work of being judged for our sins.

8. The physical death of Christ gave God the Father the opportunity to express His propitiation, to express His mercy seat function, and He expressed it by raising Christ from the dead.

9. The resurrection of Christ leads to His ascension and session where Christ resides in the real holy of holies, the third heaven itself.

10. The expiatory sacrifice of Christ’s spiritual death on the cross made the new covenant valid as illustrated by the tearing of the veil of the temple between the holy place and the holy of holies.

11. Once the expiatory, efficacious sacrifice was accomplished Christ died physically. And the new covenant was valid and a new priesthood authorised. The old covenant authorises the Levitical priesthood, the sacred building, and all of the shadows of the Levitical offerings. The new covenant authorises a royal priesthood, of which you are a part.

12. The resurrection, ascension, and session of Christ formed the basis for the royal family as well as the royal priesthood, and the royal priesthood is now positionally in the holy of holies.

13. But more than that, the holy of holies or the third heaven is the eternal home of the royal priesthood.

14. In a resurrection body the royal priesthood will come in and out of the holy of holies every day for eternity. We live in the holy of holies, that is our home. That is why we are going to have a resurrection body. How did Christ enter the holy of holies? In a resurrection body.

15. The blood of Christ was both the ratifying agent of the new covenant and the fulfilment of the shadow blood of animal sacrifices.

16. The shadows have been fulfilled, the new covenant is valid, and the royal family has a legacy forever.

At the end of verse 8 we have some conclusions we must face by way of making the transition to the next section.

1. The strategic victory of Christ in resurrection, ascension and session separates the function of the old priesthood from the function of the royal priesthood. They never function together. That is why there must be a new covenant to Israel. The new covenant to Israel is an authorising agent for the function of the Levitical priesthood in the Millennium. Because the Mosaic law is out the Levitical priesthood cannot function in the Millennium.

Principle: The covenant only becomes valid by a spiritual death, by an expiatory sacrifice. A will is valid by physical death. Actually, the New Testament ought to be called the New Covenant. When a testator dies then his will is valid. But that is not what we have in the New Covenant — Matthew through Revelation. We don’t have a testament, we have a covenant. And this covenant, the new covenant, is only valid by spiritual death.

2. Since every believer is a royal priest in the Church Age through the baptism of the Spirit and resultant positional truth he is now positionally in the holy of holies.

3. The holy of holies in the tabernacle and the temple was a type of the third heaven. The royal priesthood is positionally in the antitype, and experientially in the antitype at the point of physical death. The third heaven is the real holy of holies.

4. Now the Holy Spirit could not reveal the way into the holy of holies as long as the Jewish Age existed.

5. But with the interruption of the Jewish Age and the beginning of the Church Age the way into the holy of holies is fully revealed in all of its Biblical significance.

6. Once Christ our saviour and high priest entered into the third heaven, the holy of holies, through ascension, the way for entrance into the presence of God is open. The veil is removed and destroyed by the ascension of Christ. As a result the Old Testament saints were even transferred from their abode in the heart of the earth known as Paradise or Abraham’s bosom to the third heaven — Luke 16:10-31; 23:39-45 cf Matthew 27:51-52.

7. So the death of Christ was the way to the holy of holies for them also. This is declared in Ephesians 4:8-10.

8. The Old Testament saints have been transferred — Matthew 27:51,52 — from Paradise to the third heaven, waiting for their resurrection bodies at the second advent. Then they will get to live on earth because they are earthly people. Only the Church, only royalty, lives in heaven.

9. All Church Age believers — ie, royal family — upon physical death enter into the third heaven waiting for the resurrection at the Rapture of the Church. The Jews have to wait for the second advent.

10. The veil was designed to keep the Levitical priesthood out of the holy of holies but Christ destroyed the veil. Death, burial, resurrection, and ascension have removed the veil. Therefore, the veil was destroyed when the royal family came into existence.

11. The existence of the veil in the in Jerusalem in 67 AD — they had replaced it — indicated the failure of the Jewish nation to understand and appreciate both the dispensational change and the Messianic passages dealing with Christ as the King priest.

12. Only royalty can enter the holy of holies. There is no qualified royalty as long as the Mosaic law is valid. But the Mosaic law is not valid and the Seventh Day Adventists are trying to go back to the gutter!

13. In the standing of the tabernacle only Jesus Christ dwelt in the holy of holies. Jesus Christ dwelt in the holy of holies in the previous dispensation as the Shekinah glory — Exodus 25:1,8; 29:45,46; 40:34; Ezekiel 43:2-5. 14. Christ and His royal family dwell in the holy of holies. This is why the baptism of the Spirit did not occur until the Day of Pentecost — the Church Age. So the type or the shadow of the third heaven went out of existence with the death, resurrection, ascension, and session of Christ. Therefore, since it went out and since the moment that Christ died the Mosaic law was no longer valid, it was now fulfilled. Once the Mosaic law is fulfilled with the death of Christ, once the blood of Christ comes, that is it. Therefore you have to stop the Jewish Age, because it operated under the Mosaic law and there is no Mosaic law, it is gone. The law was given by Moses but grace and doctrine came by Jesus Christ. Therefore the law out. So the Lord did the only thing He could do, He interrupted the Jewish Age so that the royal family could be born. The law as an authorising agent of the Levitical priesthood was abrogated by the death of Christ.

Verses 9-11, the tabernacle in type and antitype.

Verse 9 — We begin with the word “Which”, not the ordinary relative pronoun translated “which” but a nominative feminine singular from the relative pronoun o(stij. O(stij is a categorical relative pronoun, sometimes called a qualitative relative pronoun. It is used to indicate a type-antitype thing, to indicate some kind of a quality type thing that goes with something else — matching things. “Which type” or “which category of tabernacle” is what it is meaning. The antecedent to o(stij is skhnh, “tabernacle”.

Next we have the word “figure” — parabolh. Para means beside; bolh is taken from the Greek verb balw which means to throw or to set beside. It means to put something beside something else. For example, we have been discussing the holy of holies, and it is a picture of the third heaven. So parabolh recognises the whole principle of comparison. When you break down the principle of parabolh this is the type. The holy of holies is the type; the third heaven is the antitype. The real animal blood is a type; the spiritual death of Christ, His expiatory sacrifice, is the antitype. So “Which tabernacle is a parabolh” — placing one thing alongside another in order to illustrate or to explain; a parallel illustration under the principle of type and antitype. So it should be translated, “Which tabernacle was a type.”

“for the time then present” — the preposition e)ij plus the accusative of xairoj. Xairoj is a synonym for dispensation, it means an epoch of time or a dispensation. So it should be translated, “with reference to the dispensation.” The words “then present” is the perfect active participle of e)nisthmi. E)nisthmi is a participle which is used in an ascriptive way, it is used as an adjective. Therefore we translate it like an adjective and it means literally “having been present”, but here it is translated simply “present” — “with reference to the present dispensation.” This means that the tabernacle was designed to communicate doctrine to the Jews of the Age of Israel, especially the doctrines of Christology and soteriology. The function of the Levitical priesthood and the various object s of furniture, and the animal sacrifices, were all shadows pointing to the reality. In this dispensation we have the reality. For example, a priesthood in the holy place is a shadow of the royal priesthood in phase two. The table of shewbread is a picture of Bible doctrine in the soul through the daily function of GAP. The golden lampstand is a picture of occupation with Christ, especially on the part of a supergrace believer. The holy of holies is a type of the third heavens, the shedding of animal blood is a type of Christ bearing our sins. So all of these things were shadows pointing to something in the present dispensation.

“in which” — preposition kata plus the accusative of the relative pronoun o(j. “According to which” is a better translation. It refers to parabolh or type.

“were offered” — present active indicative of prosferw. The present tense is a customary present for that which habitually occurred. The passive voice: the types were being offered. The indicative mood views the whole thing from reality.

“Which category [tabernacle] was a type with reference to the present dispensation [Church Age], according to which type both gifts and sacrifices were being offered.”

“gifts and sacrifices” — dwra th kai qusiai refers to the Levitical offerings. They are all shadows in which literal blood was shed. Real blood was the shadow and figurative blood was the reality. There five different categories of sacrifice: the three sweet savour offerings refer to salvation; the burnt offering in Leviticus chapter one — propitiation with emphasis on the work of Christ on the cross; the food offering of Leviticus chapter two — propitiation with emphasis on the person on the cross, the God-Man; the peace offering in Leviticus chapter three — the doctrine of reconciliation or the removal of the barrier between God and man. All of these were shadows portraying it. Then there were two non-sweet savour offerings. These were the rebound offerings. In Leviticus chapter four, the sin offering — rebound with emphasis on the unknown sins. Then the trespass offering in Leviticus chapter five through chapter six, verse seven — rebound with emphasis on the known sins.

We have a nominative plural of dwron for “gifts” and a nominative plural of qusia for “offerings” — “both gifts and offerings.” Thkai is “both and”.

The word “that” is not found in the original manuscript; “could not” is a present active participle from dunamai plus the negative mh. The present tense here is a customary present denoting what habitually occurs. These things were habitually offered day in and day out over a thousand years. The active voice: this is a deponent verb, it actually has a passive voice in form but an active voice in meaning. The subject therefore produces the action of the verb and the subject is the gifts and offerings, the sacrifices, which were constantly being offered. The causal participle denotes what is the basis for the action of the main verb here. It says, “gifts and offerings were being offered which were not able [rather than “could not”].

“make him perfect” is an aorist active infinitive of teleiow. Teleiow means to complete, to finish, to accomplish, to bring to an end, to bring to a goal. Here it refers to bringing to the goal of maturity or becoming a supergrace believer. The animal sacrifices could not make the offerer a supergrace believer. Shadows can’t do it. Shadows can teach doctrine but shadows and the ritual of shadows cannot bring anyone to supergrace. The aorist tense is a culminative aorist which views the action of the verb in its entirety but emphasises the existing results. The existing results in teleiow are coming to supergrace. The active voice plus the negative indicates that the shadows are types under the Mosaic law, the function of the Levitical priesthood, all of the ritual, all of the animal sacrifices, cannot bring anyone to maturity. Only doctrine can do that. Now they can teach doctrine which brings to maturity but they cannot bring to maturity in themselves. In other words, the believer of the dispensation of Israel cannot reach maturity except the same way that we do, and that is through the intake of doctrine. He can’t do it through ritual and he can’t do it through the shadows. This ritual taught doctrine and you could learn doctrine and benefit, but if you simply went through the ritual for the sake of the ritual it would not bring to maturity. The shadows at best could teach doctrine, at worst they could confuse and lead astray from doctrine. The shadows could never replace doctrine. The principle: Doing something does not produce growth in the spiritual life. It is learning that makes mature, not doing. That is not to say that some of the doing is not all right, but it should be the result of maturity, never the means. The infinitive expresses result. Result from an infinitive is expressed in three points of view. First of all, the conceived result; secondly, the intended result; thirdly, the actual result. Here we have an actual result. It should be translated, “not being able to bring to the goal of maturity.”

“him that did the service” — the present active participle of latreuw which means to perform worship. The present tense is an iterative present describing what recurred at successive intervals, sometimes called the present tense of repeated action. The active voice: the Old Testament believer produced the action of the verb in the dispensation of Israel under the shadows of the Mosaic law. This is a circumstantial participle. It is translated, “but not being able to bring to the goal of maturity the one performing the worship”.

“as pertaining to conscience” — kata plus the accusative of suneidhsij, and it should be translated “with reference to the conscience.” Why the conscience? Because this is the part of the soul where norms and standards are stored and is the part of the soul that is lulled to sleep by going through ritual, by going through some system. The conscience is never assuaged by shadows. Your conscience is clean by the work of Christ, the reality. It is the reality that counts. And it is learning doctrine thereafter that takes care of conscience, nothing else will ever do it.

Translation: “Which [tabernacle] was a type with reference to the present dispensation, according to which type both gifts and sacrifices which were being offered were not able to bring to the goal of maturity [supergrace] with reference to the conscience of the one performing the worship.”

Summary

1. The tabernacle is a type. The antitype is the present dispensation of the Church.

2. Beginning with the brazen altar representing the work of Christ on the cross, every part of the tabernacle has significance as far as this dispensation is concerned. That is set up by the principle of type and antitype.

3. For example, the outer court represents the earth in which the royal priesthood functions. And, by the way, it has two articles of furniture, as all of them do. First article: the brazen altar [the cross]. Second article: brass laver [rebound].

4. The holy place represents positional sanctification of the royal family.

5. The priest in the holy place is the picture of the believer priest in union with Christ in this dispensation. 6. The golden lampstand represents Christ the light of the world and the principle of occupation with the person of Christ in supergrace status.

7. The table of shewbread represents Bible doctrine as spiritual sustenance of the royal family. Notice: You have to eat the bread on the table. You have to transfer doctrine from the book to your soul.

8. The holy of holies represents the very presence of God, the third heaven. This is the place of positional occupancy of the royal family. Positionally we are in union with Christ.

9. Just outside the veil outside the holy of holies is the golden altar of incense. It belongs to the holy of holies but it is in the holy place. It represents the ministry of the royal priesthood — the production of divine good with emphasis on prayer.

10. The ark and the mercy seat portray the strategical victory of Jesus Christ.

11. The actual ritual and modus operandi related to the tabernacle could not provide supergrace status. Ritual can never produce spiritual growth. Only Bible doctrine in the soul produces spiritual growth.

Verse 10 — we have to supply two words in order to pick up the continuity. “This applied”, not found in the original but is necessary to maintain the continuity. Then we pick up the word “only”, the adverb monon, limiting the action or the state to the one designated by the verb — “This applied only.”

“in meats” — the preposition e)pi plus the locative plural of brwma. E)pi plus the locative means “over” — “This applied only over foods and beverages.” We have the locative plural of poma which is translated “drinks”.

“divers washings” — the locative plural from diaforoj means various or different kinds of. In the function of the tabernacle they were always washing something.

“and carnal ordinances” — this is all one prepositional phrase: “over foods and beverages and various kinds of washings and regulations pertaining to the body,” not “carnal ordinances.” The locative plural of dikaiwma means “regulations.” Along with that we have sarc, generally used for the flesh, but sometimes used in place of swma for the body. In other words, this applied to the hygienic portions of the Mosaic law.

“imposed” — the present passive participle of e)pikeimai which means to perform worship or “being imposed.” “Being imposed” is the passive voice; this is passive. The customary present denotes what habitually occurs. The passive voice means the subject receives the action of the verb. The priest in functioning in the tabernacle receives the action, these were imposed upon him. It is a circumstantial participle.

“until the time of reformation” is not correct. “Until the time” — we have an adverb used as a preposition, mexri, plus the genitive of xairoj, a synonym for dispensations. it means an era, an epoch, or a dispensation. The words “of reformation” is a descriptive genitive singular from diorqwsij, and it does not mean “reformation”, it means “new order.” It is a reference to the Church Age.

Translation: “This applied only to foods and beverages, and various washings, and regulations pertaining to the body, being imposed until the dispensation of the new order.”

Everything related to the shadows had to follow exact regulations. You couldn’t go into the tabernacle the way you can go to church — unwashed, unshaven, unclean! The physical cleanliness of the priest represents the spiritual cleanliness of the royal priest. There is a place for good hygiene, for being clean.

The time of the new order is the Church Age, and age which interrupts the Age of Israel.

The dispensation of the new order

1. A dispensation is a period of human history expressed in terms of divine revelation. Dispensations are both the divine outline of history as well as the time categories of history. At the same time the dispensations are the divine interpretation of history and therefore God’s plan for man related to time. The believer’s orientation to time in history is vitally necessary for understanding God’s plan and God’s purpose for his life. In every dispensation God administers His plan through specific agencies or stewards. That means that each dispensation must be understood by the believers in that dispensation.

2. The Greek vocabulary regarding dispensations. We have four words. The first is xronoj which simply means time as a succession of events. It is used to portray the chronology of the history of Israel, for example. And it is used to portray the chronology in the Age of the Gentiles. The second word is xairoj. It takes the successive events of time and breaks them up into time unites called dispensations. The third is a)ion, which simply speaks of dispensations as a major period of time or a divine category of human history, as in Ephesians 3:2 and Colossians 1:25. Then the fourth and last is o)ikonomia, which means stewardship or administration. This is the word most translated “dispensation” by the ancient translators.

3. The first dispensation was the Age of the Gentiles. It covers the period of Genesis chapters 1-11. By outline it has three periods. The period of positive volition or man in innocence, the period of negative volition or conscience, and the period of divine establishment, the establishment of human government. It is characterised by one language, one race [Gentiles], the angelic attack upon the principles of establishment, the attack upon freedom and free will [Genesis 3], the attack upon marriage and family [Genesis 6], the attack upon nationalism [Genesis 11:1-9]. It goes from Adam to the tower of Babel, the first united nations building which God personally destroyed. It also is a period of no written canon of scripture of any kind, no missionary agency, salvation by faith in Christ.

4. The second dispensation is the Age of Israel, the age of the Jews. It covers all of the Old Testament minus Millennial passages, from the time of Abraham to the second advent of Christ, minus the Church Age. It is divided into three parts: patriarchs, law, and the Tribulation. It is a broken up dispensation in the sense that it is interrupted by the Church Age and then continues to its conclusion at the second advent. The period of the patriarchs goes from Adam to Moses. The period of the law goes from Moses to Christ. The period of the Tribulation goes from the Rapture to the second advent. It is characterised by many languages spoken on the earth, many races on the earth, the development of Israel from a race to a nation, Israel becomes the custodian of the written canon and the custodian of special covenants. its security came from the unconditional covenants — Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic and New covenants to Israel. It had also the Mosaic law. It had a principle for national security, prosperity, and blessing which came through the Mosaic law. There was a national system of discipline, the five cycles of discipline of Leviticus 26. There have been two administrations of the fifth cycle of discipline to Judah and one to the northern kingdom. The two to Judah were 586 BC and 70 AD. Salvation was by faith in Christ and spirituality was the faith-rest technique.

5. The doctrine of intercalation. Intercalation means insertion. It is the concept that the Age of Israel runs from Abraham to the second advent and there is inserted something which interrupts it. That, of course, is the Church Age, the calling out of the royal family. A new dispensation called the Church Age is inserted; this demands an interruption of the Jewish Age. Intercalation is the intensified stage of the angelic conflict. The Church Age was a mystery as well as an intercalation and it was not known to the Old Testament writers — Romans 16:25,26; Ephesians 3:1-6; Colossians 1:25,26 teach the principle of the mystery. The mystery refers to royal family doctrine not revealed until there was a royal family. This is also a problem in the Old Testament because whenever the Church Age would come up chronologically the passage always skipped over it. So we have what is known as “the great parenthesis” passages, passages which come right up in the teaching of prophecy to the point when the Church Age began — like the Day of Pentecost, and before that the death of Christ is taught, His resurrection, ascension and session. These are all prophesied. Then there is suddenly a blank, a parenthesis, and all the prophesies skip right over to the Tribulation, the second advent, and Millennium. Never once was the Church Age taught in the Old Testament. These parenthetical passages include Daniel 2:40, 41; 7:23,24; 8:22,23; 11:35,36; Hosea 3:4,5; 5:15-6:1; Psalm 22:22,23; Isaiah 61, the middle of verse 2.

6. The Church Age, the dispensation in our verse. It is not taught in the Gospels, except John chapters 14-17. The outline is very simple since it is a continuous dispensation. We have the pre-canon period from 30 AD to 96, during which time the canon was in the process of formation. Then we have the post-canon period from 96 AD until the Rapture. The characteristics of the Church Age will be considered later.

7. The fourth dispensation is the Millennium which is the Age of Christ. It is taught in passage like Isaiah chapters 11, 35, 62, 65; Psalm 72; Revelation 20.

When the dispensation of the new order interrupted the Jewish Age the Mosaic law was abrogated, the shadows were abrogated, everything connected with the Levitical priesthood and the tabernacle and the sacrifices were abrogated.

