Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 9:15

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 9:15” utilice nuestra app.

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

15 28. The indispensableness and efficacy of the death of Christ

15. for this cause ] i.e. on account of the grandeur of His offering.

the mediator of the new testament ] Rather, “a mediator of a New Covenant.” Moses had been called by Philo “the Mediator” of the Old Covenant, i.e. he who came between God and Israel as the messenger of it. But Christ’s intervention His coming as One who revealed God to man was accompanied with a sacrifice so infinitely more efficacious that it involved a New Covenant altogether.

by means of death ] This version renders the passage entirely unintelligible. The true rendering and explanation seem to be as follows: “And on this account He is a Mediator of a New Covenant, that since death” [namely the death of sacrificial victims] “occurred for the redemption of the transgressions which took place under the first covenant those who have been called [whether Christians, or faithful believers under the Old Dispensation] may [by virtue of Christ’s death, which the death of those victims typified] receive [i.e. actually enjoy the fruition of, Heb 6:12; Heb 6:17, Heb 10:36, Heb 11:13 ] the promise of the Eternal Inheritance.” Volumes of various explanations have been written on this verse, but the explanation given above is very simple. The verse is a sort of reason why Christ’s death was necessary. The ultimate, a priori, reason he does not attempt to explain, because it transcends all understanding; but he merely says that since under the Old Covenant death was necessary, and victims had to be slain in order that by their blood men might be purified, and the High Priest might enter the Holiest Place, so, under the New Covenant, a better and more efficacious death was necessary, both to give to those old sacrifices the only real validity which they possessed, and to secure for all of God’s elect an eternal heritage.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And for this cause – With this view; that is, to make an effectual atonement for sin, and to provide a way by which the troubled conscience may have peace.

He is the Mediator – see notes on Gal 3:19-20. He is the Mediator between God and man in respect to that new covenant which he has made, or that new dispensation by which people are to be saved. He stands between God and man – the parties at variance – and undertakes the work of mediation and reconciliation.

Of the New Testament – Not testament – for a testament, or will, needs no mediator; but of the new covenant, or the new arrangement or disposition of things under which he proposes to pardon and save the guilty; see notes on Heb 9:16-17.

That by means of death – His own death as a sacrifice for sin. The old covenant or arrangement also contemplated death – but it was the death of an animal. The purposes of this were to be effected by the death of the Mediator himself; or this covenant was to be ratified in his blood.

For the redemption of the transgression that were under the first testament – The covenant or arrangement under Moses. The general idea here is, that these were offences for which no expiation could be made by the sacrifices under that dispensation, or from which the blood then shed could not redeem. This general idea may include two particulars.

(1) That they who had committed transgressions under that covenant, and who could not be fully pardoned by the imperfect sacrifices then made, would receive a full forgiveness of all their sins in the great day of account through the blood of Christ. Though the blood of bulls and goats could not expiate, yet they offered that blood in faith; they relied on the promised mercy of God; they looked forward to a perfect sacrifice – and now the blood of the great atonement offered as a full expiation for all their sins, would be the ground of their acquittal in the last day.

(2) That the blood of Christ would now avail for the remission of all those sins which could not be expiated by the sacrifices offered under the Law. It not only contemplated the remission of all the offences committed by the truly pious under that Law, but would now avail to put away sin entirely. No sacrifice which people could offer would avail, but the blood of Christ would remove all that guilt.

That they which are called – Alike under the old covenant and the new.

Might receive the promise of eternal inheritance – That is, the fulfillment of the promise; or that they might be made partakers of eternal blessings. That blood is effectual alike to save those under the ancient covenant and the new – so that they will be saved in the same manner, and unite in the same song of redeeming love.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Heb 9:15-28

Mediator of the new testament

The two mediators:

Is WHAT RESPECTS JESUS AND MOSES ARE MEDIATORIALLY ALIKE.

1. Both of Divine appointment.

2. Both give to the world the notion of a covenant with God.

3. Both proposed a covenant that was fundamentally the same.

II. IN WHAT RESPECTS JESUS AND MOSES ARE MEDIATORIALLY DIFFERENT.

1. There is a difference of natures.

2. Jesus is a Mediator with individuals.

3. Jesus is a Mediator giving to man the fullest possible knowledge of God.

4. Jesus is a Mediator giving to man sufficiency of power. (D. Young, B. A.)

The old and the new

It was a part of the mission of the apostles not to transfer the allegiance of the Jews from one God to another, but to teach them how to serve the same God in a higher dispensation, under a noble disclosure of His character, and by new and better methods. It was to be the same heart and the same God; but there was a new and living way opened. The old was good, the new was better. The new was not an antagonism of the old, but only its outgrowth, related to it as the blossom and the fruit are to the root and the stalk. The old was local and national in its prime intents, and in its results. The new was for all ages. The old was a system of practices. It aimed at conduct–of course implying a good cause for conduct. The new is a system of principles, and yet not principles in a rigid philosphical sense, but principles that are great moral impulses or tendencies of the heart. The old built men for this world. Therefore it hardly looked beyond this world. The whole force of the new dispensation is derived from that which scarcely appeared at all in the old–its supereminent doctrine of the future. That is its very enginery. The aims of Christianity are supramundane. The motives are drawn from immortality-its joys, honours, promises, rewards. The old addressed the conscience through fear, and soon overreached its aim, losing some by under-action, and others–and the better natures–by over-action. What the law could not do, in that it was weak, it is declared, God sent His own Son to do. The new aims at the very springs of moral power in the soul, and that through love. It is a total change, it is an absolute difference, in this regard. The old was a dispensation of secular morals. It lived in the past. The new is a system of aspirations. It lives in the future. We are the children of the new testament, and not of the old. Woe be to us if, living in these later days, we find ourselves groping in the imperfections of the old testament, instead of springing up with all the vitality and supereminent manhood which belongs to the new testament. We are the children of a living Saviour. We are a brood over which He stretches His wings. We ought to have more than a creed which is only a modern representation of an old ordinance or institution. We ought to have something more than an ordinance. To be a disciple of the new testament is to have a living Head. It is to have a vital connection with that Head. It is to be conscious, while all nature speaks of God, and while all the exercises of religion assist indirectly, that the main power of a true religion in the soul is the souls connection with a living God. Ye are the children of the new and not of the old. Let your life mount up toward God. (H. W. Beecher.)

They which are called

Called

To every one of you I say, you are called. You are called because you were baptized as infants, dedicated to the service of the gospel, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are called because you have been instructed from the days of childhood to the present hour to believe in the Lord Jesus. You are called because you are in a Christian land, surrounded by those who own that the gospel is the word of God, and having also many within your sight or hearing, who live according to the will of Christ. You are called by the ordinances of the Christian Church, by the voice of the Christian ministry; by the word and sacraments of Christ, and by the preaching of those pastors who address you by His commission, and in His name. This day, this hour I call you in His behalf; therefore you are called. This is your calling. May God give you grace to hear! May God help you to believe His promise! May God make you to enjoy His glory. (C. Girdlestone, M. A.)

Effectual calling:

God draws His people, not with force, as mere machines, but with the cords of a man and with the bands of love. The subject may be best unfolded by a familiar illustration. How was it that Jacob was drawn into Egypt? He was made to feel the pressure of a grievous famine; he was informed that there was plenty of corn in Egypt, and that his dearly-beloved Joseph was the lord of all that land, and that he disposed of the good things to whomsoever he would. He was told, moreover, that Joseph had expressly invited him, and had sent waggons for the conveyance of his family, together with abundant provisions for the way; and, finally, he was assured that, at the end of this journey, all the good of the land of Egypt should be his. Did he need, after this, to have a chain fastened round him m be dragged into Egypt? No; all that he needed was faith to believe the tidings; and when once he was persuaded of the truth of these things he was willing of himself to go into that good land. Thus God draws sinners. He causes them to feel their need of mercy; He informs them that Jesus Christ has all heaven at His disposal; that He has sent to invite them, assuring them of all that is needful by the way, and all the glory of heaven at the end. Thus a thorough belief of these truths bends the most stubborn heart, and overcomes the most reluctant mind. (C. Simeon.)

A testament is of force after men are dead

Christs testament

I. CHRISTS WILL IS EMBODIED IN A WRITTEN RECORD.

1. The record gives a definite meaning and fixed character to the mind of Christ.

2. The record gives to the mind of Christ an abiding existence among us.

3. The written Word renders the will of Christ accessible to all.

II. CHRISTS WILL IS EMBODIED IN AN AUTHENTIC RECORD.

III. CHRISTS TESTAMENT IS A WRITTEN AND AUTHENTIC RECORD OF WHAT HE HAS BEQUEATHED TO MEN. There are great bequests for each of us. We are guilty–Christ has willed our forgiveness. We are enslaved–Christ has willed our freedom. We are sorrowful–Christ has willed our peace. We are dying–Christ has willed us life for ever.

IV. CHRISTS TESTAMENT HAS BEEN RATIFIED AND BROUGHT INTO FULL AND EVERLASTING OPERATION BY HIS OWN DEATH. (John Davies.)

Christs testamentary covenant:

