What is the meaning of Hebrews 9:8-9? Does it mean that the way into the Holy of Holies was still not open?
Question:
What is the author of Hebrews trying to tell us in Hebrews 9:8-9? There is a strange build up to these verses talking about the first tabernacle (which notably included the Ark in its description, which may differentiate it from the 2nd Temple). This build up leads into a strange verse claiming that the Holiest of Holies is not open as long as the “Outer Tabernacle” is still standing. I have heard that this is a past tense reality that was changed at the cross, but the language is in the present tense. The scripture even says that this picture was a reality for the present age. it seems to me that this should be interpreted that the Holiest place (in heaven, where Christ was mediating for us) was not fully opened yet, as long as the temple was still standing.
Answer:
The way to answer this question, it appears to me, is to ask what the word “this” is a reference to. What is the illustration? I believe that the “this” is a reference to the fact that only priests could enter regularly to the Holy Place (the outer room where the bread, the menorah and the altar of incense were), and then the high priest alone into the Most Holy Place (where the Ark and the cherubim were), and only once a year, and never without blood. The point is that the people had virtually no access to the inner sanctuary–into the presence of God. The Hebrew writer contrasts this in Hebrews 10:19-22, which tells us that, in Christ, and under the New Covenant, with Christ ministering in the true Tabernacle, we–all of us–can walk boldly into the new inner sanctuary, through the curtain, which is his body.
What is it that we learn from “this?” We learn that under the former covenant, the one which was old and fading and about to disappear (Hebrews 8:13), our consciences were not made clear. Our sins were not forgiven. In fact, the former covenant only provided ceremonial cleanness, not true, inner cleanness from sin. (here I am paraphrasing Hebrews 9:8-9)
The reason (or at least a possible reason) that the present tense is used in this passage is that, when the Hebrew author wrote, the temple in Jerusalem still stood, and Jews were still taking part in these ineffective sacrifices. The ones the Hebrew writer is addressing are being tempted to return to the “safe” Judaism, which will be apostasy (Hebrews 10:26-31). It is possible that the author is using what is known as the “historical present.” In fact, I just used the historical present in that last sentence!!! But, given that the sacrificial system was still being used when Hebrews was written, that may also explain the use of the present tense.
You noticed one of the somewhat surprising details in Hebrews, which is that the author more or less ignores the temple in Jerusalem–both the first temple of Solomon, and the second temple as well, but only refers to the original tabernacle in the wilderness in his description of the defunct Judaism that the Jewish Christians are tempted to return to. This is a rhetorical move on the author’s part, as he means to diminish the importance of the Temple by, essentially, ignoring its present existence, when he only mentions the Tabernacle, which had not been in use for about one thousand years. That is how commentators explain the interesting fact that you noticed.
I do not agree with the proposed explanation you offer in the final sentence of your question. I can see why you come to this possibility, but the writer of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that the opportunity to come to Christ “behind the veil” is open currently when he wrote the book. Hebrews 10:19-22 illustrates this, as well as Hebrews 12:22-24 and Hebrews 6:19 (we have, present tense). In Heb 9:9, he says that these gifts and sacrifices were (past tense) not able to clear the consciences of the worshiper. Of course, they still are not able to clear now. But there is no evidence in Hebrews that the full forgiveness of sins and access to the heavenly sanctuary had not yet been opened.
John Oakes