The doctrine of the uniqueness of the Church Age

1. The uniqueness of the Church Age is based on the strategic victory of Jesus Christ during the first advent, His two deaths on the cross, both of which are involved. The first death validated the new covenant, His second death or physical death abrogated the old covenant. So the Mosaic law was abrogated by His physical death but His first death was a spiritual death and that was the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ refers to the expiatory sacrifice of Christ bearing our sins. The blood of Christ covers the last three hours on the cross when He who knew no sin was made sin for us, and His first death on the cross, the blood of Christ death, actually validated the new covenant whereas the second time He died on the cross he died physically and that abrogated the first covenant. From those two deaths we have resurrection, ascension and session, all part of this great strategic victory. From this victory comes the royal family of God, and because of the royal family of God and because of the validation of a new covenant, there has to be an interruption of the Jewish Age. For one thing, the Jewish Age had just run out of gas because its covenant is abrogated. The Mosaic law was abrogated at the cross and therefore out of gas in the name of the game for the Jewish Age. Furthermore, Christ is sitting up there alone and the born again Jews cannot be royal family, they all were saved during the period when the Mosaic law was operative. Therefore, a new covenant means a whole new ball game, and that means a new age, a unique age, the Church Age; that means things that never happened before. That means a royal family and there never was a royal family of God, there was just family of God.

2. Every believer lives in the holy of holies in the palace forever. Therefore, this is accomplished by something absolutely unique, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and resultant positional sanctification.

3. As a sign of royalty every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament no one was ever indwelt by the Holy Spirit. John 7:39 — “The Holy Spirit was not yet given because Christ was not yet glorified.” No glorified Christ, no possibility of a royal family. Glorified Christ; royal family. While believers in the Old Testament could be filled with the Spirit they were never indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

4. A second sign of royalty is the fact that the believer is indwelt by the Son of God as well as the Holy Spirit.

5. A new dispensation means a new covenant, a unique covenant authorising a new priesthood, and so the fifth unique factor is that every believer is a priest, and not only just a priest but a royal priest.

6. As members of the royal family of God we have the completed canon of scripture. All divine revelation to the royal family of God is in written form and therefore God does not reveal Himself to us by dreams, visions, trances, or direct conversation. The canon of scripture was completed in 96 AD and God does not reveal Himself apart from the canon of scripture. A new communicator of doctrine has now been provided: the pastor-teacher; and a new classroom: the local church. And since this is the intensified stage of the angelic conflict, all get attacked: the Word, the communicator, the local church.

7. The believer does not live under the Mosaic law, he lives under the new covenant which abrogates and supersedes the Mosaic law. Therefore we have a clearly defined grace way of life, so clearly defined as to be unique. There is no clearer definition of grace than Ephesians and Hebrews.

8. The objective of maturity, the supergrace life, is for the first time constructed in a systematic way. It is constructed through the various stages of the ECS. The ECS is constructed out of doctrine. For the first time in history maturity is based entirely on Bible doctrine resident in the believer’s soul. Before he reaches supergrace he will have a fully constructed ECS. Contrast that to the shadows of the Old Testament. David reached supergrace but he reached it through shadows. He learned doctrine through the tabernacle, he learned it through the teaching of Samuel, Samuel being the priest of the time. So it took shadows to build an ECS in the ancient world, now we have the finest building materials, Bible doctrine forming six floors of and edification complex moving the believer into supergrace.

9. Every member of the royal family of God is in full time Christian service. As a member of the royal family you represent God on the earth, and that is called ambassadorship. You are God’s personal representative and this is the only age in which God has represented Himself through all believers. When David was the king of Israel all believers did not represent God.

10. The strategic victory of Christ plus the interruption of the Jewish Age leads to something unique: the intensification of the angelic conflict during this dispensation. The Tribulation is not the intensification of the angelic conflict, this age is.

Verse 11 — first of all, we have the obvious adversative conjunction taken from the connective particle de. It sets up a contrast between the dispensation of Israel and the dispensation of the Church.

“But Christ being come” — is wrong. The aorist middle participle from paraginomai, which means to come, to arrive, to make a public appearance, to appear. We will translate it, “But when Christ himself had appeared”. Notice it is a participle, but you can translate it “when” because it is a temporal participle. A temporal participle is translated like a temporal clause. The aorist tense is a culminative aorist which views the action of the verb in its entirety but emphasises the existing results. The first advent is gathered into one entirety but emphasising here the result of Christ becoming a royal high priest forever. So we have the whole first advent but the emphasis is on Christ being seated at the right hand of the Father. The middle voice is a direct middle in which Christ the agent participates in the results of the action with reflexive force. There, again, we have an aorist participle which has antecedent action to the main verb which is found in the middle of the next verse — “he entered”. The high priest entering the holy of holies is a picture of Christ ascending into heaven, and therefore the main verb doesn’t come until the middle of verse 12.

“an high priest” — a)rxiereuj minus the definite article. The absence of the definite article here calls attention to the qualitative aspect of the noun, and this places great emphasis on Christ as a new and different high priest greater than any that ever existed before. Jesus Christ is a royal high priest, He is a King priest.

“of good things” — the possessive genitive plural of a)gaqoj which means good of intrinsic value. The plural means “good things. The good things are the good things we have just mentioned in the doctrine of the uniqueness of the Church Age.

“to come” —aorist active participle of ginomai, “good things having come to pass. The aorist tense here is a constative aorist, it contemplates the action of the verb in its entirety, it gathers up into a single whole the divine possession of the believer as a member of the royal family —the provision, the blessing, the distribution of spoils, the unique things, everything is tied up in this constative aorist. The active voice: the good things of divine blessing and provision, the plunder, the unique things, all of these produce the action of the verb. This is a circumstantial participle which means these things belong to you, the believer.

“by a greater and more perfect tabernacle” — our source of blessing is the greater and more perfect tabernacle which is heaven. The word “by” should be translated “by means of” or “through”, it is dia plus the genitive of skhnh — “through” or “by means of a greater and more perfect tabernacle.” We have two comparative here, “greater” and “more perfect.” Where would you rather get your supplies for this intensified stage of the angelic conflict? From a tent or from heaven? The Jews got their supplies from a tent; we get ours from heaven.

“not made with hands” — the ablative of source, and the noun is xeiropoihtaj, “not made with human hands”. You are not dependant on human beings at all. That is where the royal family gets its spiritual cockiness. You and I are not dependant upon human beings, this plunder comes from God. The means of administration is resident doctrine in the soul. God is dealing with a royal family, He doesn’t supply them out of a tent.

“that is to say” — literally, “that is.” There is no “to say” here; “not of this building” — this is the objective genitive singular of ktisij, and it doesn’t mean “building.” It is “not of this creation.” The third heaven is not of this creation. Our source of supply owes nothing to man.

Translation: “But when Christ himself had appeared a high priest of the good things having come to pass [in the Church Age], by means of a greater and more perfect tabernacle [third heaven] not made by human hands, that is, not of this creation.”

The dividing line between the shadows and the reality is the first advent of Christ. Christ is the minister of reality. Christ ministers and supplies and blesses and provides from the third heaven. The third heaven is in contrast to the shadows of the earth — the tabernacle, the Levitical order, and the animal blood. The first advent of Christ occurred during the Jewish Age. As a result of the strategic victory on the cross, His resurrection, ascension and session, the Lord Jesus Christ has replaced the Jewish Age. He has replaced the shadows with reality, therefore the shadow age is interrupted, the law which authorised the shadow age is abrogated, and it is a brand new ball game.

Supply is never going to be a problem for us. Our supply comes directly from the third heaven. But supply is not even an issue. Most of us have memorised “My God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” Riches in glory is the third heaven. Riches in glory is the greatest supply depot in all of history. It is such a fantastic supply depot that there has always been and always will be enough for any believer in the royal family. Supply is not the issue. This must be understood. The issue is: Are you positive enough to get into the blessing status? It is the blessings that are in doubt and the real issue in the Christian life today, the real issue in the family of God is, Are you going to get to supergrace and have that paragraph which was designed for you. There is an overabundance of money, promotion, prosperity, success in the supply depot in heaven, and the reason is because so many people didn’t use theirs!

There is one other thing that we should notice and we cannot ignore at this stage, and that is in verse 11 we also have Jesus Christ mentioned as the high priest. It is the first time since chapter 7 that we have had Christ mentioned as the high priest.

Verses 12-14, the shadow of the blood. These are three verses that are extremely important to understand what it means when it says, “We are not redeemed with corruptible things such as silver and gold but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without spot and without blemish”, or the principles that are found in Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14. The phrase “the blood of Jesus Christ” occurs so frequently that it demands cognisance, it demands that we understand it.

Verse 12 — the contrast between the shadow and the reality; the contrast of offerings. First we have the word “Neither.” This is a negative adverb o)ude. It is made up of two words, o)uk and de, and it should be translated “And not” rather than “Neither.”

“by the blood of goats and calves” — the preposition dia plus the genitive of a(ima. The blood here is obviously defined by the descriptive genitive plurals that follow — “the blood of goats and calves.” Therefore this blood is the real blood of animals but it is a shadow pointing toward the figurative blood of Christ or the saving work of Christ on the cross. The two descriptive genitive plurals: the first is tragoj [goats] and the second is mosxoj, which is literally a young bull. The two offerings together are very important. The passage says so far, “And not by means of the blood of goats and of young bulls.”

1. This is a reference to the offerings used on the Day of Atonement. While a goat and a young bull were used in all of the Levitical offerings the two here refer to the offerings on the Day of Atonement specifically.

2. The high priest on the Day of Atonement, first of all with the blood of a young bull — Leviticus 16:13. The young bull was sacrificed on the brass altar, the blood was collected in a basin, carried into the holy of holies and sprinkled on the mercy seat. This blood offering was for the sins of the high priest. Then he went out and there were two goats. The first goat was sacrificed, the second goat was released — the scapegoat. So the high priest entered the second time with the blood of a goat, and this was for the sins of the people — Leviticus 16:15. The blood of goats and young bullocks was a shadow pointing to the reality. The literal blood of the animals represents the work of Christ on the cross whereby the veil was ripped by God from top to bottom. So the literal blood of animals represents the saving work of Christ. You have to keep in mind that the phrase “the blood of Christ” in the Bible does not refer to the literal blood from His hands and His feet on the cross. The “blood of Jesus Christ” refers to the sins of the world being poured out upon Him and judged; Christ bearing our sins; Christ taking our place; Christ becoming a substitute for us.

“but by his own blood” — the particle de is used as an adversative conjunction, it sets up a contrast between the literal blood of animals acting as a shadow in contrast to the figurative blood of Christ being the fulfilment or the reality of the shadow. So we have a contrast between the physical death of the animal and the spiritual death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross bearing our sins. Only it is not called a spiritual death. The only reason it is not is so that we won’t be confused. You and I are born spiritually dead because we have an old sin nature. Christ did not have an old sin nature, He did not have the imputation of Adam’s sin. Christ lived a perfect life without any personal sin — doctrine of impeccability — therefore He never was spiritually dead. If He had have been He could not have gone to the cross for us. But since He was perfect He was qualified to be our redeemer. For that reason the Bible does not use the phrase “the spiritual death” but it says it is a death. Christ died twice on the cross, and He was very much alive during one death because He kept screaming “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The problem is that most people never distinguish between the two deaths of Christ, and not being able to do so they fail to see that for three hours the blood of Christ was a reality. The blood of Christ refers to His work of three hours, always alive, bearing our sins and being judged for us. Failing to see that they fail to realise the impact and the implications of their own salvation. The Bible doesn’t call it spiritual death, it calls it “his own blood” or “the blood of Christ”, some phrase which designates the fact that He was fulfilling the shadow sacrifices of animals. The particle de establishes a representative analogy. A representative analogy is one in which one thing illustrates another. It is not an exact analogy. An exact analogy would be a physical death indicating a physical death, but in this case it is the physical death of an animal illustrating the spiritual death of Christ. The physical death is a shadow and the spiritual death is a reality. The animal blood is real and literal pointing to the historical death of Christ bearing our sins.

The preposition dia plus the genitive singular of the definite article i)dioj means it belonged to one individual — “his own” is the way it is translated. I)dioj means to belong to an individual “but by means of his own blood.” In other words, the high priest carries a bowl full of blood into the holy of holies, the shadow; Christ enters the real holy of holies having been judged for our sins.

“he entered” is the aorist active indicative of e)iserxomai. It is a culminative aorist, it depicts the action of the verb in its entirety but emphasises the result. The action of the verb in its entirety is the blood of Christ or Christ bearing our sins, an approximate three-hour period. When it was finished then we have the culminative aorist. He died physically, He was resurrected, was ascended and was seated at the right hand of the Father. “He entered” is the culminative aorist. The active voice: Christ as our high priest entered the third heaven having accomplished His mission. The mission is described under the Biblical title “blood of Christ.” The indicative mood is declarative for a dogmatic assertion of doctrine.

“once” — an adverb, e)fapac which means “once for all”. He only had to do it once. The high priest every year had to make the trek into the holy of holies. He went in twice. Christ went “once for all” into heaven proving that the blood of Christ is efficacious, demonstrating that the three hours of work on the cross are a fulfilment of all the shadows. Therefore the shadows must stop.

What was the criticism of the believers in Jerusalem? They were going into the temple and offering animal sacrifices when the animal sacrifices had been fulfilled. The year was 67 AD. In 30 AD the shadows had been fulfilled completely and therefore they are condemned in their reversionism for crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting Him to open shame. In other words, you mock, you ridicule, you blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ by going back to the shadows when the shadows have now been fulfilled and Christ once and for all entered the holy of holies, heaven itself, the third heaven. Since Christ has entered the holy of holies, that’s it. Never again is a shadow valid.

“the holy place” is wrong, it is e)ij plus the accusative plural of a(gioj which refers to the holy of holies. “So we have now, “And not by means of the blood of goats and of young bulls, but by means of his own blood once for all he has entered the holy of holies”.

The doctrine of the blood

1. The animal blood defined. Blood is the seat of animal life — Leviticus 17:10-14. In the Old Testament shadow worship was always connected with the blood because you can’t worship God until you’re saved and the blood portrayed salvation. The animal blood of the sacrifice portrayed the blood of Christ or His saving work on the cross. This started with the coats of skins in Genesis 3:21, and goes down through the Levitical offerings of Leviticus 1-6. Animal blood represented the figurative blood of Christ. The animal blood of the Old Testament portrays the redemptive work of Christ on the cross.

2. The blood of Christ defined. Inasmuch as Christ had literal blood and figurative blood the saving work of Christ is connected with His figurative blood. He still had His literal blood in His body after death, minus what He bled from His hands and feet which was very little.

3. The representative analogy is now established. While the animal blood was real and literal it is a shadow. So the real and the literal was a shadow, it represents the figurative blood of Christ, the spiritual death of Christ on the cross — Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 10:19; 13:20; 1 Peter 1:2. Christ died twice. The Old Testament teaches it — Isaiah 53:9 … “with the rich man in his deaths (Plural).” Then in Hebrew 9:17 we have “deaths” in the plural. Many times in the New Testament the word death pertaining to the work of Christ on the cross is in the plural, but it has been translated in the singular because the translators didn’t know what to do with it.

4. Christ did not die on the cross by bleeding to death — John 19:30-34. The physical death of Christ on the cross occurred from His own free will, not from bleeding to death — John 10:18. After His work on the cross was finished He exhaled His last breath in which He uttered the important challenge of doctrine — Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46 records part of it. And having exhaled this famous last sentence Christ did not inhale again — Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30. Therefore, the blood of Jesus Christ is a part of a representative analogy between the physical death of the animal sacrifice and the spiritual death of Christ on the cross being judged for our sins — 1 Peter 2:24.

5. The blood of animal sacrifices was a shadow pointing to the reality of the cross — Hebrews 9:12-14.

6. Therefore the blood of Christ depicts the saving work of Christ on the cross. There are four doctrines of salvation or soteriology depicted by the blood of Christ — expiation: Revelation 1:5; redemption: Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18,19; Hebrews 9:12; Justification: Romans 5:9; Sanctification: Hebrews 13:12.

7. The blood of Christ in expiation is the basis for the rebound technique. This is taught by the Old Testament shadows, the non-sweet savour offerings of Leviticus 4 &5. It is also taught in a doctrinal comparison of 1 John 1:7 with 1 John 1:9.

“having obtained” — the aorist middle participle of e(uriskw which means to find, to discover, to come upon. In the middle voice it means to find for one’s self, to acquire, to obtain, to procure. The aorist tense is a constative aorist, it gathers up into one entirety the verb which is procuring eternal redemption. The middle voice is an indirect middle, it emphasises Christ as the agent producing the action of the verb rather than participating in the results of the action of the verb. The participle is an aorist participle of antecedent action to the main verb. The main verb: “he entered”, the picture of the ascension of Christ. Christ secured or procured redemption on the cross before he entered the true holy of holies, the third heaven.

“eternal redemption” is in the accusative. This is the accusative of the direct object in the singular of the adjective a)iwnioj meaning eternal or everlasting. It really means everlasting, technically speaking. If it is dealing with God it is eternal, He has no beginning and no end; if it is dealing with man it is everlasting because he has a beginning but no end.

Then we have the accusative singular of the direct object of lutrwsij which is the act of redemption. The suffix ij is an active suffix and it means the act of liberating, ransoming, or releasing a slave from the slave market.

Translation: “And not by means of the blood of goats and of young bulls, but by means of his own blood once and for all, he [Christ] has entered the holy of holies, having secured eternal redemption.”

The doctrine of redemption

1. Definition. Redemption is the saving work of Christ on the cross toward sin. In other words, the saving work of Christ on the cross is directional: toward God is propitiation; toward man is reconciliation — removal of the barrier; toward sin is redemption. The blood of Christ covers all of them. Redemption refers to the work of Christ in purchasing our freedom from the slave market of sin. We are born in the slave market of sin because we are born with an old sin nature as well as the imputation of Adam’s sin. So we are born spiritually dead and in the slave market. Christ was born outside the slave market, the only one who was, and the only way He could was through the virgin birth. So he was born outside, lived a perfect life, and as a free man He freed us. The coin of the realm, of course, was the blood of Christ or His saving work. He had to buy our freedom. Ephesians 1:17; Colossians 1:14.

2. The significance of redemption. Christ paid the ransom for sin on the cross. Christ purchased our freedom by bearing our sins or being judged for our sins on the cross — Psalm 34:22; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 1:18,19.

3. Christ was qualified to be our redeemer. This is the application of the doctrine of the virgin birth, the doctrine of incarnation, the doctrine of impeccability — 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:3; Isaiah 53:9; John 8:46; 19:4; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26-28; 1 Peter 1:18-20.

4. Christ was willing to redeem. The redemptive work of Christ on the cross was an act of His own free will. Christ was obedient to the Father’s plan — Luke 22:42; Romans 5:19; Philippians 2:8.

5. The doctrine of redemption was communicated in the Old Testament by the shedding of blood — Hebrews 9:22; 9:12. The Old Testament saints understood and applied this doctrine — Job 19:25,26.

6. The blood of Christ is the ransom money or the purchase price of our freedom or redemption — Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18,19. The blood of Christ depicts His saving work on the cross, His spiritual death and being judged for our sins.

7. The results of redemption. a) Deliverance from the Mosaic law and its shadows — Galatians 3:13; 4:4-6. b) The redemption provides forgiveness for sins — Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:15; Isaiah 44:22. c) Redemption provides the basis for justification — Romans 3:24. d) Redemption provides the basis for sanctification — Romans 5:25-27. e) Redemption provides the basis for the believer’s eternal inheritance — Hebrews 9:15. f) Redemption is the basis for the strategical victory of our Lord Jesus Christ in the angelic conflict — Colossians 2:14,15; Hebrew 2:14,15. g) Redemption of the body is the ultimate status of the royal family of God — Romans 8:23; Ephesians 4:30. The redemption of the body is possessing a resurrection body.

The first 12 verses of this chapter now lead to a fantastic conclusion made up of two verses. Verse 13 gives us the protasis of a first class condition. Verse 14 gives us the apodosis. The two verses together actually make up one sentence. The problem is to understand enough of the Greek syntax in order to be able to put this together.

The problem of Greek conditional clauses

1. A Greek conditional clause is the statement of a supposition the fulfilment of which is assumed to secure realisation. We have the statement of a supposition in the first clause and then realisation of the potential fact expressed in the second clause. The first clause expresses the potential, the second clause expresses the realisation which comes from that potential. The first clause is introduced by the word “if” in the English. The second clause then follows fulfilling the realisation of that potential.

2. The clause containing the supposition is called protasis.

3. The clause containing the statement based on the supposition, or the conclusion, is called apodosis.

4. All conditional clauses in the Greek are classified on the basis of the attitude they express with reference to the reality. The protasis is always a supposition; the apodosis is always the reality.