It seems to us that St. Paul took advantage of the double meaning of the Greek word which he uses, and illustrates his subject the more copiously by employing it in one place for a covenant, and in another for a testament; and we shall possibly, as we advance, find reason to conclude, that the full sense of the passage is only to be evolved by our attaching to the word its double signification–by bearing in mind that a covenant and testament are alike designated by the word which the apostle employs. After all, there is not the wide difference which, at the first sight, we may suppose between a covenant and a testament. If I make a will, I may, in one sense, be said to covenant and agree to give certain things to certain parties upon the condition of my death; so that a testament is virtually a species of covenant. And if, on the other hand, two parties enter into a covenant, and the terms of this covenant require that one of them should die, you all see that, without any great forcing of language, the covenant may be considered as the testament or will of the sacrificed individual. God made a covenant with the Israelites, but then this covenant was ratified by the shedding of blood; in other words, there must be death to give the covenant its validity; and the covenant which required death in order to its completeness, might, as we have shown you, without anything overstrained in language, be designated a testament. So that under these limitations, and under these conditions, we can attach the name of a testament to that covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai. The exhibition which we are called upon to survey is that of our Saviour under the character of a testator; as the maker, that is, of a will, which could only become valid by the death of the party who made it. Now you will see at once that there is a peculiarity in this exhibition which marks it off from other representations of the scheme of human salvation. If Christ Jesus is displayed as bequeathing to the world legacies, which legacies could not be paid except after His death, then it may be said that it was the fact, the simple historical fact of His death, and not any merit which there was in that death, which entailed the large blessings on the race of mankind. And if by parity of reasoning the Redeemer is to be considered as a testator, or will-maker, does not the representation take away from the meritoriousness of His death, and, at least, show that it was not because His sufferings were expiatory and precious that such and such blessings have been obtained for us? A few words will suffice for the removal of this objection. If a man is worth 1,000 he may bequeath me that 1,000; and thus his death, considered as the mere separation of his soul from his body, will make me the owner of the money. But take the following case which is perfectly supposable: a criminal is sentenced to die, but is allowed, if he can, to find a substitute. He offers 1,000 for a substitute, and an individual comes forward and agrees on these terms to die in his stead. Now certainly this substitute may will away the 1,000, and yet nothing but his death entitles him to the 1,000. He might, for example, have long striven in vain to earn a livelihood for his family; he might then, calculating that his family would be more benefited by his death than his life, determine to sacrifice himself in order to procure for them the proper remuneration; and, without question, he might make a will which would secure to his children the property to which the value o! his death would alone give him right. He would thus unite the character of a testator and of a man who purchases, by dying, the goods which he bequeathes. Now this supposed case finds its precise counterpart in the matter of our redemption. The blessings of the gospel could only be procured by the sufferings and death of the Mediator. Hence, unquestionably, the blessings which Christ bequeathed were blessings which His death, and nothing but His death, could give Him right to bestow; but, nevertheless, He might still be a testator, or still make a will. In dying He might bequeath what He was to obtain by dying; and thus real inconsistency, after all, there is none, between regarding Christ as the maker of the will, and at the same time as procuring by His death the blessings which He made over to His people. In what sense, then, did Christ make a testament or will, or what fidelity is there in such an account of the scheme of our redemption? Now we would, first of all, remark that there is nothing more frequent in Scripture than the speaking of true believers as heirs of God, or as brought into such a relationship to the Almighty that heaven becomes theirs by the rights of inheritance. Yon cannot fall immediately to observe that the correspondence is most exact between this account of the believer as an heir and the representation of Christ as a testator. In dying Christ made us heirs. But this is exactly what would have been done by a testament; and, therefore, it is not possible that the effects of Christs death should be more clearly represented than by the figure of Christ as a testator. But is there then, indeed, no registered will, no document to which we can refer as the testament of the Mediator? We shall not hesitate to say that there is not a single promise in the New Testament which ought not to be regarded as a line or codicil in the will of the Redeemer. If you ask us for a written testament we carry you along with us to the archives of the Bible, and we take cut of it declarations which ensure to the faithful the crown and the rapture, and we join them into one continuous discourse, and we say to you, Behold the last will of the Saviour. What, we further ask, is this but an exact parallel to that which would take place in the case of a testament? Suppose you were permitted to read a will made in your own favour; there might be the bequeathment of a rich and noble estate, there might be the coffers of wealth and the caskets of jewellery consigned to your possession; but you would never think that you had a right to the domain, and you would never be bold enough to put forward a claim to the gold and the pearl, unless you knew that the testator was dead, and that thereby a force had been given to the testament. So that the correspondence is most accurate between the promises of Scripture and the consignments of a will. Had Christ (if we may bring forward such an idea) while suspended on the Cross, and exhausting the wrath which had gone forth against a disloyal creation, dictated a testamentary document enumerating the blessings which He bequeathed to all who believe on His name, not until He had bowed the head, and yielded up the ghost, would this register of the legacy have lived, overpassing in its wealth all the thoughts of created intelligences, and given right to a single child of our race to look and hope for the heritage of the redeemed. A testament is but a combination of promises becoming valid by the death of the promiser, we give the truest description of the promises of the Bible when we define them as the last will and testament of Christ our Lord. Now we would refer for a moment to that connection which we show to subsist between a covenant and testament. The Father and the Son had, from all eternity, entered into a covenant; the Father engaging, on the performance of certain conditions, that blessings should be placed at the disposal of the Son for the seed of the apostate. The covenant between the persons of the Trinity engaged for the pardon and acceptance of all who, in every age, should believe on the Son. Hence, you must all perceive, that what was the covenant between the Father and Son was also a document in favour of man; but, certainly, the covenant could only become valid by death; that in the fulness of time the Son should die, being its grand and fundamental article. And if as a covenant it could only become valid by death, then as a document in favour of man it could only become valid by death; but that document in favour of a party, which only becomes valid by death, is, most strictly, a will or testament. So that by one and the same act Christ Jesus performed His covenant with the Father, and made His testament in favour of man; that, in short, which was a covenant considered relatively to God, was a testament considered relatively to man. It obtained blessings from God; it consigned blessings to man, and both equally through death. You cannot, therefore, view Christ as executing a covenant without also viewing Him as executing a testament. What tie gained as a covenanter He disposed of as a testator; and whilst we say of Him, as making an agreement with God, Where a covenant is, there must be the death of the covenanter, we say of Him, as bestowing gifts on men, where a testament is, there must be the death of the testator. (H. Melvill, B. D.)

Christs last will and testament

I. We have to inquire IN WHAT SENSE OR SENSES MAY WE SPEAK OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS A TESTATOR. What is involved in this idea? If a will is made, two things are implied–that there is something to leave: that there is some measure of interest felt in those who are mentioned as legatees.

1. Now in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, we see one who has large and royal possessions, and who has these absolutely at His own disposal. All things are described as the property of Christ. All things were made by Him and for Him. Jesus Christ has power and authority to bestow all gospel blessings and privileges upon His people. He gives them grace here; He will crown them with glory hereafter.

2. And then, in making His will, Christ has distinctly in view those who are interested in its provisions–His friends, His relations those for whom, though they had no natural claim upon Him, the Saviour has bound Himself to provide. And we have the means of determining very exactly who these are. His friends are those who love Him, and who show their love by keeping His commandments.

3. A testator, in making his last will and testament, so far as there is in it any different disposition of property, supersedes, renders null and void, any will that may have been previously made. So Jesus Christ disannulled the law of the old covenant by establishing the new. Let us see to it that we put in our claim under the last will and testament of Christ. Let us not expect to receive under the law what can only come to us as a matter of free grace, under the gospel.

4. As in the case of a merely human testator, so in the case of Jesus Christ–where a testament is, for it to have force, for it to take effect, theremust needs be the death of the testator; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. In this particular instance there was need for the death of the testator on several different accounts. Among men it is the death of the testator which renders a testament effectual. And so this testament was confirmed and ratified by the death of Jesus Christ, and but for that death it could have had no force at all. And as after death a will may not be altered or revoked by the testator, but remains the expression of his mind to be carried out as exactly as possible, so it may not be interfered with by others. You may question its meaning, you may question whether it be the will of him who is declared to have drawn it up, you may question his right to make it, or make it in that precise form, yet, admitting it as a will, though it be only a human will, no man disannulleth or addeth thereunto. How much more truly is this the case with the testament, the will of Christ! And we must bear in mind, in the case of this testament, that there was a necessity for the death of Christ, which does not exist in the case of any ordinary testament. The death of Christ not merely rendered His will irrevocable, and afforded the heirs of promise a way of entering upon the enjoyment of their inheritance, as the death of every testator does, but there was this peculiarity–the very blessings which were disposed of by the will of Christ were secured and purchased by His death. A testator appoints executors in trust, who undertake, according to their ability, to see that all the provisions of his will are faithfully carried out. The Father and the Holy Ghost engage to carry out the will of Christ, and are ever actually doing so. But there is a high and important sense in which Christ is His own executor. He ever liveth to carry out those gracious designs which find changeless expression in His last will and testament. In the record of our Saviours visible residence among men, we are told only of all that Jesus began, both to do and to teach.

II. Having considered Christ as the testator, let US NOW LOOK AT THE GOSPEL AS THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CHRIST, We are presented with the will of Christ, not as so much mere hearsay–not as a vague and floating tradition–not as the lingering echo of His much-loved voice–not as a general and unaccredited expression of His intention: we haveit in a written record, an authentic document. It is necessary that a human will should be written. And though it has been determined that an oral will, under certain circumstances (as in the case of soldiers on actual service, or mariners at sea), is valid, if properly attested, yet that even must be reduced to a written form. And so have we the will of Christ embodied in words of human speech. Nor can we be too thankful that it has been so handed down to us. It is not enough that a will and testament be written, it must be attested; it must be proved to be authentic and genuine. It must be shown to be the will of that very person whose will it purports to be. This last will and testament of Christ is proved by much concurrent testimony. The gospel of the great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God also bearing them witness, both by signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will. I feel that I am safe in affirming that the proof which sustains the testament of Christ is immeasurably stronger and more convincing than that which sustains any human and earthly will. There has been a practical proof of a twofold kind. For eighteen hundred years and more this will has been repeatedly disputed by the enemies of Christ. The wit and wisdom and science of the world have done all that they could do to invalidate it, but all these attempts have been in vain. For the same period the will has been proved by Christs friends. We might summon a great cloud of witnesses, all of whom could bear the testimony of personal experience. There is, in every testament, provision implied or expressed that it should, with all convenient speed, be published and made known. This is necessary, that the legatees may become aware of that which has been bequeathed to them, and be in a position to put in their claim. Christ has ordained and provided that His disciples should publish His will and testament to all the children of men. We are put in trust with the gospel. We are bound to publish the glad tidings in every direction. And we ought to ask ourselves how far we are discharging this obligation. This will and testament of Christ informs us of all that is provided for us. All that we enjoy, we enjoy under this will; all spiritual blessings and privileges come to us as they are bequeathed by the Lord Jesus Christ. This will of Christ is our sure and sufficient title to all that we possess as Christian believers. The provisions of a will constitute an absolute title as far as it goes. If you would invalidate my right to what is bequeathed, you must go back and question the right of him who bequeathed it. And so, does any one question us as to our right to the spiritual privileges and possessions we enjoy, we reply by pointing to the last will and testament of Christ, and any further question must be raised with Christ Himself. We must not look for our title to our own merit–to anything we are, or have done–but to the will trod testament of the Saviour. (T. M. Morris.)

CHRISTS WILL:

I. THE ESTATE WHICH HE HAS LEFT BY IT.

1. The pardon of all sin.

2. The merit of His own most glorious righteousness.

3. His own most Holy Spirit.

4. But the most glorious part of the property bequeathed by Jesus to His people is that inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, which is reserved for them in heaven.

II. THE EVENT BY WHICH IT IS MADE OF FORCE. Because He hath poured out His soul unto death, that His heirs enter into possession of the property which He hath left them. Indeed, the death of Christ has a bearing on the privileges He has bequeathed among His people beyond what can be said with reference to mans bequests. Mans death must happen before his will can fake effect because, whilst he lives, he enjoys his property himself. But Christs death is, as it were, the purchase-money of the estate which He bequeaths. His death therefore was as essential to their enjoyment of these blessings as the payment of the sum demanded is to the possession of a piece of land.

III. THE PERSONS INTERESTED IN ITS PROVISIONS.

1. Convinced of sin.

2. Men of faith.

3. Men of grace. (A. Roberts, M. A.)

The testament of Christ

I. WHO IS THE TESTATOR? Gods everlasting Son, of the same essence, perfections, and glory with the Father.

II. WHAT ARE THE LEGACIES CONVEYED BY THIS COVENANT? In their nature and number they are very great. The sum of them is expressed thus Rev 21:7). They have the noblest spring and fountain with all its refreshing streams. In few words, the particular bequests in this great will of the Divine Testator, are complete deliverance from the legal consequences of sin–redemption from the curse of the law–the regeneration of our moral nature, and adoption into the household of faith–support under the trials of life–foretastes of eternal glory–and agood hope through grace which shall issue at length in the full possession of the heavenly kingdom, where every Divine and moral excellence will be perfected in the soul, and the rejoicing spirit for ever supremely happy before the throne of God.

