Now these things being thus ordered, into the first tabernacle the priests enter at all times, accomplishing the services;
After describing the tabernacle's furniture, the writer turns to what happened inside it. Everything was ready, and the priests went in and out of the outer room day after day — a routine that says something about how far anyone could come to God.
Their work in the first room was daily and hands-on. One writer lists what filled their days, and where their duties stopped.
The whole priestly family went into the first, or holy place, accomplishing the service of God daily. They went in and out, cared for and trimmed the lights on the lampstand, placed the showbread on the table week by week, the fresh witness of Israel's perfect presentation to God. But here their service stopped.
This verse uses a Greek word, latreia, for the priests' service. Older English versions added "of God" to it here; the original text does not.
It is also applied to the services connected with the first covenant — Luke 2:37; Acts 26:7; Romans 9:4; and Hebrews 9:1, 6 (latreia). The original leaves out "divine" and "of God", as if this service was no longer to be recognised as such; the older English version put those words in each time.
The priests came and went freely — but only into the outer room. That limit is the point.
What could show more strongly that the way into the holiest was not yet open? Only priests could enter the holy place. Those same priests, serving there day after day, could never pass on into the holiest. And the high priest himself must not enter the holiest "at all times", but only "once a year". … That tabernacle always told the people who worshipped in it that it was only a picture for the time then present, and that it knew of no service that could make their conscience perfect.
The veil hid the inner room from the men who served closest to it.
The priests could always enter the holy place, but they could go no further. The beautiful veil hid the most holy place from their eyes. They could see the veil itself — blue, purple and scarlet, with finely twisted linen and skilled needlework of cherubim — and it might tell them of the glories hidden behind it. But the golden altar, the ark of the covenant overlaid with gold, the golden pot of manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant were all hidden from their sight.
The high priest's own work never let up either.
How busy Aaron was! He had the yearly sacrifices on the great day of atonement. He also had much to do every day, so that the appointed worshippers could worship. There were the morning and evening sacrifices, besides the occasional ones. At any time he might be called on to offer a trespass offering. So he never could have sat down as a man who had finished his work and could look at it with satisfaction.
The whole system, though God set it up, brought nobody all the way in. Set beside the gospel, the gap is stark.
Still, the law made nothing perfect, whatever shadows of heavenly things it gave. You can see it here. The priests keep entering, but go no further than the first tabernacle, or holy place. Into the holiest goes only the high priest, once in the year, and never without blood, which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. How far this is from the gospel, which goes out to the ungodly and lost, reconciling to God all who believe by virtue of the death of His Son!
That door has since been opened, and Scripture names what opened it.
Hebrews 9:6, 8 shows that access to the Holiest under the law of Moses was a very rare privilege indeed. But Hebrews 10:19-20 reveals the precious truth that in the favoured day in which we live, we have "confidence to enter the holy places." To this the Holy Spirit adds the deeply important words "by the blood of Jesus." The immensity of this privilege is beyond all human thought.
- Routine. Priests entered the outer room day after day — trimming lamps, setting out the showbread — and their service stopped there.
- Ritual. The original text does not call their work "the service of God"; older English versions added those words.
- Restriction. Free entry into the first room only marked the closed door beyond it. The veil hid the ark of the covenant from the men who served nearest to it.
- Repetition. Morning, evening and occasional offerings meant even the high priest never sat down as a man whose work was done.
- Release. What was a rare privilege for one man once a year is now confidence to enter, by the blood of Jesus.
but into the second, the high priest only, once a year, not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people
The writer has just described the two rooms of the tabernacle, and now he draws attention to who could enter the inner one. Everything about the arrangement was designed to say something — and the message was not welcome news.
One writer notes that the limits themselves carried the message.
Nothing showed more forcefully that the way into the holiest was not yet made known than facts like these. None but priests could enter the holy place. Those very priests, serving there day after day, could never pass on into the holiest. And the high priest himself must not enter the holiest "at all times", but only "once a year". ... Its holy places were not open even to those who had services to do there. No one was free to go in and out. There was no way to the mercy seat that was open to all, or open at any time.
The phrase "not without taking blood" is the hinge of the verse. One writer counts how few could come near, and on what terms even they came.
In all the earth there was not one man fit to come into the presence of the holy God without the blood of a slain victim. No, not one; not even the high priest of Israel. Once a year the people of God stood as one nation out of all the nations of the earth. Out of that nation stood one man. Yet even that one man must not come into the presence of God without blood.