5. For example, there are four categories. A first class condition is a supposition from the viewpoint of reality. It is introduced by the word “if” which in the Greek of a first class condition is e)i. This means if and it is assumed to be true. Satan said to Jesus in the great temptation, “If thou be the Son of God [and you are].” this is a first class condition. Then he also said, “If you will fall down and worship me [and you won’t].” That was a second class condition. A second class condition has a supposition from the viewpoint of unreality — if and it is not true. So it is introduced by the conditional conjunction e)i again, but it also has the optative instead of the indicative mood in the protasis. Then the apodosis always begins with the conjunctive particle a)n, untranslatable but used to identify. Then we have a third class condition which is called the more probable future condition. The protasis is introduced by e)an plus the subjunctive mood of the verb. It should be translated, “If”, maybe yes, maybe no. “If we confess our sins” — maybe we will and maybe we won’t, it is a matter of volition. The third class condition generally has to do with the future, ordinarily the immediate future. Then there is a fourth class condition in the Greek called the less probable future condition expressed by e)i in the protasis plus the optative mood. It the apodosis it begins with that untranslatable particle a)n. So this simply gives us illustrations of all four conditional clauses. We have in 1 Peter chapter 3 two fourth class conditions. Peter says to the adherents to his doctrine, “If you suffer for righteousness sake [I wish you were but you’re not].”

6. Verse 13 of Hebrews chapter 9 has the protasis of a first class condition. It is assumed to be true. While this verses introduces the second verse, verse 14 introduces the apodosis.

So we have one of those very difficult conditional clauses covering verses 13 and 14. And we have an introduction to it in verse 13 — the shadow cleansing. The real cleansing — verse 14.

Verse 13 — this is the first part of a representative analogy. In the Old Testament at the brass altar they offered an animal sacrifice. The ones that we have been noting in this passage are young bulls and goats. This was especially on the Day of Atonement. The animal being killed is a representative analogy of Christ bearing our sins in His own body on the cross. The animal dying physically; Christ died spiritually. So there is an analogy between the physical death of the animal and the spiritual death of Christ bearing our sins. The literal animal blood is a shadow, the figurative blood of Christ is the reality. For Christ had two kinds of blood, the literal blood in His veins — He bled from His hands and His feet for a short time, and then His blood coagulated. He did not bleed to death and the blood in His veins is not significant, it is the blood of Christ which is significant — and “the blood of Christ” represents Christ bearing our sins, taking our place. In other words, the blood of Christ is used for the expiatory offering of Christ on the cross. Christ died twice on the cross. His spiritual death was substitute for us — “He who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” He bore our sins in His own body on the tree. And while He was bearing our sins God the Father judged Him, and when He was being judged for our sins He screamed out during three hours of darkness on the cross, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” He was forsaken because He was bearing our sins. This was depicted by shadows in the Old Testament, the shadows of the animals being killed on the altar. In Isaiah 53:9 it says that Christ died “deaths” on the cross — He died twice. The same thing will be found again in our context. The word “death” is often in the plural when applying to the cross because when Jesus Christ was on the cross He died twice. He died bearing our sin, that was His salvation work. That salvation work is covered by a phrase in the New Testament called “the blood of Christ.” His physical death occurred because His work was finished. Having sent away, dismissed His spirit, He exhaled His last, His human Spirit went into the presence of the Father, His body into the grave, His soul into Paradise or Hades; all rejoined in resurrection, and then ascension and session. And when Christ went up into the third heaven as the God-Man in resurrection body God the Father said to Him, “Sit down on my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” That was the completion of the strategic victory of the angelic conflict, and the high priest once a year going into the holy of holies was a picture of Christ going into heaven and being seated there. In other words, the holy of holies is the shadow pointing to the third heaven. That is why everyone stayed out of the holy of holies and that is why in the last chapter of Exodus, chapter 40, it was Jesus Christ who came to dwell in the holy of holies as the Shekinah glory. When the tabernacle was standing Jesus Christ alone was in the holy of holies. Therefore there was a veil and no one could go past that veil. But when Jesus Christ was bearing our sins on the cross the veil was split from top to bottom. Now we live in the holy of holies, that is our position. We are in union with Christ.

All of this is important as we begin the verse with the word “For”, the conjunctive particle gar used in an explanatory sense. Gar summarises everything that we have studied in the first twelve verses of this chapter. In other words, we are now ready for the explanation. The first part of this particular clause in verse 13, the protasis, presents the shadows and a representative analogy — shadow cleansing with literal animal blood. The second part of the analogy found in verse 14 gives us the figurative blood of Christ which describes His saving work on the cross. Shadows can only purify shadows, it takes reality to purify reality. And the point is that the shadows existed for over a thousand years but when Jesus Christ was on the cross the reality was there and the shadows are gone. It takes the reality to cleanse the reality, it take the blood of Christ to cleanse in reality, and the blood of Christ is His saving work and that is where we are today. We live in the greatest of all dispensations. The Jewish Age was interrupted because the reality came. And when the reality went to the cross and bore our sins and took our place then shadows were gone. And once the shadows are gone the Mosaic law which authorises the shadows has gone. The Mosaic law being abrogated means that the Levitical priesthood is abrogated, there is no specialised priesthood any longer and you are your own priest. You are not only your own priest but you are a royal priest.

We are going to translate that conjunctive particle gar, “For you see”, since it is an explanatory conjunction and it explains why shadows can only purify shadows and why it takes reality to purify the reality. The word “if” is the conjunctive particle e)i used to introduce a first class condition — if, and it is true.

Now we come to the word “blood” again, the nominative singular of to a(ima, “the blood.” This is used for the real and literal animal blood, blood which an animal had in his body. Death is official in an animal when his blood is gone. But that is not true of mankind. Man may die by bleeding to death but man is not officially dead ever until his soul leaves his body. The animal has no soul. That is even what the scripture says: “Absent from the body, face to face with the Lord.” The real you is your soul. The physical death of the animal at the brass altar represents the spiritual death of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross.

Notice that the word order in the Greek is the exact opposite of the English. It is “goats and bulls” — tragwn kai tarwn. These are both genitive plurals and the goat comes before the bull, rather than the bull before the goat. Why? The goat is a descriptive genitive plural used for salvation offerings. However, tauroj here is equivalent to the Hebrew par and therefore it is the bullock in the AV or the rebound offering of Leviticus 4:4-8. So the goat comes first because it represents a salvation offering here, and salvation always come before rebound.

“and the ashes of an heifer” — the nominative of spodoj, “ashes”, plus descriptive genitive of damlij, “heifer.” The ashes of the heifer refer to Numbers chapter 19, one of the great rebound offerings, and the ashes are mentioned specifically in Numbers 19:9. The offering is related to ceremonial uncleanness, and ceremonial uncleanness is a picture of carnality. The red heifer offering took care of ceremonial uncleanness and represents the rebound technique. Therefore, once again we have a representative analogy. The Jews were rendered ceremonially unclean by touching a corpse, by touching a tomb, by entering a house where a dead body was. All this represents is the old sin nature with which we are born. We are born physically alive and spiritually dead because we possess in the soul this old sin nature. The ashes, again, are dependant upon the cross. The reason that we name our sins and are forgiven is that our sins were judged on the cross, our known sins and our unknown sins. “sprinkling” — a present active participle of the verb r(antizw and was used for cleansing. It means really to sprinkle as a rite of purification. The present tense is a customary present to denote what is habitually used as an offering in Numbers 19. The active voice: the blood of the animal was sprinkled in the ritual of purification. The participle is a temporal participle and therefore should be translated as a temporal clause — “when sprinkling”.

“the unclean” — perfect passive participle from kionow which means the one having uncleanness. it should be translated “the one having been defiled.” The perfect tense is a consummative perfect, it describes the process by which the existing state occurs. The process: the Jew has become ceremonially unclean by touching a dead body, by touching a tomb, by entering into a home where there was a corpse. The passive voice: the subject receives the action of the verb, he becomes ceremonially unclean. The participle is circumstantial.

“sanctifieth” — present active participle of a(giazw which means to sanctify or to purify or to cleanse. It means here to purify. The present tense is an iterative present in the Greek, it describes what recurs at successive intervals, it is often called the present tense of repeated action. In other words, this was only done during a red heifer offering, during one of the animal sacrifices. The active voice: the blood and ashes were used in purification ceremonies to represent the expiatory work of Christ on the cross and/or the blood of Christ. The indicative mood is declarative, it represents the verbal action from the viewpoint of reality and becomes a dogmatic statement of historical past. Therefore it should be translated “keep purifying”. The shadows were used to purify shadows, the reality has to be purified by reality. Therefore in the fullness of time Jesus Christ had to come, had to go to the cross, for all of these sacrifices portrayed some facet of His expiatory work on the cross. That is why blood was used in connection with all of them. Every bit of animal blood represents the efficacious, expiatory sacrifice of Christ which is Christ bearing our sins. It says in Romans 5:8, “God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” And then occasionally you will see the phrase “Christ died for our sins,” and “for our sins” is u(per, meaning “on behalf of” or “as a substitute for”. He didn’t die physically for our sins, He died spiritually for our sins.

“to the purifying of the flesh” — a prepositional phrase, proj plus the accusative of kaqarothj, and it should be translated “with reference to ceremonial cleansing of the flesh”.

Translation: “For you see if the blood of goats and of bulls, and the ashes of the red heifer when sprinkling one who has become ceremonially unclean, continue purifying with reference to ceremonial cleansing of the flesh [and they do].”

That is the protasis. In other words, this ceremony actually worked. Why did it work? Because God the Father anticipated the coming of Christ, bearing our sins, the blood of Christ, the expiatory offering.

The rest of the sentence is verse 14, the real cleansing.

Verse 14 — “How much more” — the instrumental singular from posoj. Posoj is actually used adverbially before a comparative adverb mallon, and it means “how much greater” as well as “how much more.” Christ is the reality, and how much greater is the reality than the shadow. All of the animal sacrifices portrayed something fantastic, they represented doctrine by which men like David reached supergrace. But how much greater is the reality? Remember that always, from the time of the Mosaic law, from the time of the starting of the canon of scripture, until the death of Christ on the cross, all worship was related to shadows. That is why they had a specialised priesthood, a specialised priest to explain the shadows, to function in shadows, to deal with the holy and sacred building. But now, you are a priest, you are royal family, the shadows are gone. The shadows were dissipated being fulfilled at the cross. And the resurrection, ascension and session put Jesus Christ in the palace, and Jesus Christ brings with Him many sons into glory. Now there is no specialised priesthood. You are your own priest, you are to represent yourself before God. The point is that the reality is here. We no longer live in the shadows, we have reality. But the reality only becomes meaningful as we GAP it daily, as we take in Bible doctrine on a daily basis.

“the blood of Christ” — this is the reality, to a(ima tou Xristou: His expiatory work on the cross.

“who”, relative pronoun referring to the blood of Christ, “through the eternal Spirit” — bad translation. We have dia plus the genitive of pneuma plus the genitive of a)iwnioj. A))iwnioj doesn’t always mean eternal. It means eternal when it applies to God because God has not beginning and no ending, and eternal is no ending and no beginning. It also means everlasting — to have a beginning but no ending. We have everlasting life, we have a beginning but no ending. God is eternal; we as royal family are everlasting. It should be here, “through the instrumentality of his eternal spirit.” What does it mean? It doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit, it means the volition or the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. The words “eternal spirit” refers to the entire divine essence of Christ. Jesus Christ is God. As God He is sovereignty, righteousness, justice, eternal life, etc. Sometimes pneuma is simply used for God because His essence is invisible. For example, in John 4:24 we have pneuma o( qeoj, “God is a spirit.” O( merely tells us that this is the subject, o( qeoj is pneuma. You don’t have to have a verb there in the Greek, they never used it for an obvious relationship like this which has great emphasis. It should be literally translated, “The God is a spirit.” The verb to be is understood, never translated. We know that o( qeoj is the subject and which is the predicate nominative because the definite article indicates which is which. If it was o( pneuma qeoj, then it would be “The spirit is God.” But it is “God is a spirit.” Notice is says here, “through the instrumentality of his eternal spirit.” It is referring to His essence. In other words, Jesus Christ did something in eternity past that is related to our salvation. This was before He ever became man. By the way, we have no definite article in this passage, the absence of the definite article calls attention to the quality of the noun and the adjective. Jesus Christ is the highest quality as God. He is the infinite quality. It does not refer to the human spirit of Christ here since a)iwnioj is an adjective and it refers to something that existed long before the incarnation. It can refer to the eternal deity of Christ and only His eternal deity. Christ said “I will die”, and He said it in eternity past, and He said it in His humanity. His deity in the eternal decrees had already agreed to go to the cross. That is what is being said here. The blood of Christ must be linked with the eternal essence of God. We have a contrast here between the animal life and the volition of eternal God, the second person of the Trinity.

Principle

1. Animals were unwilling sacrifices, they had to be tied to the horns of the altar.

2. Animals were offered through the law which authorised Levitical offerings, rather than by their own consent. It was law that put them on the altar.

3. We have previously seen Christ offering Himself from His human volition. This was during the incarnation — Matthew 26:39, 42; Mark 14:35, 36; Luke 22:42. The human volition of Christ is emphasised also in Hebrews 10:7, 9. But here the divine sovereignty of Jesus Christ in eternity past is linked with His blood. So in the hypostatic union Christ made a decision but this verse is not teaching the hypostatic union.

4. In the sphere of His eternal spirit or essence Christ made a decision to go to the cross in eternity past, and this is a part of the divine decrees. In other words, in eternity past the cross was planned by God the Father in the sphere of His sovereignty, and Jesus Christ acquiesced in the sphere of His eternal divine sovereignty to go to the cross. So this phrase is a reference to the divine sovereignty of Jesus Christ in eternity past saying, “Yes, I will go to the cross. Yes, I will become humanity and go to the cross.” And this is in contrast to the animals who said, “Don’t.” That is why there were horns on the altar, because the animal said, “No, not me. Someone else, not me” So there is a contrast in that sense.

“offered himself” — this is in eternity past when He was only deity, the aorist active indicative of prosferw. This is a gnomic aorist, an occurrence in eternity past. A gnomic aorist expresses expresses a dogmatic or axiomatic fact of doctrine which cannot be argued in any way. It refers to an actual occurrence in eternity past. The gnomic aorist is very close to the culminative aorist and the culminative aorist also applies. It gathers up into one entirety the decision, which was instantaneous, and also looks at it from the standpoint of its existing result. In other words, billions of years ago gather up into one ball of wax the volition, the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. He said yes. That was in eternity past. Then in time here is the existing result. So the culminative aorist looks at the existing result, Christ bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. The active voice: Christ produced the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative which views the action of the verb from the viewpoint of reality and dogmatism.

There is also with this a reflexive pronoun of the direct object which says “himself”, and “himself” in contrast to animals. The shadow, therefore, is contrasted with the reality. The reality: billions of years ago Christ said, “Yes, I will become a member of the human race and go to the cross.”

Furthermore, we have “without spot” added. This is an adjective a)mwmoj, meaning “blameless”, inside as well as outside. The animals were without spot or blemish on the outside but Jesus Christ is blameless inside — doctrine of impeccability. Notice the direction of the offering, the dative of indirect object, qeoj plus the definite article — o( qeoj, “to the God.”

Translation so far: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the instrumentality of his eternal spirit [divine essence] has offered himself without blemish to the God.”

Next, the future active indicative of the verb kaqarizw is in the Attic Greek form. The word is used in the Koine but it has Koine suffixes, and so on, and here we have strictly classical Greek. Kaqarizw means to cleanse, to purify, to make an expiation. Here it means to purify as an expiatory offering. The basic sentence is: “How much more shall the blood of Christ purify by an expiatory offering.” The future tense is a gnomic future, it is a statement of absolute fact definitely expected under conditions of faith in Christ. The active voice: the blood of Christ or the saving work of Christ on the cross produces the action of the verb in contrast to the blood of animals. The indicative mood is declarative for dogmatic statement of fact.

“your conscience” — it says “our conscience” in the Greek. The word suneidhsij is the direct object but we have a genitive plural personal pronoun from e)gw which should be translated “our” rather than “your”.

“dead works” is a reference to any human plan which intrudes upon the plan of God, anything by which man seeks to be saved by man’s plans and man’s actions.

“to serve the living God” — and that is exactly where we are. We are in the service of the living God as members of the royal family of God.

“Through the eternal spirit”

1. We have the preposition dia plus the genitive of pneuma plus the genitive of a)iwnioj. There is no definite article, it should be “through the instrumentality of his eternal spirit.” It calls for the use of a pronoun to correctly translate it.

2. The question arises; What is the meaning of “eternal spirit” mistranslated in the King James version, “the eternal spirit”? First of all, it does not mean the Holy Spirit.

3. The absence of the definite article calls attention to the quality of the noun and the adjective — highest quality. Also it helps us to understand the principle here, that this is not a reference to the Holy Spirit who is eternal God but not in view here.

4. This is a reference to the deity of God the Son.

5. This is substantiated by John 4:24 which says pneuma o( qeoj. This phrase in the Greek has a subject and a predicate nominative, and you can always tell — even though they are in reverse order in the Greek — the subject. The definite article isn’t even translated here, it merely is used to demonstrate what is the subject — o( qeoj is the subject and it is not translated “the God”, just simply “God.” Then in this type of relationship, for emphasis you remove the verb, simply the verb to be. But you put it in for translation — o( qeoj is, and then pneuma: “God is a spirit”. Pneuma is often used in the Greek to indicate divine essence. So when it says “the eternal spirit” it is talking about the Lord Jesus Christ, His deity, His essence.

6. It does not refer to the human spirit of Christ since the adjective a)wnioj is attached. When used of God a)wnioj means eternal, but the same adjective used of a saved person means everlasting. Why? The adjective used with people means they have a beginning but no ending; the adjective used with God means He has no beginning and no ending. The principle is that it does not refer to the human spirit of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, it couldn’t refer to the human spirit of Jesus Christ because the human spirit of Jesus Christ does not have volition and volition is involved here. It refers to His eternal essence, His sovereignty specifically.

7. So “through eternal spirit” refers to the eternal deity of Christ with emphasis on His sovereignty. In other words, in eternity past Christ agreed to go to the cross and bear our sins. He agreed to become humanity.

8. This phrase is used in contrast to the animal life. So there is a contrast here between the animal and the volition of eternal God the second person. The animal did not want to go to the altar.

9. Animals were unwilling sacrifices, they had to be tied to the horns of the altar.

10. Animals were offered through the law which authorised Levitical sacrifices rather than by their own consent — emphasising that animals did not agree to this.

11. We have previously seen Christ offering Himself from His human volition in His human soul — Matthew 26:39, 42; Mark 14:35, 36; Luke 22:42. The human volition of Christ is also emphasised in Hebrews 10:7,9. But here we have the divine and eternal sovereignty of Jesus Christ willing to go to the cross. In the hypostatic union Christ made the same decision to go to the cross the night before the crucifixion, but that is not in view in this passage, it is the fact that in eternity past He made the decision.

12. In the sphere of His eternal spirit or essence Jesus Christ made a decision to go to the cross billions of years ago as part of the divine decrees, the same decrees that say to you as royal family, “Look, you’re alive. That means your needs have been provided right up until now, and providing your needs is not of any spiritual connotation.” The fact that you are alive and have all of your needs doesn’t mean a thing, the spiritual connotation lies in divine blessing and divine blessing comes to the believer in supergrace status.

13. The sovereignty of God the Son, Jesus Christ, was willing to go to the cross and the sovereignty of God the Holy Spirit agreed to sustain God the Son during the period of His incarnation.

14. Therefore in eternity past the cross was planned by God the Father in the sphere of His sovereignty, so that everyone is involved.

15. Therefore, this phrase is a reference to divine sovereignty of Jesus Christ in eternity past agreeing to the incarnation and the cross.

16. The sovereign volition of Christ resides in the essence of His deity while the human volition of Christ resides in His human soul.

17. Pneuma is used instead of yuxh. Pneuma refers to the eternal essence of Jesus Christ, and pneuma is used to designate the area of volition involved and to set up a contrast between the non-cooperating animal being dragged to the altar and the total compliance of divine sovereignty with regard to the cross.

