In verses 6-10 the service of the Tabernacle is discussed. Every morning and evening the priests entered the holy place to burn incense on the golden alter and trim the lamps. Every week on the Sabbath, the showbread was changed. A key verse in this paragraph is Hebrews 9:7 because it lists four limitations of the Old Testament sacrificial system. 1. Only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies. 2. Only once a year 3. Only with sacrificial blood 4. Only efficacious for one year. The tabernacle was symbolic, an illustration of spiritual truths.
6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food, drink, and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. (NASB)
Key Takeaways:
- The daily repetition of these ministries showed that they never resulted in access to God. The fact that the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place only once a year indicates the failure of the Mosaic covenant to bring believers into the presence of God
- Only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest offered a blood sacrifice for himself and for the sins of ignorance committed by everyone in Israel. In the provisions of the Mosaic covenant, access to God was limited.
- The old system was lacking. It did not completely reconcile people to God. The sacrifices were temporary because they applied only until the time of the new order. Even though the sacrifices could not cleanse the conscience or produce spiritual life, they pointed to Christ who could
Closer Look:
Verse 6: The “regulations for worship” mentioned in verse 1 were now dealt with so that they underlined the insufficiency of the Old-Covenant service. The priests regularly came into the Holy Place to carry out their ministry. They lighted the lamps daily (Exod. 27:20–21), replaced the loaves of bread every Sabbath (Lev. 24:5–8), and burned incense on the golden altar (Exod. 30:7–8). The daily repetition of these ministries showed that they never resulted in access to God.
Verse 7: Whereas the “outer tabernacle” (meaning the Holy Place or the “first room”) could be entered regularly (“continually entering”) by the officiating priests, it was only on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16) that the high priest entered the “second” or inner room (i.e., the “Holy of Holies”) and then only with sacrificial “blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.” Only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place, and he could enter only on the Day of Atonement. Leviticus 16:12–16 suggests that he entered twice on that day, once with blood for his own sin and again with blood for the sins of the people. The use of blood showed that the priest had offered a sacrifice for sin, but the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement did not bring access to God. This prepares us for the importance of the shed blood of Christ in providing sacrifice for our sins (Eph. 1:7).
Under the old covenant, the high priest could only atone for “sins of the people committed in ignorance” (cf. Num. 15:29–30). The fact that the priest offered this sacrifice annually showed that it never succeeded in completely removing sin.
Now you will notice that some people say that this is looking at sins of ignorance. They committed sins and they did not know about it. It should be observed guilt offerings were available for intentional sins (Lev. 6:1-6). Some people say sins committed in ignorance refers to unintentional sins but I do not know if we can really say that. I do not know of any sacrifice for sins of ignorance. Some people say that these are sins that were committed by stealing or something like this. But, it cannot be that. Some people use to say, “Well, there was no sacrifice before intentional sins. That is what the writer is talking about, intentional sins.” Well, probably not. Let’s stop and wait for a second. Those sins in Leviticus 6 were intentional. The person intended to steal. They intended to take the money and so on. So some people say that were no sacrifices for intentional sins. Leviticus 6 makes it seem like there were. So it has got to be a word that is just used in general for the sins of the people. So this is a real problem with interpretation. We can only wonder in our heads like we are asking the author, “What do you mean sins of ignorance?”
For instance, look at Leviticus 6:1-6. This is the closest thing you can find to this phrase and these are intentional. Leviticus 6:1-5 says, “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and disavows the rightful claim of his neighbor regarding a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or regarding robbery, or he has extorted from his neighbor, or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins regarding any of the things that people do; then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery or acquired by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost property which he found, or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it a fifth more” (NASB). Moses goes on to give the sacrifices that are required. You cannot find anything for unintentional sins. Even here you have intentional sins and you have sacrifices for it. The phrase “sins of ignorance” is literally, “ignorances of the people” and seems to look at sins in general (of Heb 5:2 – “he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided”). And it just seems to be very gracious in looking at people committing sins. Sins of ignorance excludes “high handed sins” yet to be described in chapter 10; those sins are unforgivable.
Verse 8: Verse eight is a logical inference from verse seven. Direct access to God was impossible under the old system. This restricted access clearly demonstrated that a true entrance into God’s presence (symbolized by the Most Holy Place) had “not yet been disclosed.” That at least was the message the Holy Spirit intended to communicate by this arrangement. What did these details of verses 6–7 mean? The existence of the outer sanctuary showed that the Old Testament ceremonies limited access to God’s presence. Once a year the high priest alone could enter the inner sanctuary. But how limited and incomplete all of this was! Ordinary people had no access to God. The writer argues that we have direct access to God through our High Priest, the Lord Jesus. But under the old covenant, the writer indicates that there was no direct access to God. Under the new covenant, all believers could enter into the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus. Jesus opened access to God. Now all believers at all times had the right to come to God. What a privilege!
Verses 9–10: If the old sacrifices could not bring common people to God, what good were they? These gifts and sacrifices were imperfect and temporary. They were imperfect because they were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. Some Old Testament saints had clear consciences, but they did not get them through the sacrificial system. The Levitical arrangements were designed to convey the idea that the true way to God did not lie in them. What this indicates “for the present time” (“present time” refers to OT period) is that the Old-Covenant sacrificial system did not meet human need at its deepest level. It “cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,” or to say it a different way it could not clear the conscience of the worshiper. Hence the regulations which formed part of the observant worshiper’s adherence to this system were chiefly concerned with externals which were only meant to apply “until a time of reformation.” “Conscience” is an important word in verse nine. The O.T. system of sacrifices could never purify the conscience. That is why verse ten emphasizes the external. The Mosaic covenant covered sins of ignorance, but not premeditated sins or the sinful nature of all people (Ps. 51). In other words, the old system was lacking. It did not completely reconcile people to God.
The sacrifices were external and temporary because they applied only until the time of the new order. Even though the sacrifices could not cleanse the conscience or produce spiritual life, they pointed to Christ who could. The regulations under the old covenant were only regulations for the body. They provided ceremonial purity. The food, drink, and washings had beneficial effects for the body, but they could not bring liberty to the spirit. Only Christ can do this. The word “reformation” (Gk. diorthosis) means the “new order.” The temporary nature of the Mosaic law appears.
The words of Hebrews 9:10 probably refer to sectarians for whom food laws and ceremonial washings retained great importance. The readers must remember the transitory nature of these things under the “aging” covenant and should not return to them.