III. WHAT ARE THE TERMS ON WHICH THIS DIVINE TESTAMENT BESTOWS ITS BEQUESTS? In all deeds disposing of property among men, there are certain conditions to be observed, in order to establish the validity of the claim. In some cases, the estate is conveyed charged with various encumbrances; in others, the observance of sundry specified acts is necessary to the legal holding of the property. Some inherit by descent, others by favouritism of the testator. In the case before us all is of pure mercy and love. There are terms, but they are not hard. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole condition of eternal life; but that faith is productive of holiness, of love, of obedience, and of all good works.

IV. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THE VALIDITY OF THIS TESTAMENT OF LOVE? There must be attestation in every case of a human will. In the conveyance of property there must be the seal. If we were to set up a claim to the right of any possession in a court of law, the case would break down if the seal of the party from whom we plead our title was not appended to the deed of conveyance. So, likewise, a will is of no effect, till proof be given of the decease of the testator. Our blessed Lord has made His death, resurrection, and ascension to glory, the seal of His will. To conclude, Have you any part or portion in this testament? Many are anxious to know if some aged and wealthy relative has remembered them in his will. In this will all are remembered, save those who wilfully exclude themselves. (Am. Nat. Preacher.)

The dying will of Jesus Christ:

Perhaps a consideration of the legal ideas of the time when the. Epistle to the Hebrews was written may help to explain this difficult passage. The idea of a will was derived by the Jews from the Romans, and they probably associated with it the various ideas which had grown up around the Roman will. Let us see what these were. The origin of the ordinary form of a Roman will, was the old testament per ms et libram, by which the father of the family (generally when on his death bed) sold his whole family and estate to some friend in whom he had confidence (called the heres), on trust to carry out his wishes (an obligation which apparently was not originally legally enforceable, though afterwards it was recognised by law). This form was still kept up, though probably at the time when the Epistle was written, the familiae emptor was not generally the same person as the heres. Still the familiae emptor represented the heres, and served to keep the theoretical nature of the transaction before all parties concerned, and the heres was looked upon not merely as a distributor of goods, but as the purchaser and master of the family. It is therefore suggested that the argument is somewhat as follows. By the first the Hebrews were purchased and became the bondsmen of the Law (an idea already rendered familiar to them by Exo 15:16 and Psa 74:2); but by a new our Lord purchased them with His blood (Act 20:28), as the heres or familiae emptor purchased the inheritance, and having thus purchased the inheritance of the Law, became the new master of the bondsmen of the Law, and the mediator, or executor, of a new dispensation. But inasmuch as the right of the heres can only come into operation after the death of the testator (the Law), it is evident that, if the new dispensation has begun, the Law is dead and is no longer their master. In fact, the line of argument seems similar to that in Rom 7:1-4. (H. S. Keating.)

The blood of the testament.

The blood of Christ is the ruby gem of the ring of love. Infinite goodness finds its crown in the gift of Jesus for sinners. All Gods mercies shine like stars, but the coming of His own Son to bleed and die for rebel men is as the sun in the heavens of Divine grace, outshining and illuminating all.

I. Of that death and of that blood we shall speak in a fourfold way; and first, we shall take the verse as it would most accurately be translated–the blood of Jesus Christ is THE BLOOD OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT. There cannot be much doubt that the word rendered testament should be translated covenant. It is the word used for covenant in other passages, and though our translators have used the word testament, many critics go the length of questioning whether the word can bear that meaning at all. I think they are too rigid in their criticism, and that it does bear that meaning in this very chapter; but, still, all must admit that the first, and most usual meaning of the word, is covenant. Therefore, we will begin with that reading, and consider the blood of Jesus as the blood of the covenant.

1. The blood proves the intense earnestness of God in entering into covenant with man in a way of grace.

2. It displayed the supreme love of God to man. Seeing that He entered into a contract of grace with man, He would let man see how His very heart went forth with every word of promise; and, therefore, He gave up that which was the centre of His heart, namely, Jesus Christ.

3. The blood of the covenant, next, speaks to us and confirms the Divine faithfulness. The main object of thus sealing the covenant with blood is to cause it to be ordered in all things and sure.

4. The blood of the everlasting covenant is a guarantee to us of its infinite provision. There can be nothing lacking for a soul redeemed by Christ between here and heaven; for He that spared not His own Son, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

5. This blood manifests the depth of the need which the covenant was meant to meet.

II. Now, I take our translators own words–THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE TESTAMENT.

1. Jesus Christ has made a will, and He has left to His people large legacies by that will. Now, wills do not need to be sprinkled with blood, but wills do need that the testator should be dead, otherwise they are not of force. And so, first of all, the blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary is the blood of the testament, because it is a proof that He is dead, and therefore the testament is in force. If Jesus did not die, then the gospel is null and void not without the sprinkled blood does the promise of salvation become yea and amen.

2. It is the blood of the testament, again, because it is the seal of His being seized and possessed of those goods which He has bequeathed to us: for, apart from His sacrifice, our Lord had no spiritual blessings to present to us. His death has filled the treasury of His grace.

3. The blood of the testament, again, is a direction as to His legatees. We see who are benefited under His will. He must have left them to the guilty because He has left a will that is signed and sealed in blood, and blood is for the remission of sin.

III. But now I must speak upon that blood from another point of view. IT WAS THE BLOOD OF CLEANSING. This blood of the covenant and of the testament is a blood of purification to us. Wherever it is accepted by faith it takes away all past guilt. And this is but the beginning of our purification, for that same blood applied by faith takes away from the pardoned sinner the impurity which had been generated in his nature by habit. He ceases to love the sin which ,once he delighted in: he begins to loathe that which was formerly his choice joy. A love of purity is born within his nature; he sighs to be perfect, and he groans to think there should be about him tendencies towards evil. Temptations which once were welcomed are now resisted; baits which were once most fascinating are an annoyance to his spirit. The precious blood when it touches the conscience removes all sense of guilt, and when it touches the heart it kills the ruling power of sin. The more fully the power of the blood is felt, the more does it kill the power of sin within the soul.

IV. And then it is THE BLOOD OF DEDICATION. On the day when Moses sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the people, and on the book, it was meant to signify that they were a chosen people set apart unto Gods service. The blood made them holiness unto the Lord. Now, unless the blood is upon you, you are not saved; but if you are saved you are by that very fact set apart to be Gods servant. Ye are not your own, ye are bought with a price. Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as with silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. A saved man is a bought man; the property of Jesus. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The blood of sprinkling:

This blood sprinkled on the people was a significant type and figure of the blood of our Saviour Christ, whereby the new testament is confirmed to us.

1. That was the blood of goats and heifers; this of Christ the immaculate Lamb of God.

2. Moses was the sprinkler of that blood: the Holy Ghost is the sprinkler of this.

3. That was sprinkled on the face or garments of the people: this on our hearts and consciences.

4. The aspertorium, the sprinkling stick, there was made of purple wool and hyssop: the aspertorium here is faith. With that doth the Spirit of God sprinkle on us the blood of Christ.

5. That sprinkling did but sanctify the outward man: this the hid man of the heart.

6. The force and power of that sprinkling lasted but a while: the efficacy of this sprinkling continueth for ever. Therefore let us all be desirous of this sprinkling. (W. Jones, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 15. And for this cause] Some translate , on account of this (blood.) Perhaps it means no more than a mere inference, such as therefore, or wherefore.

He is the Mediator of the new testament] There was no proper reason why our translators should render by testament here, when in almost every other case they render it covenant, which is its proper ecclesiastical meaning, as answering to the Hebrew berith, which see largely explained, Ge 15:10, and in other places of the Pentateuch.

Very few persons are satisfied with the translation of the following verses to the 20th, particularly the 16th and 17th; at all events the word covenant must be retained. He – Jesus Christ, is Mediator; the , or mediator, was the person who witnessed the contract made between the two contracting parties, slew the victim, and sprinkled each with its blood.

Of the new testament] The new contract betwixt God and the whole human race, by Christ Jesus the Mediator, distinguished here from the old covenant between God and the Israelites, in which Moses was the mediator.

That by means of death] His own death upon the cross.

For the redemption of the transgressions] To make atonement for the transgressions which were committed under the old covenant, which the blood of bulls and calves could not do; so the death of Jesus had respect to all the time antecedent to it, as well as to all the time afterward till the conclusion of the world.

They which are called] The GENTILES, might receive the promise-might, by being brought into a covenant with God, have an equal right with the Jews, not merely to an inheritance such as the promised land, but to an eternal inheritance, and consequently infinitely superior to that of the Jews, inasmuch as the new covenant is superior in every point of view to the old.

How frequently the Gentiles are termed and , the called, all St. Paul’s writings show. And they were thus termed because they were called and elected in the place of the Jews, the ancient called and elect, who were now divorced and reprobated because of their disobedience.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament: as Christs priesthood and service, his sacrifice and purifying, so the testamental covenant, and his administration of it, did incomparably exceed all those of Aarons; so that for what was spoken, Heb 9:14, even the effects of his sacrifice, the justification and sanctification of sinners, is he the great gospel High Priest, the mediating person between God and sinners, confirming and making effectual by his death Gods testamental covenant to them, which is for the administration of it the very best and last, in which God bequeatheth pardon, reconciliation, righteousness, holiness, adoption, and heirship to an eternal inheritance to penitent, believing sinners.

That by means of death; the death of Christ himself, God-man, the most excellent sacrifice, without which there could be no remission, Heb 9:22, nor the testament of God about it put in force; for which cause he was the Mediator of it, that they should value him so much the more for his death, fulfilling therein all his types, and reach that which was unattainable by these, both for their fathers and themselves.

For the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament; for the satisfying the justice of God for the wrong their sins had done it, paying that price without which they could not be expiated, by which they were remissible, and to the duty qualified, actually forgiven, even the sins of those who were under the Mosaical administration of the covenant. Aaron, Samuel, David, and the saints, believers in that time, had their transgressions pardoned by virtue of the death of Christ to come, shadowed by these sacrifices typifying him and his death in their own times. What the death of beasts or birds could do for them, his did, delivering them from the guilt and punishment of their transgressions, under which otherwise they must have perished for ever: this Peter publisheth, Act 15:11. This virtue of Christs death is not mentioned exclusive of New Testament sins being remitted by it; but if it did expiate those old ones, reaching so much backward, even to Aaron, it will much more expiate those under the New Testament to penitent, believing, praying sinners for it, as those Old Testament transgressors were.