Continuing at the end of verse 14, “to serve” which is a present active infinitive of the verb latreuw. Latreuw is used for the priestly function of the Levitical order. This verb was actually used in the Septuagint and it was also used in Attic Greek. As a translation of the Septuagint it was always used for the modus operandi of the Levitical order. Hence, we have a parallel here, a priestly function. We have the priestly function of the royal priesthood in the holy of holies portrayed by the Levitical priesthood. The royal priesthood performs its priestly function in both the holy place and the holy of holies. Again, we live in the holy of holies, the place where no Levitical priest ever went except the high priest once a year to teach ascension and session. The present tense of the verb to serve is a static present, it denotes a condition or a set of circumstances which perpetually exist. And the royal priesthood performs priestly function in the reality area of the holy of holies forever. The active voice: the royal priest on the basis of the blood of Christ performs His priestly function, not in the shadow of a sacred building, not in the holy of holies, but in the reality. We are positionally in the third heavens and therefore everything that we do is extremely important. The infinitive is an infinitive of result based on the blood of Christ and/or the saving work of Jesus Christ. So we should translate this, “to function as a royal priest,” and then, “to the living God.” The last phrase is a dative of indirect object, “the living God” indicating the one for whom or in whose interest our function is performed. He keeps us alive in His own interest, that is why He supplies our needs.

God provides everything that keeps us alive, and we are alive as His guests, as His ambassadors, even when we are failing. And the fact that He provides our need is not a spiritual issue. It is providing our blessings that is a spiritual issue, and as we mature spiritually our blessings increase and intensify.

The word “living” is an ascriptive use of the present active participle of the verb zaw. “Ascriptive” means to use it as an adjective. Zaw is translated, therefore, “living God”.

The entire conditional clause, beginning at verse 13:—

Verse 13 — “For you see if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a red heifer when sprinkling one who has become ceremonially unclean, continue purifying with reference to the ceremonial cleansing of the flesh [and they do]:

Verse 14 — “How much more shall the blood of the Christ, who through the instrumentality of his eternal spirit [divine essence] has offered himself without blemish to the God [the Father], purify by an expiatory offering our conscience from dead works to function as a royal priest to the living God.”

Summary

1. The blood of Christ or the saving work of Christ on the cross, which refers to His spiritual death, is the beginning of reality which dissipates the shadows.

2. The shadows are related to the tabernacle, the function of the Levitical priesthood, a specialised priesthood, and the use of animal sacrifices which are shadow sacrifices even thought the blood is literal and real.

3. The Levitical priesthood was prohibited from entering the holy of holies which was reserved for the royal priesthood of the Church Age.

4. Jesus Christ made the decision to go to the cross from His divine sovereignty billions of years ago. This became the basis for the divine decrees.

5. The blood of Christ is describing an expiatory offering. In other words, the blood of Christ is the expiatory work of Christ on the cross, it is not bleeding. Christ had figurative blood and literal blood. His literal blood bled during the first three hours on the cross for a short time. It has nothing to do with salvation. It is His figurative blood when during the last three hours He was bearing our sins, when they were poured out upon Him. That is the figurative blood of Christ, that is the expiatory sacrifice, that is what saves us, that is what tore down the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies in the temple. The word “blood” is related to the animal sacrifices to prove that Christ is the fulfilment of the shadows. The blood of Christ refers to becoming a substitute for us.

6. The blood of Christ is the expiatory work involving His spiritual death bearing our sins.

7. It occurred during those three hours when Jesus was in darkness and kept screaming, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

8. During that time Christ was bearing our sins in His own body on the tree — 1 Peter 2:24, and being judged for them by God the Father.

9. The fulfilment of the shadows, the coming of the reality [Jesus Christ], results in the strategic victory of the angelic conflict. This victory began with His spiritual death — Colossians 2:14, 15; Hebrews 2:14, 15.

10. The victory was concluded with the resurrection, ascension, and session of Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of the Father living in the real holy of holies, the third heaven.

11. The saving work of Christ establishes the pattern and the precedent of grace.

12. The royal priest is purged from dead works. This qualifies him to function as a royal priest before the living God. Each one of us has already been purged from dead works. We were purged or cleansed from dead works by the blood of Christ. There is no excuse for dead works in the life.

Verses 15-23, the shadow of the covenant. Verses 15-17 is one paragraph. There are two new covenants, and the reason we have new covenants is because the old one, the shadow one, the one that authorised all the shadows was the Mosaic law. It was a shadow covenant; it is gone. When the blood of Christ occurred, the expiatory sacrifice on the cross, that wiped out the Mosaic law; it abrogated it. And the abrogation of the law means we have two future things: we have a royal family, so there is a new covenant for the royal family — the new covenant to the Church; then, when Christ returns He is going to regather Israel, so there is a new covenant to Israel. Israel can’t operate under the Mosaic law and yet they are going to have a temple in the Millennium, they are going to have a priesthood in the Millennium, but it calls for a new covenant to get away with it. So there is a new covenant to the Church and a new covenant to Israel.

Verse 15 — “And for this cause.” This is a connective conjunction kai setting up the relationship between the shadow of the blood and the shadow of the covenant. They go together because blood ratifies a covenant. In the Mosaic law shadow blood ratified the covenant. In the two new covenants to the Church and to Israel the blood of Christ ratified the covenants. But we also have dia plus the accusative of the demonstrative pronoun o(utoj, so it is translated literally, “And because if this” — because of Christ, the reality, having accomplished His efficacious work; because Christ has offered Himself and is the efficacious sacrifice. This phrase actually refers back to Hebrews 8:6. So the strategic victory of the Lord Jesus Christ makes a new covenant possible, and the strategic victory of Jesus Christ makes Him the mediary of a better covenant, the new covenant which authorises our priesthood. Our priesthood has nothing to do with the Mosaic law, we are under a new covenant ratified by the blood of Christ, ratified by His expiatory sacrifice on the cross. The better promises are related to the royal priesthood and the plunder that belongs to the royal family now as well as for ever. The purpose of the epistle to the Hebrews is to bring the royal priest of the Church Age to the normal function of his priesthood and his cut of the plunder. And that is about the most difficult thing that God ever does because that demands supergrace status, and that demands a constant, consistent intake of Bible doctrine. So here is the argument for reaching supergrace — Hebrews 8:6 cf 9:15.

“he is” — present active indicative of e)imi. The present tense here represents a condition as perpetually existing, known as the static present.

“the mediator” — this is a predicate nominative from mesithj.

The doctrine of the mediator

1. The earliest and most basic concept of the mediatorship is found in Job 9:2 cf 32, 33 where “daysman” is used. A daysman is a mokiach which is the same as mesithj. It is someone who goes between two groups and is equal with both groups, and arbitrator but he must be equal with both parties in the arbitration.

2. A mediator is someone who removes a disagreement or an estrangement between two parties and brings them to a common goal and purpose. It means to interpose between two parties as the equal friend of each. By so doing a reconciliation is effected. Therefore mediatorship results in the reconciliation of God and man. The Father is propitiated by the mediator and man is reconciled to God by the mediator. So the mediator is not only equal with God because He is God and equal with man because he is man, but He propitiates God and He reconciles man as the act of mediation. And all of this is accomplished by the blood of Christ.

3. The mechanics of mediatorship are found in 1 Timothy 2:5,6. In verse 5 the two parties are God and man. They are revealed plus the mediator who is equal with both: the God-Man. In verse 6 the basis of reconciliation is the redemptive work of the cross.

4. The relationship to the Mosaic law — Galatians 3:19,20. The Mosaic law served as a temporary measure until the mediator became incarnate and until the blood of Christ became a reality. In the meantime the Mosaic law under the supervision of the mediator was taught by angels to Israel.

5. The mediator of the new covenant is identified as the Lord Jesus Christ — Hebrews 9:15-17. His mediation was accomplished through three things. His mediation brings man and God together. They are estranged because of sin. So, sinward: redemption; manward: reconciliation; Godward: propitiation. And the blood of Christ = redemption + reconciliation + propitiation.

6. Therefore there is a relationship between mediation and the blood — Hebrews 12:24. The blood of the animal sacrifices portrayed redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation.

7. Therefore the obvious conclusion is found in Hebrews 8:6. Christ our high priest is the mediator of a better covenant which deals with realities rather than shadows. The shadow covenant anticipated the coming of Christ but the new covenant is the coming of Christ, is the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ ratified the new covenant.

Verse 15 (Review)

Beginning in verse 15 and going through verse 23 we have one of the clearest of all paragraphs on what is the blood of Christ and what is the responsibility of the believer in the dispensation in which we find ourselves. In these verses we have the shadow of the covenant. We have seen the first shadow which was the shadow of the tabernacle. The second shadow was the shadow of the blood. Now here is the third of four shadows in this chapter, the shadow of the covenant.

One of the greatest mistranslation is all of the Bible is h( kainh diaqhkh which is translated “the New Testament”. It is really and literally “the New Covenant”, and this is more than just a technical point, this a the great issue to the royal family. We do not have a new testament, we have something greater than a will or a testament, we have a new covenant.

Hebrews 8:6 gives us in clear terms from the original exactly how important this dispensation is. The corrected translation: “But now he [Christ] has attained a more excellent ministry by so much as he is the mediator of a better covenant, which category of covenant has been ordained on the basis of better promises of blessing, both spiritual and material.” The Mosaic law can only authorise shadows, including a shadow priesthood. The new covenant to the Church authorises substance to the royal priesthood. The Church Age is the dispensation of reality in contrast to the Jewish age which is a dispensation of shadows. Only once in history, in this dispensation, we have the greatest opportunity of the exploitation of grace as has ever existed in all of the human race and in all of human history.

Therefore we read, “And because of this by means of a new covenant he the mediator of the new covenant”. The word “mediator” is the predicate nominative from mesithj. He is said to be the mediator of the “new testament” and this is where we run into a real snag, one which does not appear important until you’ve had a lot of doctrine from the scripture. The words “of the new testament” is an ablative of means from the noun diaqhkh, a word which actually means a covenant and is equivalent to the Hebrew berith. Diaqhkh comes from the word diatiqhmi which means to decree, indicating that the covenant is from God. It means to decree regulations. It is the actual decree which forms the relationship between God and man and the spiritual legacy of the royal priesthood. We also have with it the word “new”. It is also an adjective but the ablative of means of the adjective kainoj. Kainoj means new in species, new in character, new in category. The phrase in the Greek precedes “he is mediator” so that literally the word of the Greek is “And because of this by means of the new covenant he is mediator.”

The doctrine of the new covenant to the Church

1. Definition.

a) A covenant is a disposition made by one party (God) in favour of another party (man after salvation). It is not a testament. A testament simply means inheritance after death, it depends on someone’s physical death before it becomes valid to those who are mentioned in the will as the heirs. But the physical death of Christ has nothing to do with salvation, nor does it have anything to do with our legacy. Our legacy is based upon His spiritual death. And a covenant has greater strength than a will, it cannot be set aside whereas a will can be set aside by an act of law. Therefore we have something that is much greater than a will or testament. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is alive. A will or a testament is in operation because the person is dead, but Christ in resurrection body is physically alive. So we are not the beneficiaries of a will and testament because otherwise the resurrection of Christ would have cancelled His will and testament. We are the beneficiaries of a covenant which has nothing to do with physical death. The new covenant demands the spiritual death or the saving work of Christ or the blood of Christ for its fulfilment.

b) The Mosaic covenant or the Mosaic law was a covenant of shadows — shadow buildings, shadow priesthood, shadow sacrifices — because the Mediator had not come in the flesh, and therefore there was no mediator until Christ became true humanity.

c) Therefore the function of the Mosaic law in the Age of Israel was legitimate but not efficacious.

d) A new covenant must exist with historic reality — the first advent of Christ making Him mediator and qualifying Him to be saviour. And there must be an efficacious sacrifice. The Mosaic law did not authorise any efficacious sacrifices, it simply pointed to efficacious sacrifice. The coming of reality — the first advent — and the fulfilment of the shadows in the efficacious sacrifice of Christ on the cross demands a new covenant.

e) In fact, it demands two new covenants, one to the Church and one to Israel. Once Christ comes and becomes the true mediator by His virgin birth, true humanity — in other words, the hypostatic union qualifies Him to go to the cross, qualifies Him to be a mediator, and it immediately sets aside the Mosaic law. In setting aside or abrogating the Mosaic law that leaves Israel hanging for the Millennium. So there must be a new covenant to Israel in the Millennium as well as a new covenant to the Church for our dispensation. Every dispensation after the interruption of the age of the law must have a new covenant related to the efficacious sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

f) This new covenant to the Church is a spiritual legacy for the royal family of God and authorises a royal priesthood.

g) The new covenant applies only to those who are born again by faith in Christ.

h) Hence, the new covenant is God’s grace disposition to the royal family of God in time and eternity.

Summary conclusion:

1. a) The new covenant is not a will which requires the physical death of the testator (the one who makes the will).

b) The new covenant requires the spiritual death of Christ on the cross, His efficacious offering of the blood so that God the Father can ratify a new covenant. A covenant is ratified; a will or testament becomes operational by physical death. But the parties involved are alive in the ratification of the covenant, and Jesus Christ in resurrection body is alive.

c) The new covenant to the Church is made in favour of the royal family. This is God’s greatest experiment of grace.

d) The new covenant supersedes the shadow covenant of the Old Testament — the Mosaic law, the Levitical code.

e) It authorises a new universal priesthood for the royal family of God which operates positionally in the holy of holies.

f) The new covenant ratified by God the Father is valid only because of the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ could not be, therefore, His physical, literal blood. Christ did not save us by bleeding to death, He saved us by bearing our sins.

g) The new covenant is the reality in contrast to the shadows of the old covenant, the Levitical code.

h) Hence, the new covenant is the legacy of the royal priesthood with God the Father as the ratifier and God the Son as the mediator.

i) The mediator offered Himself as an efficacious sacrifice on the cross.

j) The Father was propitiated, the covenant was ratified. The covenant calls for a royal family to live forever in the holy of holies.

2. The scripture regarding the new covenant to the Church. The reason we pause to give the scripture is because there is a new covenant to Israel and it has a different set of scriptures. This is scripture regarding the new covenant to the Church, not to Israel — Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3; Hebrews 7:22; 9:15-20; 10:29; 12:24.

3. The principle of the new covenant to the Church. The old covenant, the Mosaic law is abrogated by the death of Christ, His burial, resurrection, and ascension. When He is seated at the right hand of the Father the old covenant is through and the new covenant is operational. So the new covenant replaces the old, the shadow is now replaced by reality, and for the first time in all of human history we live in the reality period of God’s plan.

4. The new covenant and the priesthood. The new covenant authorises a new priesthood, a royal priesthood of the Church Age. The specialised priesthood, the Levitical order of Israel, is set aside with shadow worship.

5. The new covenant and the strategic victory of Jesus Christ. The strategic victory of Christ in the angelic conflict — which is His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and session — interrupts the Age of Israel, voids the old covenant, the Mosaic law. It does not void the unconditional covenants of Old Testament times. The Mosaic law is an unconditional covenant abrogated by the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. We also have to Israel the Abrahamic, Palestinian, and Davidic covenants. With the death, burial, resurrection, and session of Christ at the right hand of the Father the Mosaic law is abrogated and is replaced by the new covenant to the Church. To take care of these unconditional covenants we also have a new covenant to Israel. The new covenant to the Church is authorised for the Church Age, the new covenant for Israel is authorised for the Millennium. Both are eternal. The new covenant belongs to the royal family only, the new covenant to Israel belongs to Israel in the Millennium and forever.

6. There is a distinction, therefore, between the new covenant to Israel and the new covenant to the Church. The new covenant to Israel, for example, is found in Galatians 4:4; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12; Hebrews 10:15-18. The new covenant to Israel is the authorising agent for the restored Israel in the Millennium. Today there is not Israel. Israel is scattered as far as the Word of God is concerned and when a Jew believes in Christ he is a member of the royal family of God just as when a Gentile believes in Jesus Christ. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile in this age. The distinction comes after the Rapture of the Church. So we have a distinction between these covenants. The new covenant to Israel replaces the Mosaic law for the function of Israel’s priesthood and all Israel in the Millennium. This means that there will be animal sacrifices in the Millennium authorised by the new covenant to Israel as a memorial to the work of Christ, not a shadow. We also have the new covenant to the Church which authorises the royal priesthood and will continue forever, living in the holy of holies.

7. The summary of authorising covenants. a) We have the Mosaic law which authorises the Levitical priesthood of the Age of Israel. b) We have the new covenant to the Church authorising the royal priesthood of the Church Age. c) We have the new covenant to Israel authorising the Levitical priesthood of the Millennium and the Millennial temple of Ezekiel chapters forty through forty-eight.

8. The new covenant to the Church is the basis for establishing the royal family of God forever. Part of the plunder of the strategic victory of Christ is the establishing of a royal family composed of Church Age believers only. The new covenant to the Church authorises the royal family its priesthood and its supergrace plunder — promotion, wealth, materialistic things, success, prosperity, sharing God’s happiness. Remember that God is not interested in merely providing your needs.

9. The shadows and the reality. All the shadows of the old covenant point to the person and the work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the reality, He has become the “guarantee of a better covenant” — Hebrews 7:22. The better covenant is the new covenant and Jesus Christ is the guarantee. The blood of the covenant has set us apart as the royal family — Hebrews 10:29.

The next phrase says, “that by means of”. It is not quite correct. We have the adverb o(pwj used as a conjunction to introduce a purpose clause. It should be translated “in order that” which is the traditional way of translating a purpose clause — “in order that a death” [not “by means of”]. We have “of death” in the English translation but this is a genitive absolute and the word qanatoj, the word for death, is in the genitive. But you don’t translate it that way in a genitive absolute because a genitive absolute is a combination of a noun in the genitive case and a participle in the genitive case, and the genitive case is translated like a nominative. In other words, the noun is the subject. So instead of “of death” it is “a death.” Then we have the participle, the aorist active participle in the genitive case of ginomai which means to come to pass — “a death having come to pass” is the correct way to translate the genitive absolute. Again, the genitive absolute is a noun and the participle in the genitive case which are not directly connected with the rest of the sentence and the genitive case now becomes the subject and the participle becomes the verb. So this genitive absolute begins a parenthesis. And the phrase “in order that”? Well, the purpose clause is on the other side of the parenthesis. So we have “in order that” which introduces a purpose clause. Then “a death having taken place” is the beginning of a parenthesis, and on the other side of the parenthesis we will have the purpose clause.

So far in this verse we have “And because of this, by means of a new covenant [new authorising agency] he is the mediator” — we will forget about “in order that” since it goes with a clause later on. From the word “mediator” we have a parenthesis — “a death having come to pass.” Now ginomai is in the aorist tense and the aorist tense is a constative aorist which contemplates the action of the verb in its entirety. The duration of this constative aorist is about three hours, from twelve noon until about three o’clock in the afternoon when Christ was on the cross. During this time Christ was bearing our sins, He was being judged for our sins. The constative aorist gathers up into one entirety the saving work of Christ on the cross and/or the blood of Christ. So this is the saving work of Christ on the cross, His spiritual death which is called the blood of Christ. The active voice: the spiritual death of Christ produces the action of the verb — “a death having come to pass.” The participle has antecedent action to the main verb which is “might receive.”

Continuing in the parenthesis we have “for the redemption.” Here we have a prepositional phrase, e)ij plus the accusative of a)polutrwsij, one of the very strong words for redemption, it connotes the payment of a ransom and completing the deliverance or the manumission of a person in slavery. Only the virgin birth made it possible for Christ to be born a free man, and it takes a free man to redeem slaves. The coin of the realm is the blood or the cross where Jesus Christ redeemed us, liberated us from the slave market of sin, where He reconciled us to God and where He propitiated God the Father. So we walk through the door to freedom by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now e)ij plus the accusative has many meanings but the one that is pertinent here is “for the purpose of redemption”. The fact that there is no definite article in from of a)polutrwsij emphasises the quality of the noun.

“of the transgressions” — parabasij refers to the transgressions; “under the first testament” which is literally, “under the first covenant” — the Mosaic law — e)pi plus the locative of diaqhkh. This is a reference to the Mosaic law which set up the standards clearly defining sin. Therefore a violation of these known standards is called transgression.

At this point the parenthesis is closed and we can begin our purpose clause. But so far we have “And because of this, by means of a new covenant he is mediator” — parenthesis — “a death having come to pass for the purpose redemption of the transgression against the first covenant.”

Summary

1. A mediator removes the estrangement between two parties and brings to a common goal. The estranged parties are God and man.

2. The basis for the estrangement between God and man is sin, therefore sin must be resolved on the cross.

3. Christ is the mediator and is therefore equal to both parties in the mediation. He is God, therefore equal with God; He is man, therefore equal with man — 1 Timothy 2:5,6.

4. But to become mediator Christ had to become a man. He is eternal God and He became a man, setting up the doctrine of the hypostatic union. The hypostatic union qualifies Him for mediatorship.

5. The mediation is accomplished by the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is His saving work on the cross.