Another writer explains why the blood mattered so much:
And why not without blood? Because nothing else shelters sinful man from the wrath of God but the blood; for nothing else remits sin. It would have been death to Aaron to enter the holiest of all without blood.
One writer describes what that blood did once it reached God's throne.
He put it on the throne of God. The cherubim, the supporters of His throne, looked down to the mercy seat, so they could see it and gaze on it. And he left it there. This was enough for God. The moment He saw it, the throne held back. Otherwise its action would have gone out in righteous judgment... No one ever wiped off the blood of the sin offering placed on the mercy seat in this way. It stayed there all year, always before God.
The high priest brought blood "for himself" as well as for the people. That phrase separates Aaron from the priest this letter points to.
In Aaron's case he was "obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people." Here again we find contrast, not comparison... There is all the difference in the world between Aaron offering FOR himself and Christ offering HIMSELF.
The word translated "errors" or "ignorance" is not a soft word for sin in general. It marks a limit built into the whole sacrificial system.
Under the law the only sins that were provided for were those of ignorance. If a man sinned presumptuously, he was to die without mercy. The law gave no sacrifice for that. In Psalm 19 David says, "Keep back your servant from presumptuous sins" — that is, sins done knowingly. "Who can discern his errors?" There are sins of ignorance. "Declare me innocent from hidden faults" — that is, faults I know nothing about, and yet they are there all the same.
The day came round every year, and that repetition carried its own verdict.
The very nature of the sacrifices shut out the thought of one eternal redemption. Repeating them showed that sin was still there, or there would have been no need to repeat them. The one sacrifice for sins has now been made, and that shows the sins are entirely carried away.
The verse describes a door that was almost always shut. Set that against what believers have now.
What was forbidden to Aaron, apart from a little on one day in the year, is now granted always to every Christian... We are ever welcome there, and welcome in that way.
- Barred. One man, one room, one day a year. The limits themselves said that the way to God was still closed.
- Blood. No one was fit to enter without it; not the nation, not the priests, not even the high priest who carried it in.
- Throne. The high priest put the blood on the mercy seat and left it there. It held back the judgment that would otherwise have gone out.
- Himself. Aaron had to offer for his own sins first; Christ, needing nothing for Himself, offered Himself.
- Open. That one sacrifice never needs repeating. What Aaron was allowed for a moment once a year now belongs always to every believer.
the Holy Spirit shewing this, that the way of the [holy of] holies has not yet been made manifest while as yet the first tabernacle has [its] standing;
The tabernacle was not just furniture and ritual: it was a message, and this verse names the One who spoke through it. The closed inner curtain said "not yet" — and the question is whether anything has changed since.
The meaning of the sanctuary is not left to guesswork.
What then are we to learn from the tabernacle and its services? We are not left to work out our own interpretation. We are told outright that the Holy Spirit has signified their true meaning. First, the services of the tabernacle showed plainly that, under the law, the way into the presence of God was not yet opened.
Moses wrote the plans down. The verse looks behind him to the One using him.
Here we have the Spirit again spoken of as Author, though the human instrument is in this case well known. Moses gave exact directions for building the tabernacle and for the worship in it. He committed it all to writing, which we have to this day. But here we see Who made use of Moses — the Holy Spirit.
Three curtains stood between a man and God, and each said something different.
The first entrance-curtain, the wide Gate of the Court, seemed to say, "Come", to all. The second entrance-curtain, the Door of the Holy Place, seemed to say, "Come", to any priest who had washed his hands and feet at the basin. But the third entrance-curtain, the Veil of the Holiest of all, seemed to say, "Not yet". By that Veil, which shut them out, the Holy Spirit taught men that the way into the holy places was not yet opened.
The elaborate ritual pointed forward, but its immediate lesson was negative.
What did it all mean? No doubt it pointed forward to the blood of Christ as the only ground of approach to God. Yet in the whole arrangement the Holy Spirit was saying that under the old order there was no real approach to God at all. The way in was not yet opened… But as long as the first tabernacle had a standing before God, the rule was: no admittance.
Even the one man who could enter came in on terms that proved nothing was settled.
The high priest could not go into the holiest of all whenever he liked, as the priests could go into the holy place. And he did not enter as a worshipper purged once for all. He went in on the very ground that sin had not been put away for ever.
"The first tabernacle" means more than a tent.
Here "the first tabernacle" means Judaism as a system. It is identified with the first part of the tabernacle, and that part was open only to the priests of the nation. The second part — that is, the sanctuary — only showed, by everything connected with it, that there was no access to God.