They which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance: such as on Gods call repent and believe on the Lord Jesus, that Angel of the covenant then revealed to them, and enter into covenant with him, Exo 23:20-23; compare 1Co 10:3,4,9; Joh 5:45-47; such as by it have sins expiated, consciences purged, so as to have a title to and fitness by the work of the Spirit for the heavenly Canaan, Rom 4:16,24,25; may be put into the possession of that eternal inheritance made over to them by promise, and which the Spirit gave them an earnest of here, Heb 12:10,14,16; compare Eph 1:13,14; 1Pe 1:3,4. All this is confirmed to these by Christs death.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

15. for this causeBecause ofthe all-cleansing power of His blood, this fits Him to be Mediator(Heb 8:6, ensuring to bothparties, God and us, the ratification) of the new covenant, whichsecures both forgiveness for the sins not covered by the formerimperfect covenant or testament, and also an eternal inheritance tothe called.

by means of deathrather,as Greek, “death having taken place.” At the momentthat His death took place, the necessary effect is, “the calledreceive the (fulfilment of the) promise” (so Lu24:49 uses “promise”; Heb 6:15;Act 1:4); that moment divides theOld from the New Testament. The “called” are the elect”heirs,” “partakers of the heavenly calling” (Heb3:1).

redemption of . . .transgressions . . . under . . . first testamentthetransgressions of all men from Adam to Christ, first againstthe primitive revelation, then against the revelations to thepatriarchs, then against the law given to Israel, the representativepeople of the world. The “first testament” thus includesthe whole period from Adam to Christ, and not merely that of thecovenant with Israel, which was a concentrated representation of thecovenant made with (or the first testament given to)mankind by sacrifice, down from the fall to redemption. Beforethe inheritance by the New Testament (for here the idea of the”INHERITANCE,”following as the result of Christ’s “death,” beingintroduced, requires the Greek to be translated “testament,”as it was before covenant) could come in, there must beredemption of (that is, deliverance from the penaltiesincurred by) the transgressions committed under the firsttestament, for the propitiatory sacrifices under the firsttestament reached only as far as removing outward ceremonialdefilement. But in order to obtain the inheritance which is areality, there must be a real propitiation, since God could not enterinto covenant relation with us so long as past sins were unexpiated;Rom 3:24; Rom 3:25,”a propitiation . . . His righteousness for the remission ofsins that are past.”

mightGreek,“may receive,” which previously they could not(Heb 11:39; Heb 11:40).

the promiseto Abraham.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament,…. [See comments on Heb 7:22],

[See comments on Heb 8:6],

[See comments on Heb 8:8]. This may refer both to what goes before, and what follows after; for Christ, that he might offer himself to God, and by his blood purge the consciences of his people from dead works, that so they might serve the living God, became the Mediator of the New Testament, or covenant; and also he took upon him this character and office,

that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance; Christ became the Mediator of the New Testament, and assumed human nature that he might die, and by dying might obtain redemption for his people; not only for those that were then in the world, or should be in it, but also for all those that had been in it. “The first testament” is the first dispensation of the covenant of grace, reaching from the first promulgation of it to Adam after the fall, to the death of Christ; “the transgressions” that were under it are the sins of the saints who lived under that dispensation, froth Adam to Moses, and from Moses to Christ, and takes in all their iniquities of every kind: and the “redemption” of these, or from these, by Christ, at and through his death, does not suppose that there was no remission of sins, or justification from them, under that dispensation; or that the Old Testament saints did not go to heaven, but were detained in a prison, till redeemed by the death of Christ; or that their sins were only redeemed, not their persons; for transgressions may stand for transgressors; and so the Syriac version renders it, “that by his death he might be a redemption for them who transgressed the first testament”; so the Jews say, that the Messiah must die “to redeem the fathers” b: but the sense is, that though legal sacrifices could not atone for sin, nor ceremonial ablutions cleanse from them; yet the sins of Old Testament saints were expiated, their iniquities pardoned, and they justified and saved, through the blood of Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; whose death is a redemption from transgressions past, present, and to come; whose blood is the ransom price for them, and was shed for the remission of them, even of sins that are past through the forbearance of God; who took the surety’s word for the performance of all this, which in the fulness of time he strictly fulfilled, to the satisfaction of law and justice; see Ro 3:25 and the ultimate end of Christ’s being a Mediator, and dying for such purposes, was, that called ones might receive the promised inheritance: by the “eternal inheritance”, is meant heaven, which is by gift and bequest, belongs to children only, and comes through the death of Christ; and is a very substantial, plentiful, and glorious one; it is incorruptible and undefiled, and that fades not away, and as here, “eternal”; it was prepared from the foundation of the world, and will continue for ever; and it may be so called, to distinguish it from the inheritance of the land of Canaan, or any temporal one: “the promise” of this was made before the world began, and was put into the hands of Christ, the surety of the better testament, by whose death the heirs of it come to enjoy both the promise, and the thing promised; and they are such who are “called”, not merely externally, but internally and effectually; by whom were meant, not Abraham and his natural seed, nor the Old Testament saints only, but all that are called with an holy calling, whether Jews or Gentiles, and who will enjoy both the promise of the inheritance, and that itself, in a way of “receiving”: every word shows this affair to be all of grace; it is an “inheritance”, and therefore the Father’s gift; it is by “promise”, and so of grace; and it is “received”, and so freely given, and not merited; and only such who are “called” by grace possess it; and yet it is through the death of Christ, that so it might be received in a way consistent with the justice of God.

b R. Moses Haddarsan apud Galatin. l. 8. c. 20.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Priesthood of Christ.

A. D. 62.

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

In these verses the apostle considers the gospel under the notion of a will or testament, the new or last will and testament of Christ, and shows the necessity and efficacy of the blood of Christ to make this testament valid and effectual.

I. The gospel is here considered as a testament, the new and last will and testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is observable that the solemn transactions that pass between God and man are sometimes called a covenant, here a testament. A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties about things that are in their own power, or may be so, and this either with or without a mediator; this agreement takes effect at such time and in such manner as therein declared. A testament is a voluntary act and deed of a single person, duly executed and witnessed, bestowing legacies on such legatees as are described and characterized by the testator, and which can only take effect upon his death. Now observe, Christ is the Mediator of a New Testament (v. 15); and he is so for several ends and purposes here mentioned. 1. To redeem persons from their transgressions committed against the law or first testament, which makes every transgression a forfeiture of liberty, and makes men debtors, and slaves or prisoners, who need to be redeemed. 2. To qualify all those that are effectually called to receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. These are the great legacies that Christ by his last will and testament has bequeathed to the truly characterized legatees.

II. To make this New Testament effectual, it was necessary that Christ should die; the legacies accrue by means of death. This he proves by two arguments:– 1. From the general nature of every will or testamentary disposition, v. 16. Where a testament is, where it acts and operates, there must of necessity by the death of the testator; till then the property is still in the testator’s hand, and he has power to revoke, cancel, or alter, his will as he pleases; so that no estate, no right, is conveyed by will, till the testator’s death has made it unalterable and effectual. 2. From the particular method that was taken by Moses in the ratification of the first testament, which was not done without blood, Heb 9:18; Heb 9:19, c. All men by sin had become guilty before God, had forfeited their inheritance, their liberties, and their very lives, into the hands of divine justice but God, being willing to show the greatness of his mercy, proclaimed a covenant of grace, and ordered it to be typically administered under the Old Testament, but not without the blood and life of the creature; and God accepted the blood of bulls and goats, as typifying the blood of Christ; and by these means the covenant of grace was ratified under the former dispensation. The method taken by Moses, according to the direction he had received from God, is here particularly related (1.) Moses spoke every precept to all the people, according to the law, v. 19. He published to them the tenour of the covenant, the duties required, the rewards promised to those who did their duty, and the punishment threatened against the transgressors, and he called for their consent to the terms of the covenant; and this in an express manner. (2.) Then he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and applied this blood by sprinkling it. This blood and water signified the blood and water that came out of our Saviour’s pierced side, for justification and sanctification, and also shadowed forth the two sacraments of the New Testament, baptism and the Lord’s supper, with scarlet wool, signifying the righteousness of Christ with which we must be clothed, the hyssop signifying that faith by which we must apply all. Now with these Moses sprinkled, [1.] The book of the law and covenant, to show that the covenant of grace is confirmed by the blood of Christ and made effectual to our good. [2.] The people, intimating that the shedding of the blood of Christ will be no advantage to us if it be not applied to us. And the sprinkling of both the book and the people signified the mutual consent of both parties, God and man, and their mutual engagements to each other in this covenant through Christ, Moses at the same time using these words, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. This blood, typifying the blood of Christ, is the ratification of the covenant of grace to all true believers. [3.] He sprinkled the tabernacle and all the utensils of it, intimating that all the sacrifices offered up and services performed there were accepted only through the blood of Christ, which procures the remission of that iniquity that cleaves to our holy things, which could not have been remitted but by that atoning blood.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Mediator of a new covenant ( ). See 8:6 for this phrase with instead of .

A death having taken place ( ). Genitive absolute, referring to Christ’s death.

For the redemption ( ).

Of the transgressions ( ). Really ablative case, “from the transgressions.” See verse 12, .

Under the first covenant ( ). Here there is a definite statement that the real value in the typical sacrifices under the Old Testament system was in the realization in the death of Christ. It is Christ’s death that gives worth to the types that pointed to him. So then the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the basis of the salvation of all who are saved before the Cross and since.

That they may receive ( ). Purpose clause (God’s purpose in the rites and symbols) with and the second aorist active subjunctive of .

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The efficacy of Christ ‘s sacrifice is bound up with a covenant. His priesthood involves a new and a better covenant. See ch. Heb 8:6 – 13. That covenant involves his death.

For this cause [ ] . Indicating the close relation between the cleansing power of Christ ‘s blood and the new covenant.

Mediator of the new testament [ ] . For the new testament rend. a new covenant. See on next verse. For mesithv mediator, see on Gal 3:19, 20.

By means of death [ ] . Rend. a death having taken place.

For the redemption of the transgressions [ ] . The phrase redemption of transgressions (that is, from transgressions) only here. jApolutrwsiv in N. T. mostly absolutely : the redemption, or your redemption, or simply redemption. Twice with genitive of that which is redeemed, Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14. Only once in LXX, Dan 4:32. For parabasiv transgression, see on Rom 2:23.

Under the first testament [] . On the basis of : estimated according to the standard of the provisions of the first covenant, and to be atoned for in the way which it prescribed. By this expression he emphasizes the insufficiency of every other atoning provision, selecting the system which represented the most elaborate and complete atonement for sin prior to Christ. The intimation is in the same direction with that of the phrase through an eternal spirit – that the ideal redemption must be eternal. They which are called [ ] . Without regard to nationality. The scope of the new covenant was wider than that of the old. Comp. Act 2:39. In ch. 3 1, the readers are addressed as “partakers of a heavenly calling,” which corresponds with “eternal inheritance” here. Those who obtain this inheritance are designated as “called.” See Eph 1:18; 1Th 2:12; 1Th 5:24; 1Pe 3:9.

Of eternal inheritance [ ] . Rend. “the eternal inheritance” : something recognized as a fact. For klhronomia inheritance, see on 1Pe 1:4, and comp. Eph 1:14. The whole statement implies that the provisions of the Levitical system were inadequate to procure and insure full salvation.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And for this cause,” (kai dia touto) “And on account of or by reason of this; Because he died both to redeem the lost and purchase the church, “true tabernacle,” with his blood, as High Priest intercessor, Eph 5:25-27.

2) “He is the mediator of the new testament,” (diathekes kaines mesites estin) “He is (exists as) mediator of a new covenant,” as mediator he intercedes to the Father on behalf first of all his children who sin and second for his church-covenant people, Mat 28:18-20; Joh 17:9; Joh 17:24; Joh 20:21; 1Ti 2:5-6; Heb 7:22; Heb 8:6; Heb 12:24.

