5. The words which Moses spake unto the people upon the sprink- ling of the blood are not absolutely the same in the story and in the repetition of it by the apostle. But this is usual with him in all his quotations out of the Old Testament in this epistle. He ex- presseth the true sense of them, but doth not curiously and preoisely render the sense of every word and syllable in them.
VER. 18-22.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 349
6. The last difficulty in this context, and that which hath an ap- pearance of the greatest, is in what the apostle affirms concerning the tabernacle and all the vessels of it; namely, that Moses sprinkled them all with blood. And the time which he seems to speak of, is that of the dedication of the first covenant. Hence a twofold diffi- culty doth arise; first, as unto the time; and secondly, as unto the thing itself. For at the time of the dedication of the first covenant, the tabernacle was not yet made or erected, and so could not then be sprinkled with blood. And afterwards, when the tabernacle was erected, and all the vessels brought into it, there is no mention that either it or any of them was sprinkled with blood, but only anointed with the holy oil, Exod. xl. 9-11. Wherefore, as unto the first, I say the apostle doth plainly distinguish what he affirms of the taber- nacle from the time of the dedication of the first covenant. The manner of his introduction of it, Ka? rqv oxnvjy 6¢,—“ And moreover the tabernacle,’—doth plainly intimate a progress unto another time and occasion. Wherefore the words of verse 21, concerning the sprinkling of the tabernacle and its vessels, do relate unto what fol-
lows, verse 22, “and almost all things are by the law purged with
blood ;” and not unto those that precede, about the dedication of the first covenant: for the argument he hath in hand is not confined unto the use of blood only in that dedication, but respects the whole use of the blood of sacrifices under the law; which in these words he proceeds unto, and closeth in the next verse. And this wholly removes the first difficulty. And as unto the second, expositors generally answer, that aspersion or sprinkling with blood did com- monly precede wnction with the holy oil. And as unto the gar- ments of the priests, which were the vessels or utensils of the taber- nacle, it was appointed that they should be sprinkled with blood, Exod. xxix. 21; and so it may be supposed that the residue of them were also. But to me this is not satisfactory. And be it spoken without offence, expositors have generally mistaken the nature of the argument of the apostle in these words. For he argues not only from the first dedication of the tabernacle and its vessels,—which, for
_ aught appears, was by unction only,—but making, as we observed
before, a progress unto the further use of the blood of sacrifices in purging, according to the law, he giveth an instance in what was done with respect unto the tabernacle and all its vessels, and that,
- constantly and solemnly every year; and this he doth to prove his
general assertion in the next verse, that “under the law almost all things were purged with blood.” And Moses is here said to do
» what he appointed should be done. By his institution,—that is,
the institution of the law,—the tabernacle and all the hiss of it were sprinkled with blood. And this was done solemnly once every
_ year; an account whereof is given, Lev. xvi. 14-16, 18-20. Onthe-
350 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. IX.
solemn day of atonement, the high priest was to sprinkle the mercy- seat, the altar, and the whole tabernacle with blood, to make an atonement for them, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, the tabernacle remaining among them in the midst of their uncleanness, verse 16. This he takes notice of, not to prove the dedication of the first covenant and what belonged thereunto with blood, but the use of blood in general to make atonement, and the impossibility of expiation and pardon without it. This is the design and sense of the apostle, and no other. Wherefore we may con- clude, that the account here given concerning the dedication of the first covenant, and the use of blood for purification under the law, is so far from containing any thing opposite unto or discrepant from the records of Moses concerning the same things, that it gives us a full and clear exposition of them.
SECONDLY. The second thing to be considered, is the natwre of the argument in this context; and there are three things in it, neither of which must be omitted in the exposition of the words.
He designeth, 1. To prove yet further the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the mediator of the new testament, both as it had the nature of a testament and that also of a solemn covenant.
2. To declare the necessity of the kind of his death, in the way of a sacrifice by the effusion of blood; because the testament, as it
had the nature of a solemn covenant, was confirmed and ratified
thereby.