6. The saving work on the cross is directional. Redemption, toward sin; reconciliation, toward man; propitiation, toward God. Therefore, redemption plus reconciliation plus propitiation equals the blood of Christ, and the blood of Christ is the basis for the new covenant for the Church and the new covenant to Israel.

So far in this verse we have “And because of this, by means of the new covenant he is mediator (a death having come to pass for the purpose of redemption of the transgression against the first covenant) in order that” — taking the adverb used as a conjunction to introduce a purpose clause and replacing it on the other side of the parenthesis where it belongs in English — “they which are called.”

The word “they” is actually a definite article in the nominative plural o(i. The definite article is used in many ways. It is used in the Greek for pronouns of all types. It is used in the articular infinitive for a personal pronoun. It is used often for a demonstrative pronoun. It is used in almost every way conceivable in order to clarify certain areas. And since the original language and its grammar understands this someone caught this in the translation and correctly translated it. The definite article nominative plural translated as a personal pronoun refers to the royal family of God, and as members of the royal family of God we are included in this sentence — “they which are called.” The definite article is a part of the articular participle here, and the participle is a perfect passive participle of the verb kalew. It refers to the doctrine of election and the fact that in eternity past God the Father had the good sense to know ahead of time who would believe and who wouldn’t. Omniscience always knows and understands what is ahead. What is ahead is generally unknown to us, except as we anticipate peripheral trends, but what is ahead has always been known to God. That is a part of omniscience. Therefore God had a plan for us and this plan is summarised under the category of election. God made each one of us members of the royal family of God. They which are called refers to the royal family of God except that we do not have a good translation of the perfect tense — “they having been called.” The perfect tense here is intensive, it indicates that the action of the verb has been completed and it emphasises the existing results. The existing results include the fact that we are here as members of the royal family of God. We are a universal priesthood, we have a very definite purpose for remaining in this life. The passive voice: the royal priest receives the action of the verb, he is in the plan. There is a plan for your life right now. Not only is the participle articular but it is circumstantial, referring specifically to the royal family of God and their purpose.

“might receive” — again, we have an aorist active but this time the subjunctive mood of the verb lambanw. The word lambanw here means to receive or to take into one’s possession, or to receive into one’s possession. Here we have a culminative aorist which views the event in its entirety but regards it from the viewpoint of existing results. There are many promises which come from God for the royal family specifically. These promises came from God in eternity past, they are recorded in the canon of scripture in time. And they all simply go back to the source, God Himself. It is translated “that they might take into their possession”, literally. The active voice: the royal family, those who are elected of the Church Age, produce the action of the verb. The subjunctive mood is potential, it indicates that it is God’s purpose for us to utilise all of the promises He made to us under the doctrine of decrees. But it also indicates that while this is His purpose it is potential. The potentiality of the subjunctive mood is based upon the believer’s attitude toward Bible doctrine. Positive volition which is consistent fulfils the plan of God, but inconsistent positive volition or negative volition result in failure to utilise the wonderful plan of God and to enter into the blessings of the supergrace life.

The word “promise” is in the accusative singular. It is a direct object and it gathers up, as it were, all of the promises that God has ever made. Furthermore, the singular indicates the fact that all promises depend upon the essence of God. There is only one source so basically no matter how diversified the content of promises they all have one source. So we have the accusative singular direct object of e)paggelia. It refers to grace promises, which means we cannot earn them or deserve them or work for them.

The next phrase is a genitive of the adjective a)iwnioj, meaning “eternal”, the adjective for eternal or everlasting. With that we have the noun which it modifies, klhronomia, which means “inheritance, possession, property.” It often connotes materialistic things, as certainly we have under our supergrace paragraph. Both of these genitives are genitives of possession connoting the idea of ownership. God has something special for each one of us by way of blessing. We own these things but possessing them depends upon reaching the supergrace life.

Translation: “And because of this by means of a new covenant he is mediator, (a death having occurred for the purpose of redemption of the transgressions against the first covenant) in order that they [the royal family] having been called may receive into their possession the promise of eternal inheritance.”

Summary

1. The new covenant was based on the death of Christ providing redemption. (The word “transgression” emphasises redemption)

2. The old covenant defined transgressions while the new covenant solved the sin problem.

3. Not only did the new covenant solve the sin problem through Christ and His blood but it authorised a royal family of God forever.

4. The abrogation of the old covenant of shadows and the establishment of the new covenant of reality brings into existence the royal family of God, and with it a new royal priesthood universal in scope.

5. The new covenant was ratified by the spiritual death of Christ on the cross, i.e. the blood of Christ: redemption, reconciliation, propitiation.

6. The next two verses illustrate this principle. Namely, that the new covenant became valid and effective on the basis of the spiritual death of Christ on the cross, making it a covenant instead of a testament. It is the physical death of Christ that indicates not only His work was completed but makes possible a bona fide resurrection from the dead. So the physical death of Christ has great meaning but not in the ratification of the new covenant, it is the spiritual death that is primarily involved.

7. Christ ratified the covenant through His blood, making it valid, and at the same time authorising a new and universal priesthood.

8. The next two verses emphasise the importance of the two deaths of Christ on the cross, one in validating the new covenant, the other also having significance. The new covenant had to be ratified with the blood of Christ and His expiatory sacrifice, just as the old covenant was ratified by animal blood.

Verse 16 begins with the words “For where.” We have a conjunctive particle gar used for explanation, and an adverb o(pou. An explanation is now going to be given and first of all it says “For where a testament”, and we now understand this means “covenant”, the nominative singular of the noun diaqhkh — “For where a covenant”. A covenant, again, is a disposition made by one party in favour of another party on specified terms which must be acceded to. The specified terms are believing in Jesus Christ, receiving Him as saviour and, after that, growth in grace through the intake of doctrine.

The Mosaic law was a covenant and since it was a covenant of shadows its authorised Levitical sacrifices were not efficacious. They were animal sacrifices, they could not take away sin. They could point to the blood of Christ which would cleanse from all sin but they could not take away sin in themselves. A new covenant must exist with an efficacious sacrifice which is, in this case, the spiritual death of Christ on the cross, His saving work on the cross, the blood of Christ, the three hours in which time Jesus Christ provided His redemptive work. While diaqhkh can connote last will and testament it connotes in the Bible a spiritual legacy. The word “covenant” [diaqhkh] can be used for a last will and testament. That is the way it was used in profane Greek, in Attic Greek, it is a very old word. But it is used in the Bible for a spiritual legacy, in this case the legacy of the royal family of God. In the Attic Greek, the classical Greek, diaqhkh or “covenant” was used also for an agreement or a treaty, sometimes and ordinance or a series of regulations. In the New Testament it has the connotation of spiritual legacy to the royal family or, in the case of the new covenant to Israel, spiritual legacy to Israel in the Millennium. However, this verse does not imply that this word is used for last will and testament. The death of Christ is unique, His spiritual death is the basis for a spiritual legacy, the spiritual legacy of the royal family. His physical death has nothing to do with our salvation. His physical death has great doctrinal implications but it is the spiritual death of Christ bearing our sins that has the implication spiritually. Christ was very much alive when He said salvation was finished. “It is finished” refers to salvation; He was alive when He said “It is finished.” It is when Christ was alive and bearing our sins and being judged for us that He did His saving work, and our spiritual legacy is not based on the physical death of Christ, it is based upon His saving work, the spiritual death of Christ.

“For where a covenant.” We add the word “is” which isn’t necessary really — “For where a covenant is.” There is no verb there but the verb to be can be added to make better English.

“there must also be of necessity the death of the testator” — that phrase is wrong. It is actually a phrase made up of six words. The first two: qanatwn a)nagkh. The next is a verb, an infinitive feresqai, and then tou diaqenemon. The only way to handle this is to number them. 1 = qanatou; 2 = a)nagkh; 3 = fereqai; 4 = tou diaqenemon.

1. Qanatwn is the accusative singular of the noun qanatoj. It is part of an accusative of general reference with the infinitive. The noun is in the accusative case, and when a noun in the accusative case is used with an infinitive [The is classical or Attic Greek] while the noun is not properly the subject — we call it that — it describes the thing connected with the action of the infinitive. Hence, the noun in the accusative is translated like a nominative, like a subject. So we start out with the word “death”.

2. A)nagkh means necessity. So let’s put is this way: “For where a covenant exists of necessity death.” The reason for putting “death” next is because it must be put with the infinitive, it is the subject of the infinitive in the accusative of general reference.

3. The infinitive, feresqai, is the present passive infinitive of the verb ferw. Ferw means here to be brought in. The present tense is an aoristic present for punctiliar action in present time. The aorist tense is punctiliar action in past time. The aoristic present is actually punctiliar action in present time. In addition to that this is an historical present which views a past event, the spiritual death of Christ on the cross, with the vividness of a present occurrence. The passive voice: the subject is spiritual death or the blood of Christ or His expiatory sacrifice or His redemptive work. The subject receives the action of the verb. The efficacious death of Christ on the cross — known as the blood of Christ, known as the saving work of Christ — receives the action of the verb. The infinitive is a part of the accusative of general reference. In the active voice ferw means to bear, to carry, to bring along. But in the passive voice it means to be brought in, and we have a passive voice of ferw here.

Now we have an articular participle, and notice we have dia with the definite article outside. In other words, tou is the genitive of the definite article. Then comes dia. So we have tou — genitive case — the definite article, then we have the preposition. The reason for this is because in classical Greek whenever you have an articular infinitive and the articular infinitive is the object of the preposition the preposition must be inserted between the definite article and its object. We actually have dia plus a participle for the object. The participle is in the genitive case. We have the aorist middle participle of diatiqhmi. So we have dia plus the genitive of the articular participle of diatiqhmi. Diatiqhmi means to arrange according to one’s own mind, to make a will is another meaning. It also means to decree when used of God. To ratify a covenant is the other meaning, and that is what it is here. The culminative aorist of the participle views the event in its entirety but emphasises the existing results. The existing result is that the new covenant is ratified and that you as a member of the royal family of God are authorised to function on this earth under that new covenant, you are authorised to grow in grace, you are authorised to be occupied with the person of Christ, you are authorised to be prosperous, to be successful, to be promoted, to be in every way in enjoyment of materialistic things in the devil’s world under the new covenant. The middle voice is the indirect middle in which Christ as the agent produces the action, but it emphasises Christ ratifying the new covenant through His blood or His saving work. The participle is not only part of an articular participle but it is circumstantial. In addition to that it is an aorist participle. The action of the aorist participle precedes the action of the main verb. The main verb is “might receive.”

“For where a covenant exists, of necessity death must be brought in of the one having made the covenant.” This is the spiritual death of Christ, this is the efficacious saving work of Christ on the cross.

Summary

1. This verse, and all of these verses, do not talk about a testament. Therefore “testament’ is an erroneous translation. They talk about a covenant. This is not a will or testament which requires the physical death of the testator but this is a covenant which requires the spiritual death of the testator. Jesus Christ as the testator in His spiritual death makes it possible for us to be beneficiaries as members of the royal family. The only thing that can ratify the new covenant is not the shadow blood of an animal, nor even the physical blood of Christ coming out of His veins, but His saving work on the cross while He was very much alive.

2. This verse amplifies and illustrates the previous verse. The new covenant is made in favour of the Church, the royal family of God.

3. It supersedes the shadow covenant, the Mosaic law. The shadow covenant is abrogated by the cross, therefore it supersedes the old covenant, the shadow covenant, the Mosaic law.

4. It authorises a new priesthood for the royal family of God in which every member of the royal family is a priest living positionally in the holy of holies until he dies and then his soul moves directly to the holy of holies or the third heaven. The holy of holies in the tabernacle and then again in the temple was a shadow pointing to the third heaven. We live right now in the holy of holies positionally. In Christ we are in the holy of holies. The veil was rent from the top to the bottom while Christ was still alive and the entrance into the holy of holies was now open.

5. This new covenant is only valid because of the efficacious death of Christ on the cross bearing our sins, the reality fulfilling all of the shadows of the Levitical code. The “life of the flesh is in the blood” referred to animals only and the shadows of the Levitical code are all fulfilled by the death of Christ on the cross. Therefore technically the death of Christ is always efficacious whereas animal sacrifices are non-efficacious.

6. Therefore the covenant is the spiritual legacy of the royal priesthood, just as the old covenant was the legacy of the Levitical priesthood.

7. The new covenant has a mediator, Jesus Christ, whose blood ratified the covenant. The mediator, the God-Man, Jesus Christ, offered Himself an efficacious sacrifice in bearing our sins on the cross. The Father was propitiated by the offering of Christ, man was reconciled, sin was taken away through redemption. The new covenant, therefore, calls for a royal family to live forever in the holy of holies in the third heaven because of the blood of Christ. Remember, the blood of Christ equals redemption plus reconciliation, plus propitiation = the blood of Christ.

Verse 17 — we have the conjunction gar to indicate a continuation of the explanation — “For a covenant — diaqhkh, without the definite article. The absence of the definite article emphasises the qualitative aspect of the noun. There is no higher covenant and never will be than the new covenant which makes you a member of the royal family forever. This is the real covenant in contrast to the shadows, this is the eternal covenant of the royal priesthood.

“is of force” — this word is completely out of the Greek order, so once again we have trouble. So this time we have five words involved. First of all we have diaqhkh gar, the beginning of the sentence. But next we have a prepositional phrase, e)pi nekroij, and there is one more word, the word “of force”, notice where it comes. It comes at number five, bebaioj.

1. We have the conjunctive particle gar used to continue the explanation, and then the subject diaqhkh — “For a covenant.”

2. Then a prepositional phrase, e)pi nekroij, which is the locative plural. So we have e)pi plus the locative plural of nekroj. Notice, it is locative plural — “deaths”, plural. It is a reference to the two deaths of Christ on the cross, and e)pi plus the locative should be translated “upon”.

3. Then we have bebaioj which means reliable, dependable, valid, or certain.

It should be translated: “For a covenant is valid upon deaths.” Like Isaiah 53:9, “deaths” is in the plural to indicate that Christ died twice on the cross. The first death was His saving work called the blood of Christ. The physical death which followed was necessary as the stepping stone from spiritual death to, resurrection, ascension and session where the strategical victory of our Lord could be completed. The physical death was necessary for physical resurrection and through the raising of Christ from the death the Father recognises and verifies the new covenant.

The word “otherwise” is incorrectly translated. It is the causal use of the conjunction e)pei and it should be translated “because”.

“it is of no strength at all” — the negative mh plus the present active indicative of i)sxuew plus the adverb pote. Pote is an enclitic particle here, and with the negative mh it means “not ever.” I)sxuew means to be valid. It should be translated “because it is not ever valid”.

“while the testator liveth” — now we have a temporal particle o(te, translated “while.” The word for “testator” is the aorist middle participle of diatiqhmi which means the one having made the covenant. The aorist tense is culminative, it gathers it up into one ball of wax and looks at it from the result standpoint. The middle voice is the indirect middle in which Christ as the agent produces the action of the verb rather than participating in its results. He is the agent in making the covenant, this is His saving work. The indirect middle is very important here because it says the covenant becomes valid through Jesus Christ bearing our sins, through His redemptive work, through His work in reconciliation and propitiation. The participle has antecedent action to the main verb, the main verb is in verse 15 — “might receive”.

“liveth” — present active indicative of zaw.

Principle

The new covenant is not valid until Christ died twice on the cross. He died the first time as His saving work. That is the blood which ratifies the covenant. But the new covenant is no good without Christ in the holy of holies. The blood was shed on the brass altar but the high priest must take the blood to the holy of holies. Therefore, He has to die to do it because He is not shedding His blood like the high priests of old in a bowl, He is carrying Himself, the saviour. Therefore He has to die physically, be resurrected, ascend, and then be seated at the right hand of the Father. The new covenant is no good, even though it is ratified, until the Lord Jesus Christ is in the holy of holies because the new covenant calls for royal family living in the holy of holies. Therefore Christ is living in the holy of holies in a resurrection body and that is where we will live forever.

In order to understand from verse 18 to chapter 10 verse 17 it is necessary to review some doctrines.

The doctrine of the blood

1. Animal blood must be defined and understood before anyone ever begins to understand the blood of Christ. Animal blood is literal, the seat of animal life — Leviticus 17:10-14. The animal does not have a soul as we have a soul, and therefore death for us is the departure of the soul from the body. Death for the animal is the departure of his blood from his body. In the Old Testament shadow worship the blood of animals was used to represent the saving work of Christ on the cross. Each animal sacrifice portrayed some facet of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross in saving us. This was first started in Genesis 3:21 with the coats of skins perpetuated through the coming of the Mosaic law and the Levitical offerings which were authorised under the law, especially Leviticus chapters 1-5 where literal animal blood was used to represent the figurative blood of Christ or the saving work of Christ on the cross. The animal blood of the Old Testament portrayed the redemptive work of Christ under three categories: redemption, reconciliation, propitiation.

2. The blood of Christ defined. There are two uses of blood in the Bible, literal and figurative. Literal blood is used for animal sacrifices. The blood of Christ is figurative. “It refers to blood as an expiatory sacrifice, the blood of Christ as the means of expiation” — Arndt and Gingrich. Kiddle: “The ideas which the New Testament links with the blood of Christ is simply pregnant with verbal symbols for the saving work of Christ.”

3. The principle of the representative analogy. While animal blood was real and literal it represents the spiritual death of Christ on the cross — Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 10:19; 13:20; 1 Peter 1:2. There are two kinds of analogies, real and representative. A real analogy would say the blood of animals equals the blood in Christ’s veins. A representative analogy says the blood of animals on the altar is real blood and the animal bleeding to death dies physically, but it represents the spiritual death of Christ on the cross bearing our sins. In the Bible we have the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament being compared to Christ bearing our sins. In other words, Jesus Christ did not bleed to death for our sins, He died for our sins. The wages of sin is death and, notice, the person who is spiritually dead is also very much alive. In the case of a representative analogy the animal unwillingly dying physically on the altar by bleeding to death represents our Lord willingly hanging on the cross, bearing our sins and being judged for them. And while He was judged for them He makes it very clear that He was dying for our sins because He said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” He was forsaken because He who knew no sin was made sin for us. The fact that Christ died twice is established from both the Hebrew and the Greek — Isaiah 53:9 where “death” is in the plural, and in Hebrews 9:17 where “death” is in the plural.

4. In order to emphasise the principle Christ did not die on the cross by bleeding to death — John 19:30-34. When the Bible speaks of the blood of Christ cleansing from all sin, the blood of Christ as the basis of redemption, it is always referring to the saving work of Christ on the cross and/or the expiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The blood of Christ is a part of the representative analogy between the physical death of the animal and the spiritual death of Christ being judged for our sins, as per 1 Peter 2:24.

5. The blood of animal sacrifices was shadow blood pointing to the reality of the cross. The blood of the animal was literal blood but it had shadow connotation, it pointed to the reality of the cross. So when Christ was on the cross it was a literal cross but the blood was Christ bearing our sins. So we have His figurative blood representing the real or the literal salvation. The real blood of the animal was a shadow which represents what Christ did for us on the cross — Hebrews 9:12-14 teaches this principle.

6. Therefore the blood of Christ depicts the saving work of Christ on the cross, and in the scripture the blood of Christ is specifically related to His saving work. Four doctrines of salvation are related to the blood of Christ: expiation — Revelation 1:5; redemption — Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18,19; Hebrews 9:12; justification — Romans 5:9; sanctification — Hebrews 13:12.

7. The blood of Christ in expiation is the basis for the rebound technique, so taught in the shadows of the Old Testament. The non-sweet savour Levitical offerings — the sin offering of Leviticus chapter four, the trespass offering of chapter five, both speak of rebound. The sin offering is rebound with emphasis on the unknown sins, the trespass offering is rebound with emphasis on the known sins. It is taught in the New Testament by comparing 1 John 1:7 with 1 John 1:9.

8. The true meaning of the blood of Christ. a) The true meaning of the blood of Christ is found in the direction of the doctrines of soteriology. b) Redemption is sinward. c) Reconciliation is manward. d) Propitiation is Godward. e) Christ is mediator — Hebrews 9:15. f) Sin has estranged the two parties — God and man. The mediator removes the estrangement on the cross. g) Jesus Christ as saviour reconciles man, propitiates God, and redeems from sin. h) Therefore the blood of Christ equals redemption + reconciliation + propitiation.

The doctrine of redemption

1. Redemption is the work of Christ on the cross toward sin. It refers to the work of Christ in purchasing our freedom from the slave market of sin. The coin of the realm is the blood of Christ and we are manumitted from the slave market of sin. The blood of Christ which purchases our freedom is Christ being judged for our sins — Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14.

