Lenski:
The writer simply passes on from a comparison of the two testaments to a comparison of the two Tabernacles. He first describes the Tabernacle in the wilderness and relates what the common priests did daily in the Holy and the high priest once a year in the Holy of Holies.
He wisely describes only the Tabernacle and not the Temple of Solomon, of Ezra, of Herod, least of all that of Leontopolis in Egypt; for it was the Tabernacle that Moses constructed according to the very pattern shown to him in the Mount (8:5). The Temples that were later built were only copies of this Tabernacle; our writer confines himself to the divine original. His description is in no way a detraction, for this would be a mistake as far as his readers are concerned. He does not merely concede the greatness of the Tabernacle which Moses built. Quite the contrary. The very greatness of that Tabernacle sets into true relief the Holy of Holies in heaven into which Jesus, our High Priest, enters.
Now, then, also the first (testament) had ordinances about (divine) service and (had) the Holy Place in the world.
The following “for” describes the essential details of this ἅγιον with reference to the divine λατρεία or “service” for which God ordered its construction (v. 5). Neither the “service” nor the “Holy Place” in which it took place were without δικαιώματα, divine righteous pronouncements or “ordinances” given by God himself.
This inner veil or curtain was woven of blue, purple, and scarlet wool and fine, twined linen (byssus), was adorned with the figures of cherubim and was hung on four gilded pillars of acacia wood that rested in silver sockets; it shut off the Holy of Holies from the rest of the tent. Behind this curtain only the high priest entered on the Great Day of Atonement. Note that the two designations: “which is called ‘Holy’ ” and “called ‘Holy of Holies’ ” are placed chiastically.
It would be the greatest mistake for the readers to think that the Tabernacle which God made Moses construct in the wilderness and fit up for the service by the priests and the high priest is the final thing and intended by him to remain for all time and only to be advanced from the Tabernacle to the Temple building in Jerusalem, when the Holy Spirit himself shows so clearly, by both the division of the Tabernacle into a Holy and a Holy of Holies and the nature of the ordinances that were prescribed for the whole Tabernacle services, that all this is only a temporary thing, a figure and parable of the time when God brings the right arrangement. This time is now here. We now have the final High Priest and the ministrant in the heavenly Sanctuary (8:1, 2). Can the readers now think of turning back to what was only a parable? Let them think of the old Tabernacle as highly as they will, what has now come in our High Priest Jesus appears only so much the higher as it also indeed is.
This is the thought of these verses, which should not be confused when one is studying the various details of the wording.
Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 282.
The parabolic nature of the Holy Place in the Tabernacle of the wilderness is thus fully shown. All the services for which it was designed were not the completeness which the Spirit intended for the conscience. This very incompleteness pointed forward to the time when all would be complete and right according to the Spirit’s design. This blessed period had now come since Jesus had shed and offered his blood to God in the divine Sanctuary. No one must now forsake Jesus and imagine that he will find rest for his conscience in the old ordinances of the Tabernacle. The old Israelites had their conscience cleansed only by faith in the completeness which the coming High Priest would bring.
It is a bit surprising to note that the writer uses “the Holy Place” and not the Holy of Holies and what the high priest did there when he is bringing out the inadequacy of the Tabernacle and its function. He is wise in this procedure. The very fact that the Tabernacle has this anterior chamber shows that this could not be the final Sanctuary that had been designed by the Spirit for the expiation of our sins. As long as the Holy Place stood before the Holy of Holies, the latter was marked as not being the final Sanctuary. Yet the Spirit had never ordered Israel to have a Tabernacle that had only one room, only a Holy of Holies. The one final Sanctuary is not made with hands (v. 11) or by man (8:2); it is heaven itself, where the eternal God dwells, where Jesus appeared with his blood (9:24).
11) So much for the earthly Tabernacle; now, in comparison, the heavenly Tabernacle.