3) “That by means of death,” (hopos thanatou genomenou) “So as death has occurred,” by means of his death, Rom 3:24-25; 1Pe 3:18-19; Joh 10:18.

4) “For the redemption of the transgressions,” (eis apolutrosin ton parabaseon) “For the release or liberation by redemption of transgressions,” to redeem is to “buy back” people or property from a loss or enslavement, 1Pe 1:18-21.

5) “That were under the first testament,” (epi te prote kiateke) “Under the first covenant,” the Mosaic or law covenant, Tit 2:14; Joh 1:11-12.

6) “They which are called,” (hoi keklemenoi) “They who have been called,” who have obeyed from the heart, “with the heart believed unto righteousness and mouth confessed unto salvation,” Rom 10:9-10; Rom 13:4; Heb 3:1.

7) ‘Might receive the promise of eternal redemption,” (ten epangelian labosin tes aioniou kieronomias) “May receive the promise of the eternal heir-setting,” Act 3:20-21, or inheritance privilege, which Jesus died to redeem for them, Joh 10:27-29.

CHRIST, A TESTATOR – Like A Testator –

1. Christ made His will – executed the covenant of eternal redemption; 2. He provided for the necessities of His friends; 3. He made His will, knowing His hour was coming; 4. He recorded in His will the persons to whom He bequeathed the blessings of the covenant; 5. He disannulled the old will, the Old Covenant, by establishing the New; 6. He had His will attested by credible witnesses (Joh 5:32; Joh 5:36-37; Act 10:39); 7. He ratified it with a seal – His own blood; 8. He has committed it to proper executors – His Father and the Spirit; 9. He has made it unalterable; 10. He commanded that it should be made known after His death.

– W. Nicholson

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

15. And for this cause he is Mediator of the New Testament, etc. He concludes that there is no more need of another priest, for Christ fulfills the office under the New Testament; for he claims not for Christ the honor of a Mediator, so that others may at the same time remain as such with him; but he maintains that all others were repudiated when Christ undertook the office. But that he might more fully confirm this fact, he mentions how he commenced to discharge his office of a Mediator; even through death intervening. Since this is found alone in Christ, being wanting in all others, it follows that he alone can be justly deemed a Mediator. (151)

He further records the virtue and efficacy of his death by saying that he paid the price for sins under the first covenant or testament, which could not be blotted out by the blood of beasts; by which words he was seeking draw away the Jews from the Law to Christ. For, if the Law was so weak that all the remedies it applied for expiating sins did by no means accomplish what they represented, who could rest in it as in a safe harbor? This one thing, then, ought to have been enough to stimulate them to seek for something better than the law; for they could not but be in perpetual anxiety. On the other hand, when we come to Christ, as we obtain in him a full redemption, there is nothing which can any more distress us. Then, in these words he shows that the Law is weak, that the Jews might no longer recumb on it; and he teaches them to rely on Christ, for in him is found whatever can be desired for pacifying consciences.

Now, if any one asks, whether sins under the Law where remitted to the fathers, we must bear in mind the solution already stated, — that they were remitted, but remitted through Christ. Then notwithstanding their external expiations, they were always held guilty. For this reason Paul says, that the Law was a handwriting against us. (Col 2:14.) For when the sinner came forward and openly confessed that he was guilty before God, and acknowledged by sacrificing an innocent animal that he was worthy of eternal death, what did he obtain by his victim, except that he sealed his own death as it were by this handwriting? In short, even then they only reposed in the remission of sins, when they looked to Christ. But if only a regard to Christ took away sins, they could never have been freed from them, had they continued to rest in the Law. David indeed declares, that blessed is the man to whom sins are not imputed, (Psa 32:2😉 but that he might be a partaker of this blessedness, it was necessary for him to leave the Law, and to have his eyes fixed on Christ; for if he rested in the Law, he could never have been freed from guilt.

They who are called, etc. The object of the divine covenant is, that having been adopted as children, we may at length be made heirs of eternal life. The Apostle teaches us that we obtain this by Christ. It is hence evident, that in him is the fulfillment of the covenant. But the promise of the inheritance is to be taken for the promised inheritance, as though he had said, “The promise of eternal life is not otherwise made to us to be enjoined, than through the death of Christ.” Life, indeed, was formerly promised to the fathers, and the same has been the inheritance of God’s children from the beginning, but we do not otherwise enter into the possession of it, than through the blood of Christ previously shed.

But he speaks of the called, that he might the more influence the Jews who were made partakers of this calling; for it is a singular favor, when we have the gift of the knowledge of Christ bestowed on us. We ought then to take the more heed, lest we neglect so valuable a treasure, and our thoughts should wander elsewhere. Some regard the called to be the elect, but incorrectly in my judgment; for the Apostle teaches here the same thing as we find in Rom 3:25, that righteousness and salvation have been procured by the blood of Christ, but that we become partakers of them by faith.

(151) Here begins a new subject, that the covenant, or it may be viewed as the resumption of what is found in Heb 8:6. “For this cause,” or for this reason, refers, as it seems, to what follows, “in order that,” ὅπως, etc. —

And for this reason is he the Mediator of a new covenant, in order that death being undergone for the redemption of transgressions under the first covenant, they who were called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

As in Rom 3:25, the reference is to the retrospective effect of Christ’s expiatory sacrifice. Hence “are called” is not correct; and the participle is in the past tense. To “receive the promise,” means to enjoy its fulfillment. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

The effectiveness of the new covenant based upon the death of Christ. Heb. 9:15-22.

Text

Heb. 9:15-22

Heb. 9:15 And for this cause He is the Mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Heb. 9:16 For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it, Heb. 9:17 For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth. Heb. 9:18 Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood. Heb. 9:19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, Heb. 9:20 saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward. Heb. 9:21 Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood. Heb. 9:22 And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.

Paraphrase

Heb. 9:15 And for this reason, that the death of Christ is so efficacious, of the new covenant He is the Mediator or High Priest, by Whom its blessings are dispensed; and also the Sacrifice by which it is procured and ratified; that His death being accomplished for obtaining the pardon of the transgressions of the first covenant, believers of all ages and nations, as the called seed of Abraham, (Rom. 8:48 note), may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

Heb. 9:16 For, to show the propriety of Christs dying to ratify the new covenant. I observe, that where a covenant is made by sacrifice, there is a necessity that the death of the appointed sacrifice be produced.

Heb. 9:17 For, according to the practice both of God and man, a covenant is made firm over dead sacrifices; seeing it never hath force whilst the goat, calf, or bullock, appointed as the sacrifice of ratification, liveth.

Heb. 9:18 Because from the beginning God ratified His covenant by sacrifice, to preserve among men the expectation of the sacrifice of His Son, hence not even the covenant of Sinai was made without sacrifice.

Heb. 9:19 For when Moses had read every precept in the book of the law to all the people, taking the blood of the calves and goats which had been offered as the sacrifices of ratification, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book of the law itself as representing God, and all the people, in token of the consent of both parties to the covenant.

Heb. 9:20 Saying, while he sprinkled the people, This is the blood whereby the covenant which God hath commanded me to make with you is ratified, both on his part and on yours. (See Heb. 9:15, note 1.)

Heb. 9:21 Moreover, to prefigure the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ to render our acts of worship acceptable, both the tabernacle, and the altar, and mercy-seat, and all the vessels used in the worship of God, Moses in like manner sprinkled with blood, after they were made and set in order.

Heb. 9:22 And, for the same reason, almost all things, according to the law, are annually fitted for the worship of God by sprinkling them with blood. (See Lev. 16:16; Lev. 16:19; Lev. 16:33.) In short, to show that pardon is procured through the blood of Christ, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin granted by the law.

Comment

And for this cause

It means on account of this (blood). It may also be translated, therefore, or wherefore.

He is the mediator

Jesus is the Mediator for man. Note that he does not call Him testament.
No need for any other is felt if we know Christ in His purity.

new covenant

Testament is also used for covenant, Covenant is better, It is the new contract between God and man.

The word means both covenant and testament F.N. of American Standard Bible.
Milligan: It means covenant, McKnight: If it is testament, who died for it to be in force?

that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions

That by means of death all men could have forgiveness.

Heb. 10:4 says that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.

We would ask then, Are the Jews who were faithful in their sacrifices lost?

This verse surely answers the question, saying that those under the first covenant are taken care of by the sacrifice of Jesus.

that were under the first covenant

Does this mean all the dead Jews, or does it mean simply those who were living under the first covenant? Milligan: The death of Christ was necessary in order to accomplish the redemption of the transgressions which were committed under the old covenant during the Jewish age. p. 257. The exception Milligan states would be those who were justified by faithAbraham, Isaac, Jacob. Rom. 4:23, Jas. 2:21-23. Where did these men go? Milligan, 251:

If not immediately to heaven, at least to a place and state of high spiritual enjoyment.

Exo. 3:6.

Dan. 12:13.

Luk. 10:23-24.

This is what Paul refers to in Rom. 3:25-26.

they that have been called

Milligan: The blood was a necessity before the called of any age could have an absolute right to the free and full enjoyment of the eternal inheritance. This is not merely a promised land calling, but for eternal life for all the called of all generations.

Blood of bulls and goats Christ

AdamX

XEternity

Heb. 10:4

Blood

may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance

This is not a physical land inheritance, but an eternal one in the presence of God.

1Pe. 1:4 : An inheritance incorruptible, undefiled that fadeth not away reserved in heaven for you.

Jesus said: Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. Our inheritance is with Christ as a joint heir. Rom. 8:17.

for where a testament is

Newell says to translate the word testament is confusing and incorrect.

A covenant has a mediator but not a testament, he says.

A testament has someone to execute it; so Newell is strained here.

Milligan: The word means both covenant and testament, and here he uses the second meaning. Calvin: The Greek means both. p. 208.

there must of necessity

Death is necessary to the culmination of a testament. Inheritance follows the death of the testator.

be the death of him that made it

The testament, or will, goes into effect after the death of the testator. As long as the testator lives, he can change that will, but death fixes its points.

for a testament is of force, where there hath been a death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth

Legal language is used here. The testament is generally kept in a safety deposit box until the death of the testator. A division of the inheritance follows the death of the testator.

wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood

God has always emphasized sacrifice.

Their sacrifices were to keep alive the knowledge of the fact of sin and the need of forgiveness.

We have baptism, and the Lords Supper, to remind us today, See Exo. 24:4-8 for the dedication.

for when every commandment had been spoken

This refers to Exo. 24:4-8, When they were recited the people said, This we will do, He then wrote them and reread them, Heb. 9:7, The people responded again, Then they were ratified by the blood.

He took the blood of calves and goats with water

The blood was put in basins and mingled with water to keep it from coagulating. He then took hyssop bound together with hyssop and dipped this in the basin and sprinkled it upon the people nearest him.

They represented all the people.

It was impossible to have blood enough for all.

Milligan says Moses doesnt mention all the details. Paul adds here that the water, blood of bulls and goats, scarlet wool, hyssop, sprinkling of the book of the covenant were part of the ceremony.

and scarlet wool

The wool was to help absorb the water and blood. It was scarlet, no doubt, for symbolism.

and hyssop

Occasions for the use of it are found in Exo. 12:22; Lev. 14:4-7; Num. 19:18-19. Usually the bunch of hyssop was fastened to a stick of cedar wood by means of a scarlet band and then wrapped round with scarlet wool for the purpose of absorbing the blood and water that were to be sprinkled. (Milligan, p. 260.)

and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people

Upon the bookwhy?