2. Christ paid the ransom for sin on the cross. He purchased our redemption by bearing our sins or being judged for our sins on the cross — Psalm 34:22; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 1:18,19.

3. Christ was qualified to be our redeemer. This applies the doctrine of the virgin birth, the doctrine of the incarnation, the doctrine of impeccability, plus certain scriptures such as 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:3; Isaiah 53:9; John 8:46; 19:4; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26, 28; 1 Peter 1:18,19.

4. Christ was willing to be the redeemer. The redemptive work of Christ on the cross was an act of His own free will. His free will was sovereignty in eternity past — “who though the eternal spirit” in Hebrews chapter 9 refers to the sovereignty of God the Son in eternity past when He said in the time of the eternal life conference, “I will go to the cross.” Then the free will of His humanity the night before the cross when He said, “Father if it be thy will let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not my will but thine be done.” So Jesus Christ went to the cross as an act of His own free will, He was obedient to the Father’s plan — Luke 22:42; Romans 5:19; Philippians 28.

5. The doctrine of redemption was communicated in the Old Testament times by the shedding of blood. Christ did not come until the fullness of time. It was somewhere about 30 AD when Christ died on the cross bearing our sins. Therefore up to 30 AD you have some 5000 years of history, and are you going to deprive people for 5000 years of salvation? The answer is no. So how did they witness? The animal sacrifices. In effect, when Abel sacrificed an animal he was witnessing to Cain. This is the way the gospel was portrayed — through the shedding of animal blood — Hebrews 9:12, 22. The Old Testament saints understood and applied the doctrine of redemption because in Job 19:25 Job under pressure said, “I know that my redeemer liveth.”

6. The blood of Christ is the ransom money or the purchase price for redemption — Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18, 19.

7. The results of redemption. a) The deliverance from the Mosaic law and its shadows — Galatians 3:13; 4:4-6. b) Redemption provides forgiveness of sins — Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:15; Isaiah 44:22. c) Redemption provides the basis for justification — Romans 3:24. d) Redemption is the basis for sanctification — Ephesians 5:25-27. e) Redemption is the basis for the believer’s eternal inheritance — Hebrews 9:15. f) Redemption is the basis for the strategic victory of Christ in the angelic conflict — Colossians 24,15; Hebrews 2:14,15. g) Redemption of the body is the ultimate status of the royal family of God — Romans 8:23; Ephesians 4:30. So the redemption of the body is the believer in resurrection, and therefore redemption has a future connotation. We are not only freed at the point of salvation but our freedom is consolidated by resurrection body. So redemption is used for resurrection in Romans 8:23 and Ephesians 4:30.

The doctrine of reconciliation

1. While redemption is sinward and propitiation is Godward, reconciliation is manward. Therefore by definition reconciliation is the removal of the barrier between God and man. It is often called “peace”, the removal of enmity between God and man. So peace is often a technical word in the Bible.

2. Reconciliation is related to the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is a synonym for the saving work of Christ on the cross. The blood of Christ is therefore the basis for reconciliation — Colossians 1:20. Therefore the work of Christ on the cross and/or the blood of Christ is associated with reconciliation — Ephesians 2:16.

3. Reconciliation is related to man. In concept of reconciliation mankind is regarded as the enemy of God — Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:21.

4. Peace is the synonym for reconciliation. Reconciliation finds man the enemy of God, but the saving work of Christ on the cross brings peace between God and man — cf. Ephesians 2:14 to 2:16, and Colossians 1:20.

5. Reconciliation is portrayed in the Levitical offerings — the peace offering, Leviticus chapter three depicts the doctrine of reconciliation and/or Christ removing the barrier between man and God. This is also taught in Leviticus 7:11-38; 8:15.

6. The application of reconciliation to the royal family. Every member of the royal family [Church Age believer] is an ambassador — 2 Corinthians 5:18-20.

7. The prophecy of reconciliation. The fact that Christ would literally remove the barrier by His saving work on the cross and/or His expiatory sacrifice, and/or the blood of Christ, is prophesied — Isaiah 57:19.

8. The mechanics of reconciliation. There are six: a) Sin is removed from the barrier by unlimited atonement and redemption. The doctrine of unlimited atonement simply says Christ died for everyone’s sins. Redemption is the actual mechanic of removing sins. Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree. Unlimited atonement — 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15, 19; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2. Redemption — Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18,19. b) The penalty of sin is removed from the barrier by expiation — Colossians 2:14; amplified in Psalm 22:1-6. Expiation simply means Christ paid the penalty of sin and that is what the blood of Christ is all about. He is an expiatory sacrifice. c) The problem of physical birth is removed from the barrier by regeneration — John 3:1-18; 1 Peter 1:23; Titus 3:5. d) relative righteousness or human good is removed from the barrier by two factors connected with the cross: imputation and justification. Imputation — Romans 3:22; 9:30-10:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9; Hebrews 10:14. Justification — Romans 4:1-5, 25; 5:1; 8:29,30; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:7. Imputation must come first, it is crediting to our account God’s righteousness. Once +R is credited to our account God looks over and says, “Vindicated” and/or “Justified”. e) The problem of God’s perfect character is removed from the barrier by propitiation — Romans 3:22-26; 1 John 2:1,2. f) The problem of position in Adam is removed from the barrier by positional sanctification — 1 Corinthians 15:22, “In Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive”; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 1:3-6.

The doctrine of propitiation

1. By definition propitiation is the Godward side of salvation whereby the essence of God is made compatible with man’s salvation through Jesus Christ. Propitiation means satisfaction. God the Father is satisfied with the work of God the Son on the cross. He is satisfied so that His own person, His righteousness and justice, is not compromised. The impeccability of Christ satisfies the righteousness of the Father and Christ being judged for our sins, and expiatory sacrifice, satisfies the justice of the Father.

2. Propitiation was communicated to Israel through the mercy seat — Exodus 25:17-22; 37:6-9.

3. Propitiation is appropriated by faith and is the basis for the imputation of divine righteousness — Romans 3:25,26.

4. Propitiation is related to the work of Christ on the cross — Leviticus 16:13-16.

5. The mercy seat represented the presence of God — Ephesians 25:22; Leviticus 16:2; Numbers 7:89.

6. The New Testament confirms the importance of the mercy seat — Hebrews 9:5.

7. Propitiation is related to unlimited atonement — 1 John 2:2.

8. Propitiation demonstrates the perfect love of God — 1 John 4:10.

9. Therefore, propitiation is used to express the celebrityship of Christ — Romans 3:25.

10. The importance of propitiation can be observed from the existence of the tables of law, the ark of the covenant. That helps us to understand, then, the true function of the law. The law is not an instrument of justification, says Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16. The law is an instrument of condemnation to both Jew and Gentile — Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:21,22; 1 Timothy 1:9,10. The purpose of the law was to curse mankind with a hopeless curse — Galatians 3:10 — and only the work of Christ on the cross can remove that curse — Galatians 3:13. The law does not produce righteousness which has credit with God, it produces self-righteousness — Philippians 3:9. Many Jews of the previous dispensation failed because they attempted to be saved by righteousness produced from the law — Romans 9:30-33. The law cannot provide justification Acts 13:39. Therefore the prayer of the publican in Luke 18:13. He did not say “be merciful”, he said “be propitious to me, the sinner”.

11. The only approach to God is through propitiation. a) Men are not saved by begging God for mercy, they are saved when the dare to believe that God has been propitiated by the cross. b) God cannot be merciful toward the sinner in the sense of being generous or lenient, and the publican did not ask God to do the impossible. c) God cannot be merciful without propitiation which removes the compromise to His righteousness and justice. d) The publican demanded God to be propitious, which is compatible with the divine plan of grace, which is compatible with His essence. e) Being merciful excludes Christ, excludes the blood, but being propitious includes Christ and includes the blood of Christ. f) Therefore the publican said it right when he said, “O God, be propitious to me, the sinner”.

Verse 18 — the shadow blood of the old covenant. We start out with the adverb 0(qen. It means “from which fact, for which reason.” So instead of the word “Whereupon” which is old English we have three simple English words which correctly translate the adverb here — “From which fact.” The adverb always picks up like a magnet some fact in the periphery. The previous verse, verse 17, is the fact to which the adverb refers. Verse 17 says literally, “For a covenant is valid upon the deaths, because it is not even valid as long as the one having made the covenant lives.” If the validity of the new covenant depends upon the spiritual death of Christ, even so the validity of the shadow covenant [the Mosaic law] depended upon the shadow of blood of animals for its validity. In other words, real blood of animals made the Mosaic law valid, ratified it. The figurative blood of Christ ratifies two new covenants, one to Israel and one to the Church. “From which fact”: the fact is the ratifying of a covenant by blood.

Next we have the negative conjunction o)ude which means “not even.” The word “first” is a nominative feminine from prwtoj referring to the Mosaic law, the old covenant or the first covenant. We have prwtoj here connoting something which is first in order of time. The Mosaic law came before the new covenants. It was the authorising agent for all of the shadow worship of the Old Testament, ie, the Age of Israel.

“was dedicated” — the perfect passive indicative of e)gkainizw which means to inaugurate, and it should be translated “not even the first has been inaugurated.” The perfect tense is a consummative perfect, it refers to a completed action but it emphasises the process by which the action was completed. Basically there are two types of perfect tense. The intensive perfect: the action of the verb is completed and the results go on and on. The consummative perfect indicates that the action is completed at point X but it goes back and emphasises the process by which the action was completed. So it is the exact antithesis of the intensive perfect. The intensive perfect always talks about the lingering and continual results but the consummative perfect always tells you how you got the action completed. So we have here the process by which the action was completed. The inauguration has a process. The passive voice: the Mosaic law receives the action of the verb as the subject. The declarative indicative mood views the action of the verb from the standpoint of reality. The inauguration always occurred by the sprinkling of blood. How was the inauguration carried out? By animal blood.

“without blood” — we have an adverb used as a preposition, xwrij, and the object of the preposition is a(ima — “blood.”

So we have, “From which fact not even the first covenant [Mosaic law] had been inaugurated without blood.”

Summary

1. The shadow blood of animals was used to inaugurate the first covenant. The first covenant was the Mosaic law, a shadow covenant. Shadows were used to inaugurate it — blood of animals.

2. The shadow blood was real animal blood pointing to the reality of the blood of Christ, the efficacious, expiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross bearing our sins, being judged for our sins.

3. So again, the representative analogy between the physical death of the animal on the altar and the spiritual death of Christ on the cross.

4. The animal blood used for the dedication of the first covenant portrayed the saving work of Christ on the cross.

5. Moses sprinkled animal blood in dedication — Exodus 24:3-8. Therefore, the old covenant or the Mosaic law was dedicated with blood.

6. As the shadow blood of the animals consecrated the first covenant so the blood of Christ, His expiatory sacrifice, consecrated the new covenant to the Church.

7. Animal blood validated the Mosaic law. The expiatory sacrifice of Christ’s spiritual death on the cross validated the new covenant — as illustrated by the tearing of the veil in the temple.

In verses 19-21 we have the historical dedication with shadow blood discussed.

Verse 19 — we start out with the conjunctive particle gar used as an explanatory conjunction. Next we have lalhqeishj which is the aorist passive participle of the verb lalew which means to speak, to communicate, and so on. It is part of a genitive absolute. Moses is not only not the subject but Moses is the object of a preposition further down the line. The subject is pashj e)ntolhj which comes next, and it is a genitive. In fact we have pashj which the genitive singular of paj; e)ntolhj is the genitive of the noun e)ntolh. It is in the genitive case, but in a genitive absolute the genitive case noun is the subject of the genitive aorist passive participle. The aorist tense of lalew is a culminative aorist in which the action of the verb is viewed from the standpoint of its entirety, but it is regarded also from the standpoint of its existing results. The culminative aorist looks at the results. The action of the verb is the entire ball of wax here, the entire concept, but the emphasis is on results. This is a culminative aorist. The passive voice: the subject receives the action of the verb but Moses isn’t the subject. The participle is not only a temporal participle, which means it will be translated like a temporal clause, but it also has antecedent action to the main verb, the main verb is “sprinkled.” So this happened before the blood was sprinkled.

So far this is what we have in this sentence: “For when every commandment had been spoken”. Moses gave them the information. He spoke twice. First he spoke off-the-cuff, then he wrote all night and read it to them again. And the message came before the ratification and/or dedication, before the blood was sprinkled. Why? Because you had to either say yes or no to the message.

Now we have a prepositional phrase, kata plus the accusative of nomoj, and it means “according to the law.” Then we have Moses, the object of the preposition — u(po plus the ablative of Mwusewj, and u(po plus the ablative is “by means of”, it connotes agency. Moses didn’t speak every precept , it actually says “For every commandment had been spoken according to the law by Moses.” In other words, as we saw from the passage in Exodus, Moses communicated this information twice. And it was accurate both times — kata plus nomoj. When he gave it right off the top of his head it was just the way God wanted him to give it. When he wrote it, it was just the way he gave it the day before. Both times the people agreed, their volition was involved. Then Moses went ahead and sprinkled them. The tabernacle was sprinkled with blood, the table of shewbread was sprinkled with blood, the golden candlestick was sprinkled with blood, the priestly garments were sprinkled with blood, the altar, the brass laver, all of these things at the point of their construction and inauguration were sprinkled with blood.

“by Moses” — Moses is the means of communication, but the subject of the genitive absolute is “every commandment.”

“to all the people” — the dative singular indirect object of both paj and laoj.

So we have, “For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to the people, according to the law.”

“he took” — aorist active participle of lambanw. It is a participle and should be translated “having taken.” This is a constative aorist which gathers up into entirety the action of the verb. In other words, how long it took him to do it. The active voice: Moses produced the action of the verb in Exodus 24:3-8. The participle has antecedent action to the main verb. The main verb is sprinkled, so it should be translated “after he had taken” or “after having taken”.

“the blood” — the accusative singular direct object, a(ima. And it is the blood of mosxoj, the descriptive genitive plural mosxoj — “young bulls”; “and of goats”, the descriptive genitive plural of tragoj — male goats. The blood of bulls and goats are shadows which validated the Mosaic law or the first covenant. The bull was offered for Moses himself and the goat for the people.

“with water” — the preposition meta plus the genitive singular of u(dor. The water represents the Word or doctrine in such passages as Ezekiel 16:9 cf Ephesians 5:26. It is so used in Exodus 15:25 for doctrine, making bitter experiences sweet. In Psalm 23:2 water is used for doctrine which provides rest and refreshment for the believer. So water is simply indicating that the doctrine that was in the Torah as Moses gave it — the law — is dedicated by blood, but water represents the actual content of what Moses gave them. It all had doctrinal content.

“and scarlet wool” — a genitive singular of kokkinoj with e)rion. It has a preposition with it, meta, and should be translated “and with it a scarlet woollen cloth”. The blood was collected in a woollen cloth for sprinkling. All of the people were sprinkled. In other words, what Moses did was dip the cloth in the basin and then sprinkle the people with it. He also had another system for sprinkling the people which is mentioned here called “hyssop.” The Greek uses the word u(sswpoj. It is a plant which collects liquid and then distributes it. It is a plant which acted like the wool and collected the blood for sprinkling. It would absorb the blood and then when it was shaken it would splatter out. So the hyssop and the scarlet cloth are sprinklers. They were also used at other times — the red heifer offering in Numbers 19:6; the offering of the cleansed leper in Leviticus 14:4-7. In Psalm 51:7 David says, related to the rebound offering, “Purify me with hyssop and I shall be clean.” That verse says exactly the same as 1 John 1:7, “The blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son. cleanses us from all sin.” David was looking at the shadow and John was looking at the reality.

The meaning of these shadows is obvious. The water represents Bible doctrine residing in the believer’s soul. The scarlet wool and the hyssop were used to sprinkle blood or to apply blood. Hence, they are related to 1 John 1:7. The red heifer offering of Numbers 19 was a rebound offering. Therefore the use of sprinkling of blood. The scarlet wool and the hyssop were used for applying blood in Numbers 19:6. Therefore they are shadows portraying the importance of rebound and the function of GAP for the royal priesthood. Note the order of the ritual of dedication. First the blood of the young bulls and goats, portraying salvation, then the sprinkling of that blood portraying rebound. In effect, every time you confess a sin or name a sin to God under the rebound technique you are sprinkling the blood.

“and” — is out of place. We have those classical Greek conjunctions te kai, and it should be translated “both and.” Notice is says, “both the book”. Biblion here indicates a rolled scroll.

“sprinkled” — aorist active indicative of the verb rantixw which means to sprinkle. The aorist tense is a culminative aorist, it views the action of sprinkling the book, the sprinkling of the people, the sprinkling of the altar, and eventually everything that was inaugurated for the first time under the law — the tabernacle, the brazen altar, the brazen laver, and so on — but it emphasises the existing results. Once Moses sprinkles something with blood it was validated, it was Israel’s spiritual legacy, Israel’s spiritual heritage from that time on. The active voice: Moses produced the action of the verb. In other words, when he sprinkled blood on the scroll of the Torah that was their sacred book at that time and still is. The indicative mood is declarative plus the fact that the declarative indicative here indicates the main verb for all of these aorist participles. The action of all of these aorist participles is antecedent to the main verb.

Translation: “For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the law, after he had taken the blood of young bulls and goats, and with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, he sprinkled both the written scroll, and all of the people.”

The water was used to make the blood sprinkle out of both the scarlet cloth and also the hyssop. Water actually made the sprinklers work. In other words, the reason that you can learn doctrine now it is because you already have doctrine. We are talking about the blood of Christ but this isn’t something simple. It is simple to hear that Christ died for your sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But the complexities of grace which structurise your salvation is the application of grace to your whole life, now and forever. When straight doctrine is taught some understand it and some don’t. It flows into the soul of some because they have water to make it flow. But some have a mind like a clogged-up pen and therefore they will not understand until they get some other things first which are more basic. So the water made the sprinkler system work; doctrine makes it possible to understand more doctrine.

Verse 20 — “Saying”, present active participle of legw. He said this over and over and over again. The present participle is a retroactive progressive present, which means he kept doing it again and again — linear aktionsart.

“This” — the nominative singular demonstrative pronoun o(utoj. O(utoj as a demonstrative pronoun always refers to something in the immediate periphery of the context, and here it refers to the blood. In other words, This is the blood. As he sprinkled these people he would says, “This is the blood”.

“of the testament” — literally, “of the covenant”, the genitive singular from diaqhkh. Diaqhkh always refers to a spiritual legacy. Our covenant is in force because Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree; their covenant was in force because the shadows were executed, or slaughtered, on the altar.

“which” is also a genitive singular of the relative pronoun o(j, and it refers to diaqhkh or covenant.

“God” — o( qeoj, “the God”, God the Father. The definite article here indicates someone with whom they were familiar. The knew Him. So the definite article is used here to indicate someone who is well known to those who are the listeners as well as to the speaker, and they all knew who God the Father was.

“hath enjoined” — the aorist active indicative of e)ntellomai which means to command. It is a dramatic aorist. God the Father produces the action, He does the commanding. The declarative indicative is the reality and the dogmatic fact that God has ordered this.

Then we have proj plus the accusative of the personal pronoun su in the plural, and it means “pertaining to you” here.

Translation: “Saying, This is the blood of the covenant which the God has commanded pertaining to you.” You Jews are responsible from now until the cross to portray who and what Christ is by means of these shadows. You must be faithful in the function of these shadows, but you can’t be faithful unless you have doctrine in your souls.

Verse 21 — “Moreover”, the adjunctive use of the conjunction kai and should be translated “Also.” This is at a later time, it indicates the elapse of time. First of all they had to build these things.

“he sprinkled” — the aorist active indicative of rantizw — “with blood” should be “by means of blood”, the instrumental singular of a(ima.

“the tabernacle, and all of the equipment,” literally. The word “vessels” means all of the equipment.

“of the ministry” — this is a possessive genitive from leitourgia which means “priestly ministry”.

Translation: “Also he sprinkled with that same blood the tabernacle, and all of the equipment of the priestly ministry.”

This occurred at a later time in Exodus 40 in which chapter Moses set up the tabernacle, and in verse 33 Moses finished the tabernacle and dedicated it with blood. Everything, as it came into function, was inaugurated by blood.

Verse 22 — the Mosaic law is authorised by shadow blood, the Mosaic law was validated by shadow blood. There is nothing of the function and worship of the past dispensation of Israel that was authorised apart from blood.

Our first word is “And”, the cotinuative use of the conjunction kai. “And almost” — here is an adverb sxedon, meaning “nearly.” There were a few exceptions so sxedon is used.