Two rooms, kept apart, marked the old worship — and the letter speaks of them as still in use.
Having the two rooms, and keeping them, put the worshipper at a distance from God… As long as God recognised the two, the way into the Holiest was not opened… The present tense reminds us that the Temple service was still going on when the letter was written.
A shut door is evidence about the sacrifices offered at it.
Second, if the way into the Holiest was not yet open, that was clear proof that the sacrifices were not enough. They could not make the offerer perfect in conscience… Under such a system God was shut in and man was shut out. The Jewish system could neither open heaven to us nor fit us for heaven.
What the verse denies to the old order, the death of Christ supplies.
Hebrews 9 declares that Christ has come and His blood has been shed to make atonement. So blessing is now for faith, and it lasts for ever. What was forbidden to Aaron, except a little on one day in the year, is now granted always to every Christian. The way into the holy places has been opened, and it stays open.
Because the veil is torn, there is no longer an outer room to linger in.
The tearing of the veil is what makes both tabernacles one. So the first tabernacle has no standing — no existence as such. If we have come into the true tabernacle at all, we have come into the holiest… There is only one entrance, by the blood of Jesus.
- Speaker. The Holy Spirit spoke through Moses, and He tells us what the tabernacle meant.
- Message. The inner curtain preached one word — "Not yet" — while the outer two said "Come."
- System. "The first tabernacle" stands for Judaism as a system. While it stood before God, the rule was: no admittance.
- Proof. A closed way proved the sacrifices could not perfect the conscience. God was shut in; man was shut out.
- Reversal. The torn veil ends the "not yet". What Aaron was denied all year is now open always to every believer, through one entrance — the blood of Jesus.
the which [is] an image for the present time, according to which both gifts and sacrifices, unable to perfect as to conscience him that worshipped, are offered,
The verse pauses the description of the tabernacle to say what the whole arrangement meant. It was a picture for its own time, and its offerings had a fixed limit: they could not settle the worshipper's conscience. So why could animal sacrifices not reach that deep, and what makes a conscience perfect?
The tabernacle was a teaching picture. Its offerings dealt with outward things, and they came with an end date.
The provisions of the law were admirable as a witness to man's sinfulness and to a coming Redeemer. But they were only surface-level and temporary. They went no further than outward "meats and drinks and various washings." In keeping with that, they touched no deeper needs than "the errors of the people" (verse 7). They were called here "ordinances of flesh imposed until a time of setting right."
The arrangement pictured something, but the picture itself could satisfy no one — neither God nor the worshipper.
Thirdly, these things during their existence were a figure of things to come. The figures, however, could never satisfy God nor meet the need of man. Under such a system God was shut in and man was shut out. The Jewish system could neither open heaven to us nor fit us for heaven.
The problem lay in the value of what the worshipper brought. A conscience can never rise higher than the sacrifice it rests on.
The former could never give a perfect conscience, simply because they were imperfect in themselves. It was impossible that the blood of a bull or of a goat could ever give a perfect conscience. It might do for a day, a month, or a year, but no longer. So the conscience of a Jewish worshipper was never perfect. He could never say that his conscience was perfectly purged, because he had not yet reached a perfect sacrifice.
The yearly repetition proved the point in the worshipper's own experience.
Here is a poor Israelite. He brings his sacrifice, lays his hands on it and kills it. He sees the priest take the blood, sprinkle it on the altar, and burn the victim. He sees the smoke rise, and the priest says, Your trespass is forgiven. And yet on the day of atonement those trespasses, and all the others, were mentioned all over again. He had to conclude they were not really forgiven at all. In other words, his conscience was not perfect, he did not yet have perfect assurance of acceptance, or forgiveness.
"Perfect" is not about a flawless character. It describes a person fit to stand before God and stay there.
First, the sacrifices offered under the law could never put those who came to them in the place of constant worshippers. That is clearly what "perfect" means in this passage. They failed both because they were ineffective in themselves and because they had to be repeated... Now note, to be perfected as a worshipper is to have no more conscience of sins. Surely this exalts worship very highly, because worship is not at all the means of our justification, but that for which we are already justified.
This purged conscience is not the same as a good conscience.
The purged conscience is one that, being "once purged", has no more conscience of sins (Hebrews 10:2). It assumes a conscience that has been exercised about its sins. That exercise is then met: the believer learns that the precious blood of Christ cleanses him from all sins, and that he will never come under judgment. A good conscience is a conscience free of offence in practical ways and walk.