To show that it was ratified by blood.

The book was then sanctified for their obedience.

The people were sanctified to obey the words of the book.

saying, (Exo. 24:8) This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward

This is the blood by which the covenant is ratified. This was not a covenant of equals, but words sanctified from one who had the right to command.

moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry be sprinkled in like manner with the blood

This is not the same occasion as in Exo. 24:1-8 referred to, but later when it was constructed. The tabernacle was not constructed in Exo. 24:1-8 so it must refer to Exo. 40:9-11.

and according to the law I may almost say all things are cleansed with blood

Almost: the law required that almost everything defiled should be purified by blood. In some cases it was done with water:

Lev. 16:26-28.

Num. 31:24.

Sometimes it was done by fire and water:

Num. 31:22-23.

and apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission

Blood is spoken of as being essential to atonement.

Lev. 17:11 : I have given it (the blood) to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

The poorest people who could not afford a sacrifice no doubt had theirs made by public expense. (Milligan, p. 261.)

Lev. 5:11-13 : Those too poor to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons for a sin offering were to bring seven pints of an ephah of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, a handful of which the priest was to burn as a memorial upon the altar.

Note, however, Heb. 9:13. The priest made atonement for him, which was very likely a blood sacrifice at public expense.

The memorial was made with flour, but the atonement was with blood.

Study Questions

1594.

What is meant by for this cause?

1595.

What is the work of a mediator?

1596.

Is there room for Christs mother here in forgiving sin?

1597.

What kind of a covenant does Jesus serve?

1598.

Is God obligated to keep His part of the covenant if man fails to keep his?

1599.

Does the blood of Christ act backwards as well as forwards?

1600.

For whom was Christs blood shed?

1601.

Can we say then that the Jews under the old covenant are saved?

1602.

Were all saved by the blood of Christ?

1603.

Who was excepted, according to Milligan?

1604.

Compare Rom. 4:3-4 and Jas. 2:21-23 for his proof texts.

1605.

Does Rom. 3:25-26 teach that Christs blood was retroactive?

1606.

What is meant by passing over in Rom. 3:25? Does it mean rolled forward?

1607.

What does the calling refer to here?

1608.

Is it the Hebrew promised land or eternal life?

1609.

How is the inheritance described?

1610.

How does 1Pe. 1:4 describe it?

1611.

With whom is our inheritance? Rom. 8:17.

1612.

What is meant by testament?

1613.

Is it as good a word as covenant?

1614.

What are the differences between testament and covenant?

1615.

What is necessary for the fulfillment of a testament?

1616.

When do we inherit from a testament?

1617.

Whose death is necessary?

1618.

Does death fix the terms with finality?

1619.

Is it logical to say that Jesus was the dead Testator of the New Testament?

1620.

What kind of language is used here in regard to the testament.

1621.

Then do we have the right to be legalistic in our preaching?

1622.

What is necessary to set a will in force?

1623.

How was the first covenant dedicated?

1624.

Why did God require the constant sacrifices?

1625.

What do we have today to remind us of sin?

1626.

What commandments are referred to here? Cf. Exo. 24:4-8.

1627.

Did the people approve?

1628.

Where is this occasion discussed in the Old Testament?

1629.

Why was water mixed with the blood?

1630.

Why was wool used?

1631.

Why was it scarlet wool?

1632.

What is hyssop?

1633.

How was it used?

1634.

Why was the book sprinkled?

1635.

Why were the people sprinkled?

1636.

Is this a covenant between equals?

1637.

Have we the right to question the one who has the right to command?

1638.

What is the significance of the tabernacle and vessels being sanctified by bipod? Was it done frequently? Cf. Exo. 24:1-8; Exo. 40:9-11.

1639.

Is the church sprinkled with blood? Cf. Eph. 5:25-26.

1640.

Is the author in doubt when he says, I may almost say?

1641.

What does he mean by almost?

1642.

Do you think that you can express a better translation of this verse?

1643.

What things were not purified by blood?

1644.

What other element was used? Cf. Lev. 16:26-28; Num. 31:24.

1645.

What other cleanser was used? Cf. Num. 31:22-23.

1646.

What was the purpose of blood being shed, as expressed in this verse? Cf. Lev. 17:11.

1647.

How could sin be atoned if one could not afford a blood sacrifice? Cf. Lev. 5:11-13.

1648.

What is meant by memorial?

1649.

Did the priest offer blood for the poor people?

1650.

If so, how were these offerings financed?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(15) And for this cause.Or, And because of this. This verse looks back to the great truth of Heb. 9:11-12, which the last two verses have served to confirm and place in bolder relief. Christ through His own blood entered once for all into the Holy Place, having won eternal redemption; and by reason of this He is the Mediator of a covenant, a new covenant, in order that they who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For the new testament we must certainly read a new covenant: whatever may be thought of the following group of verses, the rendering testament has no place here. The leading thought of Hebrews 8 is the establishment of a new covenant, and the former covenant has been referred to three times in this very chapter (Heb. 9:1; Heb. 9:4).

That by means of death.Rather, that, death having taken place for redemption from the transgressions, &c. The first covenant had been broken by transgressions: unless there be redemption from thesethat is, from the bondage of penalty which has resulted from thesethere can be no promise and no new covenant. In respect of this bondage, this penalty, the death of Christ was a ransoman offering to God looked at in the light of a payment in the place of debt, service, or penalty due. When debt and payment are changed into the corresponding ideas of sin and punishment, the ransom gives place to the sin-offering, of which the principle was the acknowledgment of death deserved, and the vicarious suffering of death. So far our thought has rested on the removal of the results of the past. The covenant and the promise relate to the establishment of the better future. Death was necessary alike for both. The offering of Christs life (Mat. 20:28) was a ransom or an offering for sin; it was also a sacrifice inaugurating a new covenant, which contained the promise of the eternal inheritance. See Heb. 9:16-18; also Gal. 3:13-14, where the thought is very similar.

They which are called.More clearly, they that have been called. (See Act. 2:39; Rom. 1:6-7; 2Th. 2:13-14.) In Heb. 3:1 we have a similar expression, partakers of a heavenly calling: there also the idea of sonship (Heb. 2:10), with its right of inheritance, is certainly present.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

c. By the death of our High Priest, the new covenant is a last will and testament, Heb 9:15-18 .

The Greek word for covenant, , signifies a disposition of things, a dispensation, an arrangement. Hence it includes an arrangement by agreement, that is, a covenant; or an arrangement by bequest or dying will, that is, a testament. Parenthetically, therefore, and very much as a side thought, the analogy of a testament is brought in as illustrating the death of which the ritual bloodshed was the symbol. The idea of testament, or will, was not, indeed, included in the Hebrew word for covenant; nor was a testamentary bequest one of the customs of Israel. Yet our apostle finds in the three facts of an inheritance, namely, a bestower, the death of the bestower, and the condition of the inheritance passing down to the inheritor all the points necessary to be framed into the conception of a testament. The sense of covenant does, indeed, still remain; but the newly specified elements in the transaction entitle him to figure it a testamentary covenant.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

15. Mediator In this testament-covenant the inherited good comes from God, and Christ is the middleman, receiving from God and transmitting it to the heirs, consequently on the condition of his own death.

The new testament first testament As bequest, will, or covenant, the results of the death of Christ pervaded both dispensations. Hence there was a first testament and a new testament.

By means of death His death. The condition of the divine bequest not only acts prospectively, to transmit the inheritance to all future heirs, but retrospectively, upon those under the first testament. So our Hebrews must cheerfully understand that the death of our suffering Jesus not only gives its efficacy to Christianity, but even to ancient Hebraism. Receive the fruition of the promise.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.’

It is because as High Priest He offered Himself to death as an unblemished sacrifice that He is demonstrated to be the Mediator of the new covenant. “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1Ti 2:5-6). And this death took place ‘for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the old covenant’ (compare the propitiatory sacrifice by which our ‘sins done aforetime’ could be passed over – Rom 3:25). Without that death we would yet be left in our sins. We could have no part in the covenant. But having been delivered by His covenantal death as Mediator by the shedding of His blood (compare Luk 22:20; 1Co 11:25; Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24) we can now enjoy His life, provided as our inheritance in that new covenant (Gal 2:20; Eph 3:16-17).

The idea of redemption (apolutrosis) is again prominent here. Compare ‘eternal redemption (lutrosis)’ – Heb 9:12. For apolutroo in LXX see Exo 21:8 where the buying back of a family member is in mind. The idea is of the Kinsman Redeemer who pays off the debts of one of his family (Lev 25:47-49), redeeming them from their transgressions under the old covenant by the payment of the required price. Here in Hebrews the idea is that they are ransomed by Him and set free (compare Mar 10:45). This then releases them from the old covenant so that they can participate in the new.

But if a ransom is paid, to whom is it paid? The final answer is, to God and the requirements that result from what He is. For man was enslaved by sin, bound by guilt, and was under sentence of death because he had failed to pay his due to God. And this was all owing to what God is. By His very nature God had to require it of man. So, until God’s sentence on man could be averted by being fully satisfied, man could only remain in that state. Thus the price of sin had to be paid, guilt had to be removed, the sentence of death satisfied, and then man could be released. Redemption vindicated the moral law, the moral nature of God.

Once the redemption has taken place the ‘called’, those chosen (Eph 1:4) and called by God (2Ti 1:9), receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (or ‘of the inheritance of the age to come’), eternal life (the ‘life of the age to come’). To ‘receive the promise’ means to enter into enjoyment of it (compare Heb 11:39). In this regard it should be noted that the initial element of this inheritance is received now (Joh 5:24; 1Jn 5:13) as well as being enjoyed even more wonderfully in the future in God’s eternal kingdom. Thus it is even now ‘the age to come’. It is the consequence of our eternal redemption (Heb 9:10).

God’s future blessings for His own are often seen as an inheritance (e.g. Act 20:32; Eph 1:11; Eph 1:14; Col 1:12; 1Pe 1:4), but it is the more apposite here because the writer goes on to speak of Christ’s last will and testament. It is the inheritance of the saints in God’s light (Col 1:12-13; Rev 21:23; Rev 22:5) received under His rule.

This use of the idea of inheritance is significant. An inheritance is something that comes to you as a gift. In its basic idea it is not earned, it is not bought, it is not worked for. It comes as a result of the undeserved grace of the giver. It brings out the fact that what God’s people will receive in the future is not their deserts but the giving of blessings by a gracious God.

So the picture is of our great High Priest, our Kinsman Redeemer, Who acting as mediator, and having died for us, applies to us the benefits of His death and grants to us eternal life, the eternal inheritance, which is granted to us by the grace of God, and ‘bought’ for us through His blood.

