Exodus vs. Hebrews?
Where was the altar of incense?
January, 2020
This month's spotlight verse is Hebrews 9:4. Some who read this verse question if it contains an error, as compared to the Old Testament. Exodus chapter 30, 1 Kings chapters 6 and 7, and so forth seem to indicate there was an altar of incense located outside the Most Holy Place. It's possible to read Hebrews 9:4 and assume it means there was an altar inside the Most Holy Place. Our commentary briefly examines this, but it's worth a closer look. Many supposed contradictions in the Bible are resolved by carefully looking at the context, and by using common-sense assumptions. After that—for those so inclined—deeper topics like language can be useful.
First and foremost, we should consider the statement made by the author of Hebrews at the end of verse 5: "Of these things we cannot now speak in detail." Whatever conclusions we draw from this passage must take that phrase into account. The writer is being purposefully brief, since the exact physical arrangement is not the point at hand. Before we assume an error, we first need to accept the fact that we're reading a generalized statement.
Along with this, we need to remember that the writer of Hebrews demonstrates profound knowledge of Hebrew culture, history, Scripture, and religion. In this passage itself, he will specifically refer to the daily activities of the priests (Hebrews 9:6), and the fact that the Most Holy Place was only entered into once per year (Hebrews 9:7). Since priests made daily prayer offerings of incense in the Holy Place, it stands to reason that the author of Hebrews knows where the various parts are located.
Additional explanations come from linguists. Scholars note various Hebrew words used to define tools and implements used in the tabernacle. This makes it possible, if not likely, there was a permanent incense altar inside the Most Holy Place where the yearly offering was made, as well as a daily-used altar of incense in the Holy Place where coals could be taken behind the veil for that ritual.
The most robust clarification comes from the fact that the Greek word for "having" in verse 4—echousa—most often refers to possession, not position. Based on the Greek grammar, the writer of Hebrews is more likely saying the item in question "belongs" to the Most Holy Place. That is to say, its most important purpose was connected to the yearly ritual in that part of the tabernacle. This would be like describing a house as "having" a mailbox, though the mailbox is not physically inside the house, but rather is used by the house to receive mail.
This would correspond to the point about multiple terms being used for implements in the tabernacle, as well.
Another lingual point to consider is the difficulty of knowing when words are meant to be broken into phrases when translating from one language to another. This is especially tough when the original language does not use punctuation, as is the case with New Testament Greek. Hebrews 9:4 might well fall into this category.
The statement in question begins in verse 2, and it's possible that verse 3 is meant as a parenthetical or aside. The ESV translates this as follows:
"For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant…"
The intent of the author might well have been something like this [parentheticals added]:
"For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place (behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place), having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant…"
This would imply a general description of the Holy Place, as a two-chambered area, containing those two items. We can't be dogmatic about any of those interpretations, but they are all possible ways to read the text.
All in all, the writer demonstrates extensive fluency with Hebrew religion. That makes the likelihood of him being drastically in error very small. He also points out that he is not making a detailed description, and the passage is intended to compare the physically-based limitations of the Old Covenant with the superior redemption available through Christ. We might well debate exactly what the author meant, on a microscopic level, but there's nothing here we can reasonably consider an error, let alone a blatant one.
-- Editor
