http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=736&b=Exodus
The Holy Place, or the Most Holy Place?
by
Wayne Jackson, M.A.
In Exodus 40:26, the Bible states that the “golden altar” was in the
holy place of the tabernacle, in front of the veil. On the other hand,
the book of Hebrews (9:3-4) indicates that the altar of incense was in
the
most holy place. How can these passages be harmonized?
In responding to this question, some background information is in
order. When the children of Israel came into the desolate region of
Sinai following their exodus from Egypt, Jehovah ordained a regulated
system of worship that was designed to accommodate their sojourn in that
wilderness. A part of that order was the tabernacle—a movable,
tent-like structure that was to serve as the house of the Lord under
those temporary conditions. In the construction of the tabernacle, Moses
was “warned of God” that he make all things “according to the pattern”
that was shown to him at Mt. Sinai (Hebrews 8:5).
The tabernacle was divided into two rooms, the holy place and the most
holy place (or holy of holies). Within the former, according to the
account in Exodus 40, three items of furniture were located. On the
northern side was the table of showbread, while the golden lampstand was
on the south. Finally, to the west, just “before the veil” that
separated the holy place from the holy of holies, was the golden altar
of incense (Exodus 30:6; 40:26).
Here, then, as indicated above, is the problem. In the book of Hebrews,
the writer, in describing the same circumstance, stated that “
behind the second veil” there was a compartment “called the holy of holies; having a golden altar of incense...” (Hebrews 9:3-4).
Some critics have not hesitated to declare that the author of Hebrews
made a mistake. James Moffatt observed that “the irregularity of placing
it [the golden altar—WJ] on the wrong side of
the curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies” (1957, p. 115). Such a
declaration, however, not only is inconsistent with a respectable view
of biblical inspiration, but also is wholly unnecessary.
As I have emphasized in previous discussions (Jackson, 1986, 2:51ff.),
no legitimate contradiction can be charged against statements that
superficially appear to conflict unless every conceivable possibility of
reconciliation has been exhausted. One must approach the controversial
text(s) and ask: Is there any feasible way to harmonize these passages?
If there is, no allegation of a real discrepancy can be made. Now, what
are the facts of this case? Several solutions to the difficulty have
been proposed. Some of these, however, are less than totally convincing.
Let us reflect upon a few of them.
(1) Some have argued that the golden altar of incense was not in the
holy place, as evinced by the fact that in Exodus 26:35 only the table
of showbread and the lampstand are mentioned as items of furniture in
that room. The conclusion thus is drawn that the altar of incense must
have been in the holy of holies. This logic is not persuasive. First,
neither is the altar of incense mentioned in Exodus 26:33-34 as being
found in the most holy place. Hence, silence cannot be the deciding
factor. Second, the golden altar clearly is located in the holy place in
other passages (Exodus 30:6; 40:26). Besides that, if the golden altar
was in the holy of holies, how could the priests burn incense thereupon
each day (cf. Luke 1:9), since the most holy place could be entered only
yearly—on the day of atonement—and then by the high priest alone
(Hebrews 9:7)?
(2) The Greek text of Hebrews 9:4 speaks of a golden
thumiaterion for the burning of incense. The original word denotes either a place, or a vessel, used in burning incense. Thus,
thumiaterion is rendered “censer” (KJV) or “altar” (ASV). Some argue, therefore, that the inspired writer of this passage did not allude to the
altar of incense, but rather to a
censer
that was kept within the holy of holies, but which was employed
annually to convey coals from the altar into the most holy place
according to the instructions of Leviticus 16:12-13. This represents the
view of scholars like Albert Barnes, James MacKnight, and S.T.
Bloomfield. An objection to this theory would be that if the writer
refers only to a censer, then there is no mention at all of the golden
altar. True, but then there is no reference to the laver or brazen altar
that stood just before the tabernacle, and that likewise were an
integral part of the priestly service. It is possible that only the
censer was mentioned “because it was the principal part of the furniture
which the high priest used on the day of expiation” (Bengal, 1877,
3:418). Still, it seems odd that the lesser object, the censer, would be
mentioned, while the greater, the golden altar, was ignored completely.
On the other hand, there is no mention at all in the Old Testament of a
“golden” censer. Moreover, when the high priest entered the holy of
holies on the day of atonement, he took the censer with him, thus
implying that it was not already within the most holy place. A defense
of this view appears to require considerable speculation.
(3) The most popular opinion among conservative scholars argues that
Hebrews 9:4 refers not to a censer, but to the golden altar of incense.