“all things” — the nominative plural of paj refers to the people, the written scroll of the Torah, the tabernacle, the priesthood, the various articles of equipment. Therefore we have everything related to the shadow covenant had to be dedicated with shadow blood, the blood of animal sacrifices. This adverb qualifies the entire clause. There are very few exceptions to the blood dedication. One of them is given in Exodus 19:10 where the people washed their clothes with water for the special delivery at Sinai. Another exception is found in the turtle dove offerings of the trespass category where no blood was shed — Leviticus 5:11. Another exception is the unclean man because of some discharge from his body, some infection. If there is any puss going from his body he is an exception to this. Another exception is anything related to certain kinds of ceremonial impurities. Water was used instead of blood in these cases — Leviticus 15:5, 6, 7, 8; Numbers 16:46-50 — incense was used. But these exceptions are rare and have special inference and meaning.

“by the law” — the preposition kata plus the accusative of nomoj, “according to the law” or “according to the standard of the law.”

“are purged” — the present passive indicative from kaqarizw which means to be clean, to be purified, or to be an expiatory offering, or to be purified by an expiatory offering. The present tense is an iterative present, it describes what recurred at successive intervals. So this is the present tense of repeated action. The passive voice indicates that the subject receives the action of the verb; the subject: “nearly all things.” The indicative mood is declarative which views the action from the viewpoint of reality and sets up a dogmatic category.

“with blood” — the preposition e)n plus the instrumental of a(ima — “by means of blood”, animal blood, the shadows pointing to the reality.

Then we have again the continuative use of kai — “and without shedding of blood.” Blood here refers to animal blood, animals only. It does not refer to the blood of Christ. Furthermore, we have an adverb used as a secondary preposition — xwrij, meaning apart from or without.

“shedding” — a genitive singular compound noun, a(imatekxusia which means pouring out of blood. It always is used for animals bleeding to death from a cut in the throat. It does not refer to Jesus Christ. It refers to the shadows which validated, authorised, dedicated, consecrated and inaugurated the Mosaic law.

“is no” — a present active indicative of ginomai plus the strong negative o)uk. O)uk is used with the indicative for a definite prohibition.

“remission” — a)fesij means the act of forgiveness — pardon, cancellation or forgiveness.

Translation: “And according to the law nearly all things are cleansed with [animal] blood; and without the pouring out of [animal] blood pardon [or forgiveness] does not happen.”

In the old dispensation of Israel, the dispensation where the Mosaic law was valid, all forgiveness and pardon was represented in the shedding of animal blood. This does not refer to Jesus Christ bleeding from His veins, nor does it refers to the blood of Christ which is redemption plus reconciliation plus propitiation. This is not a salvation verse, this verse is dealing with the manner in which the old covenant was dedicated an inaugurated. It refers to the validity of the whole Levitical system which was always based upon animals bleeding to death on an altar.

Summary

1. This passage has been taken out of its context by nearly everyone to apply to the blood of Christ. That is the problem here. It has nothing directly to do with salvation, it has to do with how the Mosaic law was validated. The Mosaic law is a covenant, all covenants must be validated. They must be validated on the basis of spiritual death in reality or that which portrays spiritual death in shadows.

2. This verse deals with the shadow blood of animal sacrifices under the Mosaic law rather than the precious blood of Christ which is His expiatory sacrifice.

3. This verse, therefore, makes no brief for the literal shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross for salvation. To the contrary, it does very strenuously portray the figurative blood of Christ — redemption plus reconciliation plus propitiation.

4. Remember that Christ had both literal and figurative blood. There is no significance from bleeding from His hands and His feet, except that He was alive and truly human. It has no salvation significance whatever.

5. The literal or physical blood of Christ was shed sometime during His first three hours on the cross, it came from His hands and from His feet and His blood coagulated rapidly so that there was no appreciable loss of blood. He did not die by bleeding to death, nor did the loss of blood from His hands and His feet in any way affect His health. There was no salvation significance.

6. Therefore the literal blood of Christ has no significance at the cross as far as salvation is concerned.

7. At the cross it was the figurative blood of Christ bearing our sins and being judged for them.

8. The figurative blood of Christ represents the saving work of Christ on the cross, His expiatory sacrifice, His bearing our sins in His own body, being judged at the cross.

9. The shadow blood of animals was real or literal blood; the figurative blood of Christ fulfilled the shadows, the real figurative blood of Christ being His saving work.

10. Hebrews 9:22 deals with the shadow blood animal sacrifices and its function in validating the Mosaic law, consecrating the Mosaic law. In other words, the Mosaic law authorises the shadow blood of animals to administer pardon and forgiveness as well as cleansing, and to continue administering it until the cross. Therefore cleansing, pardon, forgiveness, were all administered through animal sacrifices, the shadow blood. In the typology the cleansing comes through the shadow blood, but eventually in the elapse of time it became necessary for the reality. All the shadows could do was to point to the reality, and they did. Reality occurred on the cross when Jesus Christ became a sacrifice for us.

Verse 23 — the relationship between shadow blood and reality. “It was” is not found in the original. The Greek text begins, “Therefore necessary.” We have the word a)nagkh which means “of necessity.” We also have with this the inferential particle o)un, and it should be translated “Of necessity therefore” — in view of the last paragraph.

Next we have “on the one hand.” We have the little classical Greek particles again, ta men.

“the pattern of things” is one word, the accusative plural from the noun u(podeigma which is part of an accusative of general reference. In the accusative of general reference you find a noun in the accusative case. Generally that is the object of the verb. Here it becomes the subject and it is the subject of the infinitive. Actually it really isn’t the subject of the infinitive, we say that to over simplify it. It really describes the action of the infinitive. Therefore it is translated like a subject. So u(podeigma means “copy, imitation, model” or “example”, not “pattern of things.” Literally then, this is what we have so far: “Of necessity therefore, on the one hand, that the copies, models, or shadows of things.”

“of things” is the genitive plural with the definite article and it refers to something specific in context, given next in a prepositional phrase.

“in the heavens” — e)n plus the locative of o)uranoj. In other words, everything in the tabernacle pointed to something in heaven or something that would occur at the cross.

“should be purified” — present passive infinitive of kaqarizw, which means to be cleansed. The present tense is an iterative present referring to any time when animal sacrifices were used. The passive voice: the copies or the models receive the action of the verb — cleansing. The infinitive indicates the accusative of general reference.

“but” — literally, “but on the other hand”, following the classical Greek. We have de and men, two untranslatable particles which we simply render by “on the one hand; on the other hand.”

“the heavenly things” — literally, “the heavenly realities themselves”; “with better sacrifices” — the word “better” is the instrumental plural kreitton, the comparative of a)gaqoj which refers to something which has intrinsic value always. Therefore the sacrifice of Christ always has intrinsic value.

The translation: “Of necessity therefore, on the one hand, that the copies of the things in the heavens be cleansed with these shadows; but on the other hand the heavenly realities themselves with better sacrifices than these [shadows of the animal blood] .”

Summary

1. While the copies or models, the tabernacle with all of its furniture, can be cleansed with animal blood, the reality can only be cleansed with reality. The reality is the blood of Christ and/or His efficacious sacrifice on the cross bearing our sins and being judged for us.

2. Animal blood therefore is only a shadow pointing to the better sacrifice, Jesus Christ bearing our sins.

3. The principle emerges: The shadows can only purify shadows; reality must be purified by reality.

4. Note how the angelic conflict is brought back from the first two chapters of Hebrews. Heaven as well as the earth participated in man’s conflict, man’s sin. The conflict with evil, the angelic conflict, began in heaven and extended to the earth. It began in the angelic realm and then extended to the earth through the fall of Adam.

5. The conflict was resolved on earth at the cross. Now the cleansing extends to heaven.

6. The Bible actually teaches that as a result of the angelic conflict heaven was not clean — Job 4:18; 15:15; 25:5.

7. The shadow of the tabernacle could be cleansed with shadow animal blood, but the reality, heaven itself, had to be cleansed with the reality — the precious blood of Jesus Christ, His saving work on the cross. Shadows can teach the fact of reality but shadows cannot do the work of reality.

In verses 24-28 we have the shadow of the priestly functions. This is the fourth shadow we have seen in this passage. We have seen the shadow of the tabernacle, the shadow of the blood, the shadow of the covenant. Now we have the shadow of the modus operandi of the Levitical priesthood.

Verse 24 — the priestly function in the holy of holies. We start with the holy of holies because this is crucial to everything. The veil in the temple was sixty feet high and thirty feet wide. It took three hundred priests to lift it into place. It was made up of seventy squares that had to be made separately and then sewed together. For a veil to be split from the top to the bottom it had to be a miracle: God did it. It is important to understand that the veil has been ripped.

“For” is the conjunctive particle gar used to add further explanation; “Christ” — this time we have the name for Christ without the definite article. This emphasises the quality of the noun. The quality is emphasised here not only in the hypostatic union but Christ fulfilling the shadows of the old covenant, the Mosaic law.

“is not entered” — the aorist active indicative of e)iserxomai, used for the high priest entering the holy of holies on the day of atonement. The negative o)uk here says He does not enter, or literally, “For Christ has not entered.” The aorist tense is a constative aorist, it contemplates the action of the verb in its entirety, it takes an occurrence regardless of its extent or duration and gathers it up into a single whole. And here the constative aorist summarises the function of the high priest on the day of atonement, emphasising the fact that he went first of all to the golden altar in the holy place. Then twice he went through the curtains, once for himself and once for the people, and he sprinkled blood on the mercy seat. Then when he came back out he made an appearance to the people. In fact he made two appearances. They didn’t understand the appearances; we do. One appearance is the Rapture and one is the second advent. The holy of holies is heaven. Going in is a picture of Christ being resurrected, ascending, and being seated at the right hand of the Father. The high priest in the holy of holies depicts Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father, but He leaves the right hand of the Father to meet us in the air at the Rapture and then He returns to the earth. So the second appearance of the high priest outside after the second offering is a picture of the second advent of Christ. The active voice plus the negative o)uk indicates that Christ did not fulfil the shadows in relationship to the tabernacle but in relationship to earth and heaven itself. Earth is depicted by the place of the brazen altar and laver. Heaven is depicted by the holy of holies. So there was heaven and earth depicted in the actual function of the priest. The indicative mood is the declarative indicative for a dogma of doctrine. Christ did not enter the holy of holies as the high priest of old did but He ascended into the third heaven which is the real holy of holies.

“into the holy places” — e)ij plus the accusative plural of a(goij. A(goij in the plural always refers to the holy of holies. So it should be translated “into a holy of holies.”

“made with human hands” — Christ did not enter into anything made with human hands. When Christ was alive on earth we have the second temple. Christ never entered the holy of holies. He entered, not the shadow but the reality.

Then we have the word “figures”, and the accusative neuter plural from a)ntitupoj means a copy or a representation; “of the true” means “of the reality”, a)lhqinoj means reality and so it should be translated “a copy of the reality.” The holy of holies is a copy, a shadow, it is not the reality. This is also emphasised by the adversative conjunction a)lla which sets up a direct antithesis between the first and second clauses, a contrast between Christ not entering the shadow holy of holies but entering the real holy of holies.

“into heaven itself” — we have another e)ij prepositional phrase here, and then we have with it an adverb, “now” — nun; “to appear” — the aorist passive infinitive of e)mfainizw which means to become visible, but in the passive voice it means to show one’s self. Therefore as a passive voice it is translated the active voice of “to appear.” The culminative aorist is employed to view an event in its entirety but to regard it from the viewpoint of existing results. So this culminative aorist recognises that Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, session. All of these things are gathered up into one ball of wax with existing results, the royal family on the earth. And the tragedy is that the royal family should ever spend one second thinking that there is some mysterious, abstruse meaning to Christ bleeding when there is not. The royal priesthood should know better. We live in reality, there are no shadows. “But into heaven itself now to appear” — once Christ appears the Mosaic law, the Levitical system, the specialised priesthood — is abrogated. The passive voice: Christ is His ascension receives the action of the verb. He has now appeared at the right hand of the Father as our great high priest. The infinitive expresses the result of the resurrection. As a result of His efficacious death, burial, resurrection, it is now necessary for Christ to appear in heaven so that He can appear in the first heaven to meet us and so that He can appear again on the earth to be crowned as David’s greater son, King of kings forever.

“in the presence of God” — this is portraying the ascension. We have the locative of sphere proswpon, which means “in the presence of the God.” Then “for us” is u(per plus the ablative plural of egw, which is correctly translated, or better “on behalf of us.” The personal pronoun refers to you, a member of the royal family of God. Because Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father the Jewish age is interrupted because it is out of gas, the Mosaic law was abrogated and something brand new came into existence. We now have the Church Age, the age of the royal family.

Translation: “For Christ had not entered into a holy of holies made with human hands, a copy of the reality [the third heaven]; but into heaven itself to appear in the presence of God the Father on behalf of us.”

“On behalf of us” means so that we could be blessed in time.

The doctrine of ascension

1. The ascension is that doctrine of Christology pertaining to our Lord’s [in hypostatic union] change of residence from earth to the third heaven. It is portrayed by the high priest once a year on the day of atonement, going from the brazen altar to the holy of holies. As he went to the holy of holies so Jesus Christ went from the cross to the third heaven. The change of residence was accomplished in the resurrection body of our Lord.

2. The capabilities of the resurrection body, therefore, come into focus. Our Lord could not ascend in His human body. But in a resurrection body our Lord could travel horizontally or vertically. His resurrection body was capable of unlimited space travel. The humanity of Christ in His resurrection body travelled through the heavens to the third heaven.

3. The reception and acknowledgment of the Son at the right hand of the Father is important. When Jesus Christ got to heaven there was a change that the priest in the holy of holies never did. There was a mercy seat but the priest never sat in it. When the Levitical priest went into the holy of holies he sprinkled blood on the seat but he didn’t sit there. There was no place to sit down in the tabernacle, but when Jesus Christ goes to heaven He sits down at the right hand of the Father — Psalm 110:1; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22. The session of Christ confirms the acceptability of the resurrected Christ. It confirms and acknowledges the validity of His bearing our sins, His efficacious sacrifice known also as the blood of Christ.

4. The celebrityship of Christ. The ascension and session of Christ completes His glorification in hypostatic union — Acts 2:33; 5:31; Philippians 2:9; 1 Peter 3:22. As God Jesus Christ is pre-eminent. As the God-Man seated at the right hand of the Father Jesus Christ is unique, overwhelming distinction of nobility is His. He has the most illustrious celebrityship of all time.

5. The strategical victory of the angelic conflict is accomplished at the same time. The ascension and session of Jesus Christ forms the basis for our Lord’s strategic victory in the angelic conflict — Hebrews 1:3-13. Furthermore, the ascension and session of Christ begin a new sphere of the angelic conflict, the intensified stage which is the Church Age — Ephesians 1:20-22; 4:7-10. This means that the Church Age believer, royal family of God, is involved in the intensified stage of the angelic conflict.

6. We have the ascension and the formation of the royal family. Christ in resurrection body is seated alone at the right hand of the Father. God the Father does not leave Him alone, a royal family is formed for the last Adam. The royal family is formed by means of the baptism of the Spirit and for the first time in history God the Holy Spirit takes every believer at the point of salvation and enters him into union with Christ. We are resident positionally in the palace forever. This could not occur until Christ was glorified — John 7:37-39.

7. The ascension and the new priesthood. The ascension and session of Christ sets aside the Levitical priesthood of the interrupted dispensation of Israel. When the Tribulation resumes the Age of Israel there will be no Levitical priesthood in function. All of the spiritual function for the last seven years of the Age of Israel will centre in the 144,000 Jews called out of every tribe for spiritual leadership. There will be no function of the Levitical priesthood in the Tribulation even though there will be a false temple set up by a false Messiah. Not until the second advent will there be any resumption of the Levitical priesthood and then under the new covenant, not under the old covenant to Israel. So we have the ascension and session of Christ setting aside the Levitical priesthood of Israel, and now instead we have a royal priesthood made up of every believer — 1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6. Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father is the new high priest — Hebrews 10. He even makes intercession for the royal family — Hebrews 7:25.

8. The ascension and the ultimate defeat of Satan. The ascension is the first phase in Satan’s ultimate defeat — operation footstool. Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father until His enemies are made His footstool. His enemies include Satan — Luke 20:42,43; Zechariah 13:2; Colossians 2:15; Revelation 20:1-3. When Christ returns the second stage will be the binding of Satan and the removal of all demons from the earth. The final stage occurs in putting down the Gog and Magog rebellion at the end of the Millennium.

9. The ascension verifies the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross bearing our sins. In other words, the ascension ratifies and verifies the blood of Christ — Hebrews 9:23,24. The Levitical high priest entered the holy of holies on the day of atonement. This was a shadow pointing to Christ entering the third heaven or the real holy of holies on behalf of the royal family of God.

In verses 25 and 26 we have the function of the high priest at the brazen altar, or the function of any of the Levitical priests.

Verse 25 — “Nor yet,” a negative conjunction o(ude, it should be translated “And not”. Next comes the word “that.” This conjunction introduces a purpose clause. I(na plus the subjunctive of the main verb always introduces a purpose clause.

”he should offer” — a present active subjunctive of prosferw, used for offering an animal sacrifice and then later on for the efficacious sacrifice of Christ. Here it is used for the Old Testament Levitical priest offering a sacrifice on the Levitical altar, the brass altar. The present tense is retroactive progressive present, denoting what has begun in the past and continues into the present time. That is, at the time that this occurred historically it had been going on for a long time. It was authorised by the Mosaic law and once the consecration of the Levitical priesthood occurred and they began to function in their modus operandi, specified and authorised by the law, this continued daily. There was always a priest at the brazen altar, he was always offering an animal, and the animal always portrayed the blood of Christ and/or redemption plus reconciliation plus propitiation, or the saving work of Christ on the cross. We have the active voice with the negative conjunction and that denotes that Christ did not enter heaven many times, but once. The subjunctive mood is used here for the purpose clause.

The word “himself” is the accusative singular of the direct object from the reflexive pronoun e(autou which always has great emphasis. This is the genitive form, the nominative does not occur at such an emphatic reflexive pronoun.

“often” means many times, pollakij.

Literally, it reads so far: “And not that he should offer himself many times.” Christ did not have to offer Himself day in and day out as the Levitical priests did. In contrast to the high priest of Israel or any of the Levitical priesthood Jesus Christ offers once, enters the holy of holies once, and that is it. Just once He performed a perfect efficacious sacrifice and therefore this is never repeated.

“as” — the adverb of comparison, w(sper. It refers now to the Levitical order — o( a)rxiereuj, the high priest of Israel. A)rxiereuj refers to the high priest because we have specifically the day of atonement. On the day of atonement only the high priest could offer the sacrifice. Seven days before he offered those sacrifices he went through a very strong system of purification. After seven days, on the day of atonement, he came to the altar. First of all he offered for himself a young bull. Then he carried the blood past the first veil, past the second veil, and he sprinkled that blood in the holy of holies on the mercy seat. Then he came out, and the second time he offered one of the two goats. One goat was turned loose and one goat was sacrificed, and he took the blood of that goat in and sprinkled so that we have the cross portrayed by those sacrifices — that is, redemption and reconciliation. But the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat in the holy of holies portrayed propitiation. The only place where blood was sprinkled as a rule was around the altar but on this occasion blood was sprinkled in the holy of holies because the holy of holies represents the presence of God, and inasmuch as the mercy seat represents propitiation and inasmuch as God is propitiated the blood always had to be sprinkled in there and never anywhere else. That is the only reason the high priest ever went into the holy of holies — to portray propitiation. God is satisfied with the work of Christ. The young bull and the goat represented the work of Christ on the cross. The young bull represented reconciliation and the goat which was sacrificed represented the principle of redemption. So we have redemption plus reconciliation at the brass altar. Then we have propitiation at the mercy seat. The combination of the three equals the blood of Christ.

“entereth” — the present active indicative of the verb e)iserxomai which means to enter into something. The present tense is an historical present which views past event with the vividness of a present occurrence. In other words, when we read this we are supposed to see in our mind’s eye 1500 times over a period of 1500 years many different high priests carrying a golden bowl of blood into the holy of holies and sprinkling this blood on the mercy seat. The active voice: the Levitical high priest produced the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative which views the action of the verb from the standpoint of historical reality.

“into the holy place” — e)ij plus the accusative plural of a(gioj. A(gioj in the plural always means holy of holies, never the holy place. So it should be “into the holy of holies”.

“every year” is kata plus the accusative of e)niautoj which means year by year or annually. “with blood” — the preposition e)n plus the instrumental of a(ima — “by means of blood”.