Christ, however, arrived as High Priest of the good things about to come by means of the greater and more complete Tabernacle, not handmade, that is, not of this creation, nor by means of blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood went in once for all into the Holy Place, obtaining an eternal ransoming.
Although the writer often uses the name “Jesus,” the name “Christ,” which points to our Savior’s office, is in place here, for his great High-priestly act is to be described. On the relation of the three aorists: participle, main verb, participle, little needs to be said. They present three closely connected historical facts like Caesar’s famous dictum: Veni, vidi, vici, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Only the relation of the facts is involved in the tenses. The writer has the choice as to which of the three he wishes to make a participle, which the main verb, or whether he wants to use participles at all. The writer’s choice is certainly a good one: arrived, he entered, obtaining. There is no thought of intervals of time in these aorists but only the thought of natural relation, and this is not expressed by the tenses as tenses but by the sequence of the statements. So we do not ask: “How long before he entered did he arrive, and how long after he entered did he obtain?” We may even leave out the participles and say: “As High Priest he entered for eternal ransoming,” and we have the writer’s meaning. We therefore disregard the dating of the first participle as if this goes back to the incarnation or to the assumption of Christ’s office three years before his death.
Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 287.
“The blood of Jesus” is a subject that deserves an entire dissertation, especially since “the old blood theology” is so often attacked, called “gory,” counted unholy and not sanctifying (10:29). The connotation of the term “blood” is that of sacrifice, the expiation of the sacrifice that covers and removes sin; thus “blood” is more precise than “death” since many deaths are bloodless. In a sacrifice the blood is shed or poured out so that the life goes out in death. The expiation is thus connected with substitution. The life of the sacrificial victim goes out in death so that the life of the beneficiary of the sacrifice is spared. This is by far not all; the blood comes to the altar, the sanctuary, the mercy seat, i.e., before God, in the way indicated by him so that he may accept it. Only this blood expiates and cleanses. Much more may be said. The one fact to be noted is that it is not the blood as a substance, nor the blood that is made to flow by mortal wounds that is involved in substitutionary sacrifice but the blood that is shed for the specific expiatory purpose. “Blood” thus = the completed sacrifice as it is brought to God.
The blood sacrifices of the Old Testament expiatory and cleansing rituals possessed efficacy only because God connected them with the eternally efficacious blood of his own Son (Rev. 13:8). That is the τελείωσις, the completion that reached the goal and came about only when our High Priest, Christ, offered “his own blood” in sacrifice once for all.
We discard the idea that at the time of his death Jesus took his blood into the heavenly Sanctuary before God. One is disturbed to read what Bengel, Stier, Delitzsch, and others say about Christ’s blood; such things as that the blood Christ shed was received back into his body, that it was received into heaven, or that the blood which was left in Christ’s dead body was increased and renewed. These distressing conceptions center particularly on the Lord’s Supper, in connection with which some speak of “the glorified blood” that is now given us to drink in the Sacrament. Where does Scripture speak of Christ’s “glorified blood”? The words that are used in connection with the Sacrament are: “my blood in the act of being shed for you” just as: “my body in the act of being given for you.”
Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 292.
 |
| Bengel was very influential in Pietism. |
Bengel was a leader in Pietism. He advocated that the blood of Christ in heaven is used to atone for sins.
His son-in-law Burke worked with him and advanced the concept of the entire world being declared forgiven of its sins. Hoenecke quotes him and uses the term General Justification, which in German means "every single person declared forgiven."
Hoenecke, who graduated from Halle University:
LI translated this section for the book, Thy Strong Word, many years ago.
Hoenecke, who graduated from Halle University:
And Ph. D. Burk (Rechtfertigung und Versicherung,
p. 41) rightly said:
‘The difference between general justification and
the more common usage of the term justification can be expressed as
follows. The latter takes place precisely upon the appropriation of the
former.’
An emphasis upon general justification is necessary
in order to safeguard the material content of the Gospel.