What the old offerings could not do, one finished work has done. Ease comes because nothing is left for us to do.
No conscience can be at ease before God where anything depends on what the person himself is doing or has to do. Yes, I would say, not even if it now had to depend on what Christ has to do, instead of resting on what He has already done... Christ does not have to enter in again, He has no more sacrifice for sin to offer — no other blood to carry in; for where could any be found of like preciousness? All is done once, and once for all.
The tabernacle was a picture. Copying it as a model for worship turns its lesson upside down.
Christendom, instead of seeing in the tabernacle a figure, has used it as a pattern for its religious services. In doing so, it has lost the "good things" the figures speak of. So the mass of people in Christendom have again set up magnificent buildings. They have again railed off one part of those buildings as more holy than the rest. And they have again set up a priestly class distinct from the ordinary people, who perform religious services on their behalf. So Christendom has adopted a system modelled on the Jewish camp. It keeps people at a distance from God and can never make the conscience perfect.
- Figure — The tabernacle was a picture with an end date. Its rules touched only outward things, and they lasted only until God set things right.
- Ceiling — A conscience can never rise above its sacrifice. Imperfect blood gives an imperfect conscience, and the yearly repeat proved the forgiveness was never final.
- Perfect — "Perfect" here means fit to stand as a constant worshipper, with no more conscience of sins. It is not the means of justification but the fruit of it.
- Once — There is no ease before God while anything still depends on what we, or even Christ, have yet to do. Rest lies in what is already finished.
- Warning — Treat this picture as a model — special buildings, holier zones, a priestly class — and you rebuild the very distance that could never perfect anyone.
[consisting] only of meats and drinks and divers washings, ordinances of flesh, imposed until [the] time of setting things right.
The verse ends the description of the old tabernacle system by naming what it amounted to and how long it would last. So why could rules given by God never reach the conscience, and what is the "time of reformation" that closed them?
The verse gathers the whole system under things that touch the body only.
They were external things. They consisted only of meats and drinks and various washings. An Israelite had to be very careful about what food he ate. The law prescribed everything he ate or drank. All of it had to be clean, or else he was defiled... There was a washing at the basin. There was the sprinkling of blood to sanctify the unclean. It went on the bronze altar too, sometimes on the horns of the altar of incense, and once a year on the mercy seat. These could not make the conscience perfect, or give real peace. They were carnal, or fleshly, ordinances. They dealt with the outward man, and with a relationship to God that was outward only. A man might be a good Israelite, clean by the ritual, and yet be a complete stranger to peace with God, to any sense of His love, or to access into His holy presence.
These washings are the "baptisms" the letter mentioned earlier. One dictionary explains what they were, and what they were not.
In Hebrews 6:2 the Hebrew believers were told to leave "the doctrine of baptisms." In Hebrews 9:10 we read of "various baptisms or washings." The words that follow are "imposed until the time of reformation," and that "time" is "Christ being come." So these baptisms were part of the Jewish ritual, which had many washings and bathings. None of them fully signified the baptism of the New Testament, which as the ordinance of entry places the baptised in a new position.
Verse 9 says the gifts and sacrifices could not perfect the worshipper's conscience. One writer traces that failure to what the offerings were made of.
Judaism's great failure, as the apostle shows, was that it could not really purify the conscience and set the soul at rest in the presence of God. In the tabernacle of old, he says, gifts and sacrifices were offered that "cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper." Why not? Because they consisted only of "meats and drinks, and various baptisms," or purifications — "carnal ordinances." They were ordinances which could not in their very nature affect the condition of the soul.
Weak as they were, these rules were not pointless. They were pictures, and that is why they had to end.
Meats and drinks too were only pictures of the food and refreshment found in the sacrifice of Christ — both for God and for the believer. Various washings and carnal ordinances pictured how the truth of Christ is applied to the soul, with cleansing and sustaining power. Such things were pictures, so of course they were temporary. They were imposed only until the time of reformation, when God would set things in proper relationship and perspective, bringing in a change to end all changes.
When did that time arrive? One writer answers from the very next verse:
Those ordinances were there until the "time of reformation" (verse 10). That term means "setting things right." The time for setting things right has come. Verse 11 turns our thoughts from the carnal ordinances to the work of Christ. There He is, the new High Priest in relation to this new spiritual system, the answer to the parable.
If the ordinances had a fixed end date, going back to them now is worse than being out of date.