“of others” is the instrumental singular of a)llotrioj and it means “alien blood”. Alien blood is animal blood. It means that when the high priest was carrying blood to sprinkle in the holy of holies it was alien to the blood of Christ. Furthermore, a)llotrioj means that the blood of Christ cannot be the blood in His human veins, it has to be His work on the cross. It means that it is entirely different.

Translation: “And not that he [Christ] should offer himself many times, just as the [Levitical] high priest enters into the holy of holies year by year by means of alien [animal] blood.”

Summary

1. Christ does not follow the pattern of the Levitical high priest who functioned under shadows. Christ was fulfilling the reality, He was no functioning under shadows.

2. The Levitical high priest on his annual trek into the holy of holies offered animal or alien blood. Therefore it had to be repeated. Alien blood is a shadow, it cannot cleanse from sin. Without the shedding of alien blood there is no pardon. Alien blood could pardon in the Old Testament because it pointed to the real blood of Christ which is His redemption plus reconciliation plus propitiation.

3. But Christ made one ascension after one perfect efficacious offering. He offered Himself under the principle of the blood of Christ.

4. The blood of Christ is His saving work on the cross and/or His spiritual death on the cross and/or His bearing our sins in His own body on the cross and being judged by God the Father.

5. The priestly function at the brass altar on the day of atonement was annual modus operandi.

6. There the high priest offered many animal sacrifices during his tenure of office. Once a year on the day of atonement he offered two specific animal sacrifices: the young bull which was a rebound offering for himself, and then the goat which speaks of the redemptive work of Christ, His work in reconciliation which he offered for the people. But they were shadows pointing to the efficacious offering of Christ on the cross. This efficacious offering preceded His ascension and session.

7. After Christ offered Himself He died physically because the offering was completed. Then He rose again to portray the entrance of the high priest into the holy of holies. Christ entered into the third heaven which is the reality. The holy of holies was the shadow.

8. Under a shadow covenant a high priest offered a shadow sacrifice — the blood of an animal. With the sacrifice he entered into the holy of holies. The shadow sacrifices accurately portray the work of Christ on the cross bearing our sins and taking our place. Having completed the sacrifice the high priest went into the holy of holies with the blood. Christ ascends with the blood also, but not His literal blood, He ascends with His redemptive work. When the Father said “Sit down” He did so because the blood of Christ represents redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation because His saving work was efficacious.

Verse 26 — the first word is a conjunction but it is a causal conjunction, e)pei. It means “Because”.

“then must he” — imperfect active indicative of dew, and it should be translated “Because he would have needed.” This is an idiomatic phrase, it demands the protasis of a second class condition for proper translation. This is an idiom used instead of going into a complete conditional clause. So we have to include in the English for good sense what would be said — “Because if that were true [but it isn’t] then he would have needed.” So the protasis of a second class condition assumes to be untrue that Christ has to offer Himself many times since the foundation of the world. Christ in fulfilling the shadows suffered once, and once was enough because once was efficacious.

“to have suffered” — an aorist active infinitive of pasxw. Pasxw is never used for the fact that Christ was abused, beaten up, flogged, maltreated, etc. Pasxw is when He was bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. This is a dramatic aorist tense, a dramatic aorist from a false conclusion. The active voice: Christ would have produced the action of the verb but He didn’t — the idiom of the second class condition. The infinitive denotes the results of an erroneous conclusion. And again we have pollakij, not for “often” but “many times.”

We have so far: “Because if that were true [but it isn’t] then he would have needed to have suffered many times [which he didn’t].” So by stating the erroneous conclusion we get the correct conclusion.

“since the foundation of the world” — a)po plus the ablative of katabolh, which means from the beginning, not the foundation; “of the world” is a descriptive genitive of kosmoj.

“but now” — nuni de, the temporal adverb plus the adversative use of the conjunctive particle de.

“once” — a(pac, another adverb, a very strong adverb. This is a strong statement. In effect: “Don’t ever get the idea that Christ had to die many times like the animals did, don’t ever mix the shadows with the reality.”

“in the end” — e)pi plus the locative of sunteleia, and it should read “at the consummation”, or “conjunction.” So the correct translation: “But now, once and for all, at the conjunction of the ages.”

What is the conjunction of the dispensations? It is where a dispensation is interrupted and another one begins without ending the previous one. The Age of Israel is not ended, it still has seven years to completion after the Church is raptured. A conjunction is where one thing meets another without finishing up. So what this actually says is that the Age of Israel wasn’t completed. Furthermore, a conjunction is where all of the roads meet, and all of the roads meet at the cross.

“hath he appeared” — the perfect passive indicative of fanerow — “he has been revealed.” He was revealed at the conjunction. Christ was revealed at the conjunction of the dispensations. The perfect tense is a dramatic perfect which describes the completed action of the verb in a dramatic and vivid way, emphasising the completed results of the action. This is the rhetorical use of the intensive perfect, which means not only was His appearance at the conjunction of the ages the most dramatic event in history but it is a dramatic event which has results going retroactively and results going to the end of time. So it is a true conjunction. It is the point of history at which the appearance of one person, the God-Man Jesus Christ, means that we have retroactive as well as future results to the end of history and permanent and eternal results in heaven.

Jesus Christ the God-Man is the only celebrity. He controls history. But more than that, Jesus Christ is the conjunction of history. He is the epitome of everything that is important in history, and everything that is permanent and wonderful and lasting in history. Everything that is glorious in history either looks forward to the cross or looks back to the cross. So that the conjunction of history is the once and for all sacrifice. A sacrifice which is the conjunction of history and is the salvation of all people in history must be once and for all. And when a person approaches that salvation it must be something that occurs once and for all in the instant of decision. That one decision is the instant that you were saved.

The passive voice refers to the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Comparable to the Levitical high priest appearing at the brazen altar on the day of atonement to offer the sacrifice Christ appeared — “he appeared”. It is used for Christ’s appearance on the cross on the day of crucifixion. The high priest appeared at the brazen altar many times, annually, but only once did Christ appear. The indicative mood is the declarative indicative for absolute dogma. The conjunction of the ages is the point of the cross between the dispensation of Israel and the Church.

“to put away sin” — e)ij plus the accusative of a)qethsij which means annulling or abrogation. E)ij plus the accusative means “for the purpose of.” We also have with this a descriptive genitive singular from a(martia, the word for sin. So literally, “for the purpose of annulling of sin.” The word a(martia is in the singular because our sins were judged on the cross, but that’s plural, personal sins. But not only was Christ judged for our sins but by being judged for our sins He cancelled the imputation of Adam’s sin and He cancelled the old sin nature as a deterrent to salvation — so that we are saved and still have an old sin nature. The whole principle of sin was annulled at the cross, not just your personal sins. Personal sins are an issue for rebound, recovering for fellowship, but the old sin nature caused you to be spiritually dead and that is why expiation cancelled the old sin nature as a hindrance to salvation. So a person can be saved and sin after salvation and not lose his salvation.

“by the sacrifice” — dia plus the genitive singular of qusia, “through the sacrifice of himself.” This is comparable to the brazen altar which was a shadow pointing to the cross. The animal sacrifices on the altar were shadows pointing to the saving work of Christ. His was a once and for all efficacious, expiatory sacrifice.

Translation: “Because if that were true [but it is not] then he would have needed to have suffered many times from the beginning of the world. But now once for all at the conjunction of the ages he has been revealed for the purpose of annulling of the sin [imputation of Adam’s sin] through the sacrifice of himself.”

Verse 27 begins a parenthesis that goes through the middle of verse 28. This much is a parenthesis: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” — close the parenthesis. Then verse 28 continues from the end of verse 26 — “and unto them that look for him...” All of verse 27 and half of verse 28 are a parenthesis, not so marked in our Bibles but syntactically designed by the Greek language.

We begin a parenthesis in verse 27 now with the word “And” which is a conjunction used in this case to begin a parenthesis — kai. “And as” — we actually have the preposition kata plus the accusative of o(soj, and it should be translated “And inasmuch as.”

“it is appointed” — present passive indicative of the verb a)pokeimai which means to be stored up, to be reserved, to be destined. While the verb means basically to be laid aside so that it can be counted on, here it has to do with destiny. It means to have a destiny. The present tense is a customary present which denotes what habitually occurs or may be reasonably expected to occur. The passive voice: mankind receives the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative for a dogmatic point of doctrine. The declarative indicative views the action of the verb from the viewpoint of reality — “And inasmuch as it is destined,” literally.

“unto men” — the dative plural of reference of the noun a)nqrwpoj for mankind; “once” — the adverb a(pac, “once and for all”; “to die” — the aorist active infinitive of a)poqnhskw, used here for physical death and is used in its worst sense that physical death is a result of spiritual death, the result of having an old sin nature. It is not the same as the penalty of sin, it is the result of the penalty of sin. So it is death in its worst sense. The aorist tense is a culminate aorist which views physical death in its entirety but regards it from the viewpoint of existing results, eternal judgement and condemnation. For a person who lives on this earth and dies physically without believing in Jesus Christ he has an appointment with the second death or judgement. The active voice: mankind produces the action of the verb by dying physically. The exception in this dispensation is the royal family of God. The exception will occur for all members of the royal family of God, the second appointment is cancelled, and there will be at least one generation of believers who will not even die physically, the Rapture generation. The infinitive can denote three categories of result. It can denote an actual result conceived or intended result. Here we have an intended result which blends the concept of both purpose and result in the infinitive.

So our verse says so far: “(And inasmuch as it is destined for mankind to die physically.” The reason we have to add “physically” is because the Bible teaches by category and classification seven kinds of death.

The doctrine of the classification of death

1. The first death that ever occurred in the human race occurred when Adam sinned — spiritual death. Spiritual death is found in Ephesians 2:1; Romans 5:12; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:22. Spiritual death is a judgement on the human race from birth. Spiritual death is being born into the devil’s kingdom, it is having citizenship papers in cosmos diabolicus. Spiritual death is separation from God in time. It is characterised by loss of the human spirit and no fellowship or relationship with God.

2. Physical death — Matthew 8:22; 2 Corinthians 5:1-8; Romans 8:38,39; Philippians 1:21, and many other citations. Physical death is the soul being separated from the body. As long as the soul is in the body the person is alive, when the soul departs from the body the person is dead.

3. The second death — Hebrews 9:27; Revelation 20:12-15. It refers to the final judgement of the unbeliever at which time he is cast into the lake of fire forever.

4. Operational death — James 2:26. It is a reference to the believer’s failure to produce divine good, the failure to be productive as a believer. Operational death belongs to the believer only. It is an experiential death in which there is no doctrine, no filling of the Spirit by which divine good is produced. It is called “faith without works is dead and/or non-productive.”

5. Positional death. The word “death” is used for position — Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12, 20; 3:3. At salvation we enter into the holy of holies. The baptism of the Spirit takes every believer and enters him into union with Christ seated at the right hand of the Father. We are identified with Christ forever, but we are also identified with Christ in His death as well as in His resurrection. The baptism of the Spirit identifies us retroactively with Christ in His death on the cross. That means that we go back to the cross where Christ was judged for our sins and where He rejected human good. It is the rejection of human good that is the issue here. We are identified with Christ in His death and therefore positionally we have rejected human good. We are members of the royal family, the royal family should never have anything to do with human good. Positionally we have been cut off from it, positionally we are in union with Christ, we live in the palace forever, we are royal family of God forever. We are unique and therefore being in this unique situation God has already graciously cut us off from human good. So that human good, like personal sin, becomes a matter of choice — whether he knows it is sin or not, whether he knows it is human good or not.

6. Temporal death. This means the believer of his own choice after salvation committing sin — which we all do. Having committed sins we are out of fellowship and temporal death is the description for that. Without our own free will we produce human good and we also produce sins. Temporal death is producing sins. Temporal death is taught in Romans 8:6, 13; Ephesians 5:14; 1 Timothy 5:6; James 1:15; Revelation 3:1; Luke 15:24, 32. Temporal death means to be out of fellowship.

7. Sexual death, which is mentioned specifically twice in the scripture — Romans 4:16-21; Hebrews 11:11,12. Sexual death is total inability to copulate.

“but” — the particle de is a connective conjunction; “after this” — meta plus the accusative of the demonstrative pronoun o(utoj. A demonstrative pronoun is always designed to refer to something specifically in the context without repeating the entire phrase — “but after this [physical death].” The word “this” refers to physical death, the aorist active infinitive of a)poqnhskw.

“the judgement” — the noun krisij and it means the act of judgement. This is exactly the same as the second death.

Translation: “(And inasmuch as it is destined for mankind to die, but after this [physical death] the judgement.”

The doctrine of the last judgement

1. The last judgement is the culminating judgement of history in which the unbelieving segment of the human race is confined to the lake of fire forever. It is also known as the “great white throne”; it is also known as the second death, as in Revelation 20:12. It is for unbelievers only.

2. The basic categories of the human race, therefore, must be defined. The human race is divided into two categories, believer and unbeliever. The category is based upon attitude toward the gospel, toward the Lord Jesus Christ who is the only saviour. The categories are divided by John 3:36.

3. Only the unbeliever is under indictment at the last judgement. The unbeliever’s indictment is related to his rejection of Jesus Christ as saviour — John 3:18; 16:9; Revelation 20:15.

4. The believer in Christ is not involved in the last judgement — Romans 8:1.

5. The unbeliever, therefore, has two appointments with God — physical death and the second death — Hebrews 9:27.

6. The second appointment of judgement is kept by means of a second resurrection — Revelation 20:12,13. The second resurrection is unbelievers only.

7. The unbeliever at the last judgement is condemned on the basis of human good, not sin — Revelation 20:12,13.

8. The eternal state of the unbeliever is described three ways. a) He is said to reside in the lake of fire — Revelation 20:14,15; Matthew 25:41; b) He is said to have the second death — Revelation 20:14. In other words, the second death and the lake of fire are synonymous terms. c) He is said to be dying in his sins — John 8:21,24.

The parenthesis continues. Both of these appointments are a reality to the human race, except in the case of the one who believes in Jesus Christ — John 3:18. Physical death has an entirely different meaning, then, to the believer. To the believer physical death is a very wonderful thing because we go from positional holy of holies to real holy of holies at the point of physical death.

Verse 28 continues the parenthesis and the explanation for the brazen altar. The background for this verse is found in the modus operandi of the high priest on the day of atonement. The adverb which begins this verse is still a part of the parenthesis. The adverb o(utoj refers to what precedes, indicating we are still in that parenthesis. What precedes is namely, the need for salvation and the need to cancel the second appointment of judgement. We translate it “So also the Christ” — o( Xristoj. Christ fulfils the shadows and fulfils the function of the high priest on the day of atonement. The high priest at the brazen altar: Christ bearing our sins; the high priest sprinkling blood on the mercy seat portrays propitiation. So between the animal being sacrificed on the altar and the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat we have the entire meaning of the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ = redemption + propitiation + reconciliation.

“was once offered” — the entrance of the high priest into the holy of holies is a picture of Jesus Christ in resurrection, ascension and session. The return of the high priest from the holy of holies has to do with his appearance before the people and it foreshadows the second advent. So “the Christ was once offered” — we have a(pac plus the aorist passive of prosferw. It should be translated “So also the Christ once for all was offered,” the aorist passive participle. This is a constative aorist which gathers up into one entirety the blood of Christ, which covers a period of three hours on the cross from twelve noon until three o’clock in the afternoon when Christ was bearing our sins and in the process accomplished redemption toward sin, reconciliation toward man, and propitiation toward God. The passive voice: Christ receives the action of the verb, being offered, and the participle is circumstantial. Being an aorist participle it also has antecedent action to the main verb, “he shall appear.”

This particular phrase “having been offered once for all” is followed by a phrase which is found in Isaiah chapter 53. In the Hebrew it is “and he bear the sins of the many.” This, again, is a reference to the saving work of Christ on the cross. So the qal perfect of nasa in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:12 is actually depicting redemption plus reconciliation plus propitiation, or the blood of Christ. Now in this particular quotation of it it is reduced to an aorist active infinitive of a)poferw which means to bear or to take away. This is a constative aorist and again it gathers up into one entirety the work of Christ on the cross. It takes an occurrence, the blood of Christ, regardless of its extent of duration, and gathers it up into a single whole. In this case the blood of Christ and/or the saving work of Christ, lasting for about three hours, is in view in taking away sins. The active voice: Christ produced the action of the verb on the cross in His spiritual death and/or the blood of Christ. The infinitive is the object of the preposition e)ij plus a)poferw in the infinitive form.

At this point we have the closing of the parenthesis and the subject of the appearance of Christ. The appearance of the high priest to the people, coming out of the holy of holies, is a picture of Christ leaving returning to the earth at the second advent, at which time He will deliver Israel. Close parenthesis.

The Greek word order of the last half of this sentence is so different that we need a corrected translation from which to work. So first of all, this is the way it should go: “a second time apart from sin shall he appear to the ones waiting for him, resulting in deliverance.”

“the second time” — the preposition e)k plus accusative of deuteroj. It is literally, “from the second”, but it is a Greek idiom meaning a second time.

Next we have an adverb used as a preposition, “apart from sin” — xwrij plus a(martia. In other words, “apart from sin” means that once Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree He immediately had accomplished His work and He goes back to the status in His humanity, “apart from sin”. So he will remain in hypostatic union, and from the time He ascends and is seated at the right hand of the Father He will still be in hypostatic union in that day when His feet shall stand upon the Mount of Olives at the end of the Tribulation. So “apart from sin” indicates that He is in a state of impeccability, He is in the hypostatic union forever.

“he shall appear” — the future passive indicative of the verb o(raw for a panoramic view. The future tense is a predictive future to describe the second advent of Christ. The passive voice: o(raw in the passive means to be manifest or to be seen, and to be seen is to appear. So you take the passive voice and change it to an active voice — “he shall appear.” Christ will appear as the King of kings to Israel. He will appear as David’s greater son, just as the high priest left the holy of holies on that last trip out, and he came through the holy place to stand in front of the brazen altar and appear to the people and they let out a cheer. But it meant more than that, it represented the second advent of Christ when He would deliver Israel. The indicative mood is declarative for a dogma of doctrine. This is a shadow portraying the second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ.

“unto them that look for him” — a wrong translation. It is a dative plural, present middle participle from the verb a)pekdexomai. It means to wait eagerly for someone, to wait in great anticipation. It means to think about someone you love and know that they are coming to see you very shortly. It is used in the Hebrew to express the eschatological expectation of Israel in the future. It means here to anticipate through doctrine. Those who have the most doctrine anticipate the Lord the most during the Tribulation. The dative case is dative of advantage. It is to your advantage to have doctrine; in the future it is to the advantage of the Jew to have doctrine, especially in the Tribulation. The present tense is retroactive progressive present which denotes what has begin in the past and continues throughout the present time and throughout history. In other words, this is an eschatological present to indicate the great principle of anticipating Christ through doctrine. The futuristic present is also a possibility here to denote an event such as the second advent which has not yet occurred but is so real that it is put in the present tense instead of the future tense. To put a future event in the present tense means it is real.

This means that Christ is going to come back to deliver Jews who are in a jamb — the whole Armageddon campaign. This means that Christ is going to come back and straighten out the world, something you and I could never do. The participle is a middle voice participle. It is an indirect middle emphasising the agent, Christ, as producing the action rather than participating in its results, and it signifies that the action of the verb is closely related to the subject, and the participle is articular with the definite article. And we have an intensive pronoun which is the object of the participle, and the object of the participle is “him” [Christ].

“unto salvation” is e)ij plus the accusative of swthria, which does not mean here salvation, it means deliverance — “resulting in deliverance” is the correct translation. When Christ makes His appearance at the second advent it means deliverance for Israel.

Translation: “So the Christ also having been offered once and for all for the purpose of taking away the sin of the many) a second time apart from sin shall he appear to the ones eagerly waiting for him [through doctrine resident in the soul] resulting in their deliverance.”

Note the rather complex handling of the two appearances of Christ. The first appearance of the high priest was at the brazen altar — verse 26. The second appearance is found at the end of verse 28. In between we have a parenthesis to explain why the brazen altar. So verses 27-28a is an explanation for the brazen altar, why the cross must come before the crown. So the ones who through doctrine resident in the soul eagerly await the return of Christ in the Tribulation are the Tribulational believers who will be alive and delivered at His coming. They are positive to doctrine, they understand eschatology, they continue to apply doctrine, they resist the enemy, they are hiding in the hills, and they are able therefore to be alive when Christ returns.