‘Of the transgressions which were under the old covenant.’ The question which might arise here is as to whether this merely signifies that those living in the time of the writer who had sinned under the old covenant could now be redeemed, (because that is what is in the writer’s mind). Or whether it includes the transgressions of all Old Testament believers for which Christ’s death and mediation was effective (Rom 3:25). Or whether it refers to all transgressions committed by those who have now been ‘called’, who had committed them before they were under the new covenant (because, whether Jew or Gentile, all were assumed to be under the old). It is not really necessary to choose between them. By implication, if not in fact, all are in mind, the point being that any who are called would necessarily have to have had their old sins dealt with, and that that could only be through the blood of Jesus.

Whichever way therefore that we take it, the words are true. Those who believed in the Old Testament period, whose sins were for a time passed over through their obedience to the covenant as they knew it in all its facets, were awaiting the coming of the One Who would Himself bear their sins (Rom 3:25). Thus implicit in their calling was the fact that God would in future deal effectively with their sins. Those who were never patently under the old covenant because they were not Israelites/Jews were nevertheless under it latently, for they were under the law of conscience. Sinning without law they would perish without law unless they were ‘called’ and their sins atoned for, for they were as it were voluntarily ‘under the law’ by responding to their consciences (Rom 2:12-16).

The context might be seen as suggesting that the second interpretation is paramount, (while drawing in the other two), for it has depicted the problems of people under the old covenant. It had only been effective outwardly, not inwardly. Thus unless we are to see the Old Testament believers as left without real hope there had to be some explanation as to how they too could share in God’s true salvation.

We should now note one of the implications of this verse which will be taken up in the next. There is in mind here a new covenant. But it is more than a covenant. In order for it to come into force there must be a redeeming death because of their sin under the old covenant. Thus it must be a covenant linked with death. And the result is to be an inheritance received, an inheritance not receivable until the death has occurred. It is thus seen to be a covenant-testament, a covenant, which was irrevocable because of Who made it and because it was unconditional, and yet only coming into force through the death of the bestower, and therefore being like a will.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Christ As Mediator of the New Covenant ( Heb 9:15-17 ).

As a result of His death for us Christ is now the Mediator of the New Covenant already mentioned (Heb 8:8-12). Not only are our sins dealt with but He works in us His perfect work. A mediator is One Who comes on behalf of two parties in order to establish terms with both and arrange all necessary fulfilment of any requirements, in order to bring about between them what is desired. From God’s point of view He recognises the necessity of the shedding of blood for sin, indeed because of His holiness demands it, while from man’s point of view He offers Himself as a sacrifice as representative Man. Having accomplished that He can then arrange a further carrying out of the terms by His Spirit working in our hearts and by His acting in Heaven on our behalf. But first there must be the required shedding of blood.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Christ Became the Mediator of the New Covenant Heb 9:15-22 explains how Jesus Christ became the mediator of a new covenant.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 9:15 Comments Ancient Jewish tradition assigned six hundred and thirteen commandments to the Mosaic Law. [239] A Jew lived under an astounding weight of concern so as not to break the least of these commandments. Because Jesus Christ offered His blood through His redemptive death, mankind has been redeemed from the many transgressions that he would have committed had he lived under the Law with its many commandments. The blood offering of Jesus was man’s only hope of obtaining an eternal inheritance, for no man could have fulfilled these commandments, except the man Jesus Christ.

[239] The Babylonian Talmud reads, “R. Simlayi lectured: Six hundred and thirteen commands were said to Moses; three hundred and sixty-five of them negatives, corresponding to the number of days in a year counting according to sunrise; and two hundred and forty-eight positives, corresponding to the members of a man’s body.” (Maccoth 3) See Michael L. Rodkinson, New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, vol. 9 (Boston: New Talmud Publishing Company, 1903), 53-54.

Heb 9:16-17 Comments Scholars are evenly divided over the translation of the word , since it can be translated either “covenant” or “will/testament.”

Heb 9:18 Comments – This blood represents the death of the testator (Lev 17:11). It represents man’s communion with God. The ark was God’s throne. The altar of Incense represents our prayers to God. The second veil represented Jesus’ flesh.

Lev 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

Heb 9:18-22 Comments The Sprinkling of the Blood of the Covenant Exo 24:6-8 records the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant God made with the children of Israel.

Exo 24:6-8, “And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The necessity of Christ’s death:

v. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

v. 16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

v. 17. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Having shown that the high-priestly office of Christ was in every respect more excellent than that of the Old Testament high priests, the author in the second part of the chapter furnishes proof of the fact that Christ is also the Mediator of a better covenant than that of the Old Testament. In demonstrating the necessity of Christ’s death, he refers, first of all, to the effect and purpose of the great sacrifice on Calvary: And for that reason He is the Mediator of a new testament that, a death having taken place for deliverance from the transgressions under the first covenant, those that have been called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For this reason, because Christ entered into the Most Holy Place of the heavens through His own blood, and because His blood cleanses the conscience from dead works to serve the living God, He is the Mediator of the new covenant. Through the annual atonement made by the high priests of the Old Testament the covenant of God with His chosen people was always renewed and Israel continually reinstated in its rights as the people of the covenant. But Christ, through His blood, through His salvation, has established a new covenant, one by which we are God’s children, God’s people, by which we are assured of the mercy of God and have fellowship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, not only for one year or for a few years, but for all eternity. All this has been made possible through the death of Christ, which took place for the deliverance from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For unless these transgressions, of which all men were guilty, were atoned for, no man could receive the eternal inheritance. The sacrifices of the Old Testament not being able to atone for sin, a new covenant was necessary with a death which could accomplish this necessary object. Christ’s vicarious death being a historical fact, it follows that the promise can now be carried into effect. We, whom He has called by the Gospel, can now freely rely upon the promise of the eternal inheritance in heaven, where we shall enjoy the true, lasting gifts and blessings.

The covenant of God, assured to us through His promise, is at the same time the testament, the last mill, of our Savior Jesus Christ. And from this fact the sacred writer argues: For where there is a testament; it is necessary that the death of him who made the testament be set forth; for a testament is in force with regard to dead people, since it is never in force while the testator is living. The illustration is taken from the general custom or law with regard to wills, for a man’s last will and testament is never valid while the testator is still alive. If the real or alleged heirs want the benefit of the inheritance, proofs of the death of the testator must first be adduced. Only when this fact is established beyond a reasonable doubt, when the man who has formally put his last will to paper is no longer among the living, then the provisions of the testament are in force. Thus also the death of Christ was necessary in order that Christ might really be the Mediator of a new and better covenant.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Heb 9:15. What follows in this chapter seems to be in a good measure a digression, though a most pertinent and useful one. Having, in what goes before, by comparing the ancient tabernacles and the service thereof with Christ, shewn the weakness of it, he returns to this topic in the beginning of the next chapter; but here, upon having asserted the great virtue of the blood of Christ, he enlarged, in order to shew how necessary the shedding of his blood was, partly upon the account of his office as Mediator, and partly from the nature of God’s covenant with men, as appears by what was done under the first covenant. He argues, from the different natures of the things to be purified with sacrifices, that the blood of a more excellent sacrifice was necessary under the second, than under the first; and in the four last verses he has a respect to what he had before said, of Christ dying, and entering into the holy of holies but once; proving this to have been every way sufficient.

And for this cause And by that [blood] he is the Mediator of the new covenant, that death being provided for the redemption, &c. Chapman, Euseb. vol. 2: p. 338. This reading seems unexceptionably just. Dr. Sykes understands it in the same manner, and thus paraphrases the verse: “And besides, through this blood Christ is become the Mediator of the new covenant, and acts as such between God and man; so that as death intervened under the first covenant, in order to ratify that, and to secure the engagement to deliver from or pardon the transgressions which were under it; in like manner, under the second covenant, there was to be an intervention of death, &c.” The word has throughout this epistle been hitherto truly rendered covenant, and so it should have been here. The Hebrew word berith, invariably signifies a covenant, and the apostle plainly had this in his eye. See Heb 9:18-20. Besides, a testament has no Mediator belonging to it, as a covenant has; and therefore “the Mediator of a testament” is an improper, perhaps an unintelligible expression. See the next verse. The apostle in the present verse gives this reason why Christ was the Mediator of a new covenant through his blood; namely, because as by the intervention of death assurance was made or given that transgressions under the first covenant should be pardoned; so likewise under the second covenant, by means of death, the faithful should have assurance that their sins should be remitted, and they entitled to an everlasting inheritance. There is a general likeness or similitude in the two great scenes of God’s providence and grace. There was death in the first covenant, in order to the establishing of that law which gave the Israelites assurance that their sins of ignorance should be forgiven; and that they should, if they would conform to what was commanded, enjoy a present temporal possession. There was likewise death in the second covenant, to establish that; and to give assurance that those with whom it was made, that is, all the faithful of all nations, ages, and dispensations, should enjoy a future and eternal inheritance. It was expedient that Christ should be made man, or be partaker of flesh and blood, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death. Ch. Heb 2:14. The God-man Christ therefore was Mediator through his blood, that as death intervened for the freeing men from transgressions, and giving them a present enjoyment in the land of Canaan, under the first covenant; in like manner, under the second covenant, they who should enjoy an everlasting inheritance, might, by the intervening of death, receive the pardon of their sins, and life everlasting.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 9:15 . ] and just for this cause is He the Mediator of a New Covenant . By means of , Heb 9:15 attaches itself closely to the preceding context, and points back to the main thought contained in Heb 9:9-14 ; just for this reason, that the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes that which the Levitical sacrifices are unable to accomplish; namely, that, presented by virtue of eternal spirit, brings in an eternal redemption, these, on the other hand, as ordinances of the flesh, are able to effect only purity of the flesh. Not specially to , Heb 9:14 (Sykes, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Maier), does glance back. For in this case , or rather , would more naturally have been written. Nor is to be taken together with , as a mere preparation thereto (so Schlichting, Schulz, Bhme, Bleek, Stengel, Ebrard, and many). For thereby Heb 9:15 would be torn from its connection with that which precedes.

Upon there does not rest an emphasis, as is supposed by Bleek and Delitzsch. For otherwise the adjectives must have been prefixed to the substantive. On the contrary, what is to be specially emphasized is . For just the inner nexus of the N. T. , with the redemptive death of Christ as its mediating cause, is to be brought out; whereas the adjective could be presupposed as familiar from the disquisition Heb 8:8 ff., in that there the perfect covenant promised by God was sufficiently characterized as a new one.

] in order that . False the interpretation of Heinrichs: “unde sequitur.” The final clause . . . is not designed to develop more nearly the ; it depends upon , and indicates the goal to which, in accordance with the decree of God, the should lead, and at the same time the way and means by which the attainment of this goal should be accomplished.

] a death having ensued . The death of Christ is that which is meant. The author, however, expresses himself generically , because he has already in mind that which is to be observed, Heb 9:16-17 .

] for redemption from the transgressions (or sins ) committed under the first covenant (or at the time of the first covenant ). Note of design to , not to .

] the promise, i.e. the promised blessing itself. With we have to combine , as a declaration wherein the promised blessing consists (genitive of apposition ). By the separation of the two closely connected words, is brought out more emphatically, and the discourse gains in point of rhythm. Less suitably, although free from objection on linguistic grounds, did the Peshito, Faber Stapulensis, Braun, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Stein, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 594), Moll, Ewald, and others take with : those who are called to the eternal inheritance.

] Comp. , Heb 3:1 . The expression is here used absolutely, and is not to be referred exclusively to the Christians. For, according to Heb 9:26 ; Heb 11:39-40 , the power of the redemptive death of Christ extends retroactively likewise to the generations of the past. And just for this reason the participle perfect is written, and not the participle aorist . For not to the historic act of the temporal vocation, but to the being called , as a fact in the decree of God already completed and extending into the present, is attention to be drawn.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Heb 9:15-28 . In order, however, that Christ might become the mediator of the New Covenant, it was matter of necessity that He should suffer death . This follows from the very notion of a , since the same is only ratified after the death of the has been proved; as accordingly the first or O. T. was not inaugurated without blood. For the inauguration of the earthly sanctuary the blood of slain animals sufficed; for the consecration of the heavenly sanctuary, on the other hand, there was need of a more excellent sacrifice. This Christ has presented once for all in the end of the world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (18) Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. (19) For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, (20) Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. (21) Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. (22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (23) It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

We enter at the first of these verses, on a most interesting subject, in which Christ is considered, as the Testator of all the blessings, purchased by him in the Covenant, for his people; and the Testament he hath made, in the blessings Covenanted for, of grace here, and glory forever. I beg the Reader to attend to the subject, with that attention its importance demands. Christ hath made his Testament or Will in which all the several legacies are mentioned, in relation to temporal, spiritual, and eternal blessings; the things themselves are registered in the word of God; the blood of Christ is said to be the purchase; God the Father is pledged for the performance by word and oath, and is a party witness to the great transaction; and God the Spirit hath sealed the writings with his broad seal of heaven, in the charter of grace. So that it hath every confirmation to make it sure and binding.

But as all testamentary writings become of force after men are dead, and are of no value before, Christ the Testator to his Will, dies also, to give efficacy to his. And as Christ is both the Testator, Administrator, and Executor of his own will; it became necessary that he should arise from the dead, and enter into glory, that he might pay all the legacies himself; with his own hand. This was strikingly set forth, under the law, by the shedding of blood; to intimate the Covenant or Testament being confirmed; and by the sprinkling the blood, to intimate the application. Indeed here were four distinct services, in the Old Testament dispensation of shedding of blood, as one alone could not have set forth in shadowy representations, those several grand and momentous truths, in the death of Christ. The first was that of the Passover, Exo 12 , teaching, that Christ, our Passover is sacrificed for us, to deliver from the wrath to come, 1Th 1:10 . But the Church of Christ, when in the Adam-state of a fallen nature, needed somewhat more than a deliverance from wrath; and therefore the atonement of sin, became the second, and which was also shadowed out, in the great day of the sin offering, Lev 16 . Here was shewn, how the Church being delivered from wrath, was also brought into a state of reconciliation, and favor, by the offering of the body of Christ, 2Co 5:21 . But we must not stop here. For even a deliverance from wrath, and an atonement for sin, to bring into reconciliation and favor, need also, a qualification in the Lord’s people, to partake of those rich mercies. Our souls, while unregenerated by the Holy Spirit, and on sanctified in the Adam-nature, are not made meet partakers, of the saints in light. Hence, a third service, in the Jewish Church, typified the great blessings, to be enjoyed from the Lord Jesus in the Christian; and by the service of the slaying of one bird, and the flying away of another in the air, was set forth, Christ giving himself for his Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water, by the word, and to present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. And thus Christ was set forth, by the sacrifice of the one bird that was killed over the running water; and the Lord’s entrance into heaven, in his own blood was also represented by the other bird being sprinkled with blood, and being let loose in the open field. Compare Lev 14:6-7 with Eph 5:26-27 . And, lastly, as a ratification of the whole, this of the Testament, as here set forth, is in conformity to the Lord’s appointment under the law, Exo 24:8 .

I will only detain the Reader, with a short observation on this whole passage, just to remark, that if the Lord Jesus Christ, thus died, to confirm and make sure, all his testamentary gifts to his Church and people, how necessary it must be, for every one of his redeemed ones, to prove their relationship to Christ, by which alone they can lay claim to all the blessings of the Covenant. When Christ was in the full prospect of death, he instituted the Holy Supper, as a memorial to be observed, by his people forever. And, as he delivered them the sacred Cup, he said; This cup is the new testament in my blood. Take this, and divide it among yourselves. Luk 22:19Luk 22:19 . Nothing could more strikingly illustrate, than the original institution of Moses sprinkling the book, and the people, in the Old Testament dispensation, was, in direct allusion, to this of Christ in the New, for Jesus hath nearly made use of the same words, verse 20. It will be our mercy, if we can prove our heir-ship in Christ, and our relationship to Christ, for then, all the legacies Jesus hath left his Church are our own. Reader! see to it, that as the Apostle saith, you make your calling and election sure; for so all temporal, spiritual, and eternal blessings, are in Christ, and from Christ, and an entrance shall be ministered unto us abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, 2Pe 1:10-11 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Ver. 15. For the redemption ] Here he showeth the reasons why it was needful that Christ should enter by his own blood, Heb 9:2 , sc. to expiate our sins, and to possess us of heaven.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

15 .] See summary above at Heb 9:13 . This pre-eminent spiritual virtue of His redeeming blood constitutes his fitness to be Mediator of the new covenant, the main blessing of which, forgiveness, extends even back over the insufficient former one, and ensures the inheritance to the called. And on this account ( is not to be taken as Schlichting, Bhme, and Bleek, prospectively, responded to by the below: for in this case we should have an entire break between the last verse and this. It is true, as Del. observes, that a new side of Christ’s work is here introduced: but it is one which stands in the closest relation to that which has preceded. Rather should we refer backwards, and understand it, on account of this virtue of His blood : or if it seem better, extend its reference further back still, over Heb 9:11-14 , on account of the great work which He hath accomplished by his death : = ‘because these things are so’) is He mediator of a new covenant (see ch. Heb 8:6 and note. There is a stress on , but not so strong an one as Bl. and Del. suppose: Del. would explain, therefore is the covenant, of which He is the mediator, a new one. But surely this predicate does not carry the logical weight of the sentence, but rather both the words, , the latter of which is taken up and responded to by below, and the former by in the next verse. For its meaning here, see below), in order that, death having taken place, for the propitiation of the transgressions under the first covenant, they who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (first, the object of the new covenant is an eternal inheritance , cf. , Heb 9:11 , , ch. Heb 2:5 ; and therefore the idea of inheritance having once come in, gives to that shade of meaning which is deepened and insisted on below, viz. that of a TESTAMENTARY covenant or arrangement. Then, going backwards from , , an expression (see reff.) used also by St. Luke, is to be taken in the sense of receiving the fulfilment of a promise, not merely of having the promise granted. Then, the are the of ch. Heb 3:1 ; cf. also of Phi 3:14 ; and reff. here. Calvin well remarks, “Loquitur de vocatis, ut Judos, qui hujus vocationis erant participes, magis officiat.” This end, of the called being put in possession of the promise of the eternal inheritance, is to be attained, . Without this death, it could not be attained. The full reason of this, that death must take place first, is presently gone into: it is with the concluding words of this clause that we are at present concerned. These transgressions under the first covenant are in fact those of all mankind. Israel was a pattern of God’s dealings with all: and His revelation of His will to Israel extended categorically to all mankind. Against this will, primvally revealed, revealed to the patriarchs, revealed in the law, our parents and the antediluvian earth, the sons of Noah and the postdiluvian earth, Israel itself as a people, had deeply and repeatedly transgressed: and before a new inheritance by testament could come in, there must be a propitiation of all these former transgressions. All the propitiatory sacrifices, so called, of the former covenant, were but imperfect and typical: but as this is to be a real inheritance, so there must be real and actual propitiation. Cf. the remarkable parallel, Act 13:39 , , . See more below. This is fully and strikingly treated by Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 300: see also Delitzsch’s note here.

It is right to mention that some versions and expositors take together. Thus Syr., Faber Stap., Chr. F. Schmid, al., and recently, Tholuck and Ebrard (this latter, apparently, missing the sense of ): which arrangement would perhaps be grammatically justifiable, but according neither to our Writer’s usage, nor to the requirements of the sentence. The severing, of a genitive in government from its governing noun is not uncommon in our Epistle, and frequently found in other governments also, in St. Luke: and, the stress being here on inheritance , as presently taken up in the next verse, it is not probable that it would be introduced merely in the most insignificant place possible, as a mere adjunct to the description of the subject of the sentence. So that on all grounds the other and more usually accepted construction is to be preferred. The with dat . , in the sense of ‘ under ,’ ‘ during the time of ,’ the first ., easily gets its meaning from the primitive sense of close superposition. The things happening , had it for their substratum, were superimposed on it, as it were. See ch. Heb 10:28 ; and Winer, edn. 6, 48. c).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Heb 9:15 . , “And on this account,” that is to say, because, as stated in Heb 9:14 , Christ’s blood cleanses the conscience from dead works and thus fits men to draw near to God, , “He is mediator of a new covenant”. The old covenant with sacrifices which could only cleanse the flesh allowed sins to accumulate. But Christ, as above stated, obtained cleansing from sins, and so laid the essential foundation of a new covenant, Heb 8:12 . “that a death having taken place for deliverance from the transgressions [committed] under the first covenant, those who have been called might receive the promised eternal inheritance”. Even under the old covenant this inheritance had been promised. A gospel had been preached to them, and they had been invited, Heb 4:2 . God being during that period the covenant God of the people, this involved eternal good. But until their transgressions were atoned for they could not receive the inheritance. The sacrifices under the old covenant could not atone for sin, therefore a new covenant with a death which could atone was necessary; in order that such a death having taken place and their sins being removed they might receive fulfilment of the promise. The retrospective reference of the death of Christ is here affirmed; as in Heb 11:40 it is stated that without us, i.e. , without the Christian dispensation, the O.T. believers could not be perfected, The words , therefore, include not only the Hebrews addressed but all who had lived under the O.T. dispensation. , the genitive is of the object from which redemption is achieved, and is scarcely “against” as in Vaughan, but rather “in the time of,” as in Heb 9:26 , Phi 1:3 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Heb 9:15-22

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Heb 9:15 “mediator” See note at Heb 8:6 (cf. Heb 12:24; 1Ti 2:5).

“a new covenant” This term is first used in Heb 8:8; Heb 8:13, but alluded to in Heb 7:22. This shocking term is found in only one OT text (cf. Jer 31:31-34) and described in Eze 36:22-38. Heb 9:15-18 are a play on the word “covenant,” with its two meanings of legal contract or agreement (Hebrew) and last will and testament (Greek and Latin).

“for the redemption of transgression that were committed under the first covenant those who have been called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance” Remember that Hebrews is a comparison of the Old and New Covenants. The Mosaic Covenant became a death sentence (cf. Eph 2:14-16; Col 2:14) to God’s highest creation (mankind) because after Genesis 3 they were unable to obey and perform God’s commands. The first covenant said “do and live,” but no one could fully conform to its requirements. The Old Covenant stated “the soul that sins will die” (cf. 2Ki 14:6; Eze 18:4; Eze 18:20). God’s answer was a sinless, ideal Israelite who would pay the price for all, for all time (cf. Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12