Nothing is more empty and pointless than a ritual whose time has passed. Verse 10 says this sharply. Things that once carried all the weight of Jehovah's name are, looking back, powerless and empty... But once the time of reformation has arrived, Truth is no longer hidden under figures. It stands out in its own glory and life. Then the former things are no longer truth, nor even a likeness of truth. To approach Him now through such a channel is to come before His presence with a contradiction of the glory of His Christ.
- Outward — Food rules, drink rules and washings governed the body. A man could keep them all and still be a stranger to peace with God.
- Powerless — The offerings consisted only of these fleshly things, so by their very nature they could not touch the soul.
- Pictorial — They were not meaningless. Meats and drinks pictured the food found in Christ's sacrifice; the washings pictured its cleansing power on the soul.
- Provisional — "Imposed until" fixed a limit. The "time of reformation" means setting everything right, and that time came with Christ, the new High Priest.
- Past — The real thing has come. Going back to the ritual is not old-fashioned devotion but a contradiction of the glory of Christ.
But Christ being come high priest of the good things to come, by the better and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, (that is, not of this creation,)
Chapter 9 has just described the earthly tent and its closed inner room. Now Christ appears, and everything turns: a new Priest, a new sanctuary, a new sacrifice — and fresh questions about the "good things," the greater tent, and how He came.
The verse does not swap one part of the old system for a better one. It replaces the whole arrangement.
The coming of Christ changes everything. At once we have a new High Priest, a greater and more perfect tabernacle and a new sacrifice. Aaron was high priest in relation to the things of this present world. Christ is our "High Priest of good things to come".
The ESV reads "the good things that have come." Older translations read "good things to come," and the writers quoted here work from that older wording. They differ over the timing. Some read the phrase from where Israel stood under the law, and hold that the good things are still ahead.
In saying "things to come," the starting-point is Israel under the law before our Lord came. But suppose these good things were already obtained. Suppose you could say, "we have them," because Christianity had fulfilled them. Then, once Christianity was established, they could hardly still be called "good things to come." They are yet to come. These "good things" consist of all that the Messiah will enjoy when He reigns.
Others start from the same point and land somewhere else — the blessings believers enjoy now.
Remember, we are looking at things from the standpoint of Judaism. To a Jew, in the time of the law, the good things were not there. They were still to come. They were not shown until Christ's work opened the way into God's presence — into that treasury from which God pours out all the riches of His grace for us. The good things to come are the good things of Christianity... the things which we are now enjoying by faith.
The ESV's "tent" is what older translations call the tabernacle. "Not made with hands" tells us where His ministry is, and rules out any earthly building raised in His honour.
Christ has passed through the heavens. Man's hands did not make these; they are the handiwork of God Himself. Christ has gone into heaven itself; there, in the immediate presence of God, He appears for us. On earth He was not a priest; no tabernacle ever existed on earth suited to so great a High Priest as Jesus the Son of God... To try to honour Him with costly things made by hands is to forget the dignity of our High Priest, and the heavenly order of His priesthood.
Writers do not agree on how far this tent reaches. Some take it as heaven itself. Others see something wider:
The greater and more perfect tabernacle is the one that is eternal. It stands in contrast to the earthly system of Judaism, which was put into men's hands. It would speak of the universe as it stands in the counsels of God — God's eternal building.
The placement of one small phrase changes the sense of the passage.
The point is whether the words "by His own blood" belong with "being come" in verse 11, or with "entered" in verse 12. In our judgment, a careful look shows that "being come," and not "entered," governs the words "by His own blood." Another writer says of the phrase: "dia [that is, "by"] here is, I have no doubt at all, characteristic of His coming. He came in that way. His coming was in the power of these things and marked by them. The tabernacle is not the place He came through, nor His blood the means by which He came."
On that reading, His own blood was not something He needed to gain entry. It marked His entrance — and that had never been heard of before.
A high priest to enter the Holiest with the blood of animals on behalf of Israel was nothing new. But for a High Priest to enter by His own blood — that marking His entrance — was new and unheard of... Aaron entered the Holiest on earth. The Lord has entered the Holiest in heaven... In the Lord's case it was by His own blood. It was not on the strength of it, as if He could not have entered God's presence without it.
The sanctuary is heavenly and the offering is finished. So a class of men still offering sacrifices on earth denies what this verse says.
