He describes this part of the tabernacle, 1. From its sitwation ; it was “after the second veil.” 2. From its name, given unto it by God himself; it was called “The holiest of all,” or “The holy of holies.” 3. From its utensils or vessels; which were, (1.) The golden censer; (2.) The ark,—what was in tt or with it: [1.] The golden pot that had manna; [2.] Aaron’s rod; [3.] The tables of the covenant. 4. The cherubvm ; which he describes, (1.) From their quality, “cherubim of glory;’ (2.) Their use, they “shadowed the mercy-seat.” 5. The mercy-seat vtself; but this is mentioned as it were only occasion- ally with respect unto the use of the cherubim. And this sufficiently manifests, that in the rehearsal of these things the apostle designeth not accuracy of order; for the mercy-seat was, for glory and signifi- cation, far above the cherubim wherewith it was overshadowed.
With respect unto these things among others, in another place, he affirms that the ministration of divine worship under the law was glorious; but withal he adds that it had no glory in comparison of that which doth excel,—namely, the spiritual ministration of divine worship under the gospel, 2 Cor. iti. 9,10. And this is that which
we should always mind in the consideration of these things; for if we yet look after and value such an outward glory as they did ex- hibit, we are carnal, and cannot behold the beauty of spiritual things.
The verbal difficulties which occur in this context have occasioned critical expositors to labour greatly about them. That is the field wherein they choose to exercise their skill and diligence. But as unto the things themselves, and the difficulties that are in the real interpretation of them, little light is contributed by most of their endeavours. Wherefore some of these words have been so bela- boured with all sorts of conjectures, that there is no room left for any addition in. the same kind; and it were but lost labour to re- peat what must be confuted if it were mentioned. I shall therefore take no further notice of any difficulty in the words, but as the ex- plication of it is necessary unto the interpretation of the context; and so far nothing shall be omitted.
1, The first thing mentioned by the apostle is the situation of this part of the tabernacle; it was “after the second 4.5 25 9.4. veil.” It was so unto them that entered into the taber- sspov xaraxé- nacle; they had to pass through the whole length of 7 the first part before they came unto this; nor was there any other
200 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP, IX.
way of entrance into it. And by calling this partition of the two parts of the sanctuary the “second veil,” the apostle intimates that there was a former.. Howbeit that former was not a separating veil of any part of the tabernacle, as this was. It was only the hanging of the door of the tent. This the apostle here reckons as a veil, because as by this veil the priests were hindered from entering into, or looking into the most holy place, so by that other the people . were forbidden to enter or look into the first part of the sanctuary, whereinto the priests entered daily. The making of the first veil is declared, Exod. xxvi, 36, 37, and it is called MNS? 7D0,—* the hanging,” or “covering for the door.” The making of this second veil is declared, Exod, xxvi. 31-33, and it is called “the veil” or “ cover- ing.” The apostle renders it by xaranéracua; as also it is Matt. xxvii. 51, where it is spoken of as in the temple. And so it is rendered by the LXX., Exod. xxvi. 31; as the former is called xdéAvupa, a “covering.” From r:ré%w, which is “to extend,” “to stretch out” so as to cover with what is so extended, is xuramtracua, “a veil” to be a covering unto any thing, dividing one thing from another; as repixérnoua is that which covereth any thing round about: such was this veil.
The end, use, and signification of it, the apostle expressly declares verse 8, where they must be spoken unto.
2. He describes this part of the tabernacle by its name; it is
_ ealled “The most holy,” “The holy of holies,’—t7P am Bae Ow1p. So it is called by God himself, Exod. xxvi. 33, 34, “The holy of holies;” that is, most holy,—the super- lative degree expressed by the repetition of the substantive, as is usual in the Hebrew. Some give instances of this kind of phrase- ology in Greek writers, remote enough from Hebraisms; as Sophocles, Elect. 849: Asirasta deshasav xvpe%s,—“ misera miserarum es;” that is, “miserrima.” But however the phrase of éyia &yiwy may be Greek, the apostle intends to express the Hebraism itself. And “holy” in the Hebrew is of the singular number;. “holies,” of the plural: but in the Greek both are of the plural number. And what is thus” called was most eminently typical of Christ, who is called by this -name, Dan. ix. 24, “To anoint the Most Holy.” The place in the tabernacle which was most sacred and most secret, which had the most eminent pledges or symbols of the divine presence, and the clearest representations of God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, is so called.