We need furnish no extraordinary proof in regard to
the justification of the individual sinner; let us suffice with the story of
the publican. Justification takes place in the one who appeals to the grace of
God, but it does not take place in the Pharisee. And the entirety of Scripture
demonstrates that he who believes is always justified; this applies to every
individual, the moment that faith is kindled in him.”
Adolph Hoenecke, Dogmatik, III, p. 354-5. Hoenecke obviously disagrees with WELS about UOJ.LI translated this section for the book, Thy Strong Word, many years ago.
 |
| Franz Delitsch, 1813-1890 |
Delitzsch is known for co-authoring Old Testament commentaries. He changed his position as he became a rationalist. He argued against the Two Isaiah liberal, sceptical theory. He reversed himself and argued for it.
WELS has a parallel. When Ted Hartwig argued for Two Isaiahs at Dr. Martin Luther College, the WELS leaders backed him. Nothing was done. Later, Hartwig was used as the authoritative expert to promote the feminist creeds in the Booze and Broads edition of Christian Worship.
 |
| Knapp was the last of the old Pietists at Halle University. His dogmatics book is still in print - I have one from 1830. |
Ichabod:
From the English translation of Knapp's Christian Theology, which was widely read in German and English, in America and Europe, before the Missouri Synod began and throughout the 19th century -
§ 113. UNIVERSALITY OP JUSTIFICATION. 817
It is universal as the atonement itself; vid. § 111, II. If the atonement extends to the whole human race, justification must also be universal; i. e. all must be able to obtain the actual forgiveness of their sins and blessedness, on account of the atonement of Christ. But in order to obviate mistakes, some points may require explanation. Justification, then, is universal,
(1) In respect to the persons to be pardoned.
All men, according to the Bible, may partake of this benefit. It was designed for all; vid. especially Rom. 3: 23. 5: 15 (§ 111),
318 ART. X. § 113. UNIVERSALITY OP JUSTIFICATION
in opposition to Jewish exclusiveness. It is bestowed however conditionally ; certain conditions are prescribed which are indispensable. Those who do not comply with these conditions, are excluded from the enjoyment of the benefit. Justification and forgiveness are not, therefore, universal in effect (actu); and this solely through the fault of men.*
Another conclusion from the universality of justification is, that every one may be sure of his forgiveness. This certainty, however, must not be founded upon inward/ee/ing-s, which are frequently deceptive ; but upon an actual compliance with the conditions on which God will forgive sins. If any one finds in himself the signs of true faith, of sincere love to God and Christ, of a renewed heart, and of a virtuous Christian disposition, he is justified. Rom. 8: 16, " The holy, Christian temper wrought in us by God, gives us the clearest and surest proof, that we are the children of God." 1 John 3: 7. 2 Pet. 1: 9, 10. This certainty is in the highest degree necessary to our tranquility and happiness. 1 Tim. 1: 16. ICor. 6: 11. 1 John 5: 18—20.
(2) In respect to sins and the punishment of sin.
(a) As to sins; the position that all sins, without exception, are forgiven for Christ's sake, is proved partly from the power and efficacy of the atonement of Christ, which is extended to all sins (vid. § 111, and the texts there cited) ; and partly from the texts which promise forgiveness of all sins, even the greatest and blackest, to those who comply with the prescribed conditions of pardon. Ezek. 18: 21, 22. Ps. 103: 3. 1 Cor. 6: 11. Ephes. 2: 5. 1 Tim. I: 15. The sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be regarded as an exception ; vid. § 84.
(6) As to the punishment of sin ; the answer to the question whether the pardoned are exempt from all the punishments of sin, whether therefore justification is plena et perfecta, may be learned from § 111, II. The natural and physical evils which result from past sins, indeed, remain ; but they are mitigated and rendered more tolerable, and are divested of the terror of punishment, by the ces-
* [Translator - This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he proffers pardon to all through Christ; subjective, is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the Gospel. The former is universal, the latter not.]