A special priestly caste — a certain class of men set apart as priests — is not only unknown in Christianity. It is utterly hostile to the spirit and principles of it... a sacrificing priest on the earth is a direct denial of the truth of scripture. It completely sets aside the glorious fact on which Christianity rests: accomplished redemption.
- Christ came. One arrival replaced three things at once: the priest, the sanctuary, and the sacrifice.
- Came as Priest. Aaron served the things of this present world. Christ is High Priest of good things to come.
- Came by blood. His own blood marks the character of His coming. It was not the blood of animals, and it was not something He needed to gain entry.
- Came into heaven. His tent was never built by hands, so no earthly structure or human priesthood can house His ministry.
- Come to us. Writers differ. Are the good things still ahead, when the Messiah reigns, or ours by faith now? Either way, their High Priest is already in His place.
nor by blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, has entered in once for all into the [holy of] holies, having found an eternal redemption.
This verse is the turning point of the letter's argument. It sets one High Priest, one entrance and one sacrifice against a ritual Israel repeated every year. Three questions follow: what "by His own blood" means, where Christ obtained that redemption, and why it is called eternal.
Every phrase looks back to Israel's yearly ceremony. On that day the high priest carried animal blood into the innermost room of the tabernacle, Israel's tent of worship. The contrast is not only in the blood, but in how long the result lasts:
Christ has entered the Holiest of all by virtue of His own blood. He has gone in to stay. When Aaron entered the Holiest of all in the tabernacle in the wilderness, it was only for a time, and it happened only once a year... What a beautiful contrast with "His own blood," by which He has entered "once," never to be repeated. And with it He obtained an "eternal redemption." The Old Testament had no thought of an eternal redemption.
One writer draws out what Christ's own blood was not for:
He entered the holy place once for all, the curtain now being torn. There He stays, without change and without any need of repetition — in clear contrast with anything of that kind. And His own blood was not for Himself, as if He needed some sacrifice to let Him in. With that blood He found an eternal redemption.
Commentators differ in emphasis. Some say Christ entered "by virtue of" His blood. Others say the blood marked His entrance, and was not something He needed for Himself. But they agree on why a representative must carry blood at all:
He had a personal right to enter because of who He was. But He could not enter that way as our representative. If He is to appear for us, He must come with the witness of the blood. The priest, who appeared for the people and for himself, had to carry the blood into the holiest.
Some read this verse as though the atonement happened when Christ arrived in heaven. One writer meets that head-on:
"With His own blood He entered into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12) — the very text people misuse to support the error that propitiation was made only then and there. He obtained that redemption neither in heaven nor on earth, but "lifted up" on the cross. There God made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin. And once atonement was made in that way, its power reached inside the holiest at that very moment. "It is finished," said the One who poured out His soul to death.
He quotes an older translation of the verse here; the ESV reads "thus securing an eternal redemption."
The word for "obtained" can also read "found." One writer asks what the finding cost:
But where did He have to go to find it? He had to go to the cross. It meant He had to shed His blood and give up His life to get redemption for us.
The word "eternal" runs like a thread through this letter. It stands against a background of things that ran out:
His sacrifice works forever, in the strictest sense of the word. The word "eternal" comes up often, and with special stress, in the letter to the Hebrews. Why eternal? Because it stands against the temporary character of everything like it among the sons of Israel. So we find not only eternal redemption, but eternal salvation, eternal inheritance and eternal covenant. Each of these words points the same way: it lifts the believing Hebrews up to feel at home with what lies beyond time.
That puts the believer's standing beyond the reach of his own behaviour:
He has found a redemption that seals our relationship with God forever! — not for a year, and not on condition of our good behaviour. Who would dare to let his relationship with God depend on his own good behaviour?
The word "once" is not a small detail. The letter drives it home again and again:
Notice too how the letter says again and again that the sacrifice of Christ is one sacrifice, offered once and for ever. It sets this fact before us six times, in the passage that begins at Hebrews 9:12 and ends at Hebrews 10:14. Search that passage and see for yourself.
- Blood — Christ entered heaven with His own blood, not with the blood of animals. That is the difference between a yearly ceremony and a finished work.
- Cross — Christ obtained the redemption at the cross, not on arrival in heaven. "It is finished," said the One who poured out His soul to death.
- Once — Aaron entered each year and came out again. Christ entered once and stays, with no change and no repeat.
- Eternal — the word stands against everything temporary in the old system. It covers salvation, inheritance and covenant too.
- Secure — a redemption that lasts forever cannot be held for a year at a time or made to depend on good behaviour.