It is carefully pointed out, though, that this passage does not actually
say that the altar was
within the most holy place. The text
literally reads: “...behind the second veil was a room which is called
the holy of holies, having [
echousa, present participle] a golden altar of incense” (Hebrews 9:3-4). The verb
echo
can be employed in the sense of “belonging to,” i.e., in close
“association with” something (cf. Hebrews 6:9). Marcus Dods observed
that “the change from
en he [within] of ver. 2 to
echousa
[having] is significant, and indicates that it was not precisely its
local relations he had in view, but rather its ritual associations”
(1956, 4:328). Theodor Zahn stated that the Hebrew writer was describing
an “ideal relation” of the altar to the most holy place (1973, 2:364).
John Ebrard contended that one is not required to interpret
echousa “in a local sense” in this verse. As an example, he cited verse one of this very chapter: “Now even the first covenant had [
echein] ordinances...” (1859, 6:492).
That there was a very strong connection between the altar of incense
and the most holy place is evinced by several suggestions in the Old
Testament. Note the following. (1) There was a ritualistic association
between the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense in that the
high priest sprinkled blood upon both of them on the annual day of
atonement (Exodus 30:10). (2) Also, on the day of atonement, the high
priest carried live coals from the golden altar, along with incense,
into the holy of holies (Leviticus 16:10). Thus, on that day, once a
year, the firepan, in which the coals were transported, became an
extension of the altar. In that sense, it might be said that the altar
“belonged to” the most holy place. (3) In a religious sense, the altar
of incense actually was said to stand “before the Lord” (Leviticus
16:12) and “before the ark of the testimony” (Exodus 40:5). In fact, the
author of First Kings states that the altar of gold “belonged to” the
oracle, i.e., the inner sanctuary (see 1 Kings 6:22). Of this passage,
R.D. Patterson noted that even though the altar was materially in the
holy place, “functionally and symbolically it was associated with the
Most Holy Place” (1988, 4:67). Another scholar observed that while the
altar was locally situated in the holy place, “in its nature and idea”
it pertained to the most holy place (Kay, 1981, 10:69). Professor
William Milligan argued, on the basis of inference, that on the day of
atonement the veil between the holy and most holy places was opened so
that the altar of incense and the ark of the covenant stood in close
proximity, and that it was from this vantage point that the author of
Hebrews wrote (n.d., 3:230).
Thus, a strong case can be made for the fact that the writer of Hebrews (9:3-4) was not stressing the
location of the altar of incense; rather, he was emphasizing its
theological connection with the most holy place of the tabernacle.
In view of this, let us remind ourselves of the Law of Contradiction.
This logical maxim affirms that a thing cannot both be, and not be, if
one is speaking of the same thing, employing the same time reference,
and using his terms in an identical sense. In the case before us, one
should not charge that there is a contradiction between Exodus 30:6 and
Hebrews 9:3-4, for the distinct possibility exists that: (a) two
different objects are in view, i.e., the golden altar and a censer; or
(b) what is more likely, two different senses are employed, i.e., the
altar was described in a spatial sense in the Exodus passage, and a
theological sense in the Hebrews context. It is thus wholly unwarranted
to suggest that a biblical contradiction must exist with reference to
the location of the golden altar of incense.
REFERENCES
Bengal, J. A. (1877), G
nomon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Dods, Marcus (1956), “Hebrews,”
The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Ebrard, John Henry Augustus (1859), “Hebrews,”
Biblical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Hermann Olshausen, Ed. (New York: Sheldon & Company).
Jackson, Wayne (1986),
Essays in Apologetics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, Inc.).
Kay, William (1981 reprint), “Hebrews,”
The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Milligan, William (no date),
The Bible Educator, ed. E.H. Plumptre (London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin).
Moffatt, James (1957),
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Patterson, R. D. (1988),
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F.E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Zahn, Theodor (1973 reprint),
Introduction to the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock).
We
know what a human is. Scientists have defined our kind with precision.
With that precise definition of what constitutes a human, we can know
that everything either is or is not a human. There is no middle ground.
This principle of logic is known as the Law of Excluded Middle.1
If Darwin was right, then at some point in history, a non-human had to
give rise to a human, either by transforming into a human or giving
birth to a human.2 And yet there is absolutely no evidence of such an event occurring. Instead, we find that in nature, life comes from life of its own kind—a truth known as the Law of Biogenesis.3
Finches give birth to finches. Peppered moths have peppered moths.
Horses have horses. Whales have whales. Bacteria have bacteria.
If
one were to make a listing of what America stands in dire need of, the
listing would differ dramatically from person to person—and politician
to politician. Nowadays, the list would most certainly include concerns
over the economy, illegal immigration, the price of oil, taxes, and a
host of other issues. Would anyone today place on such a list the need
for the Gospel of Christ to be preached and promoted throughout the
nation and the world? Incredibly, the Founders of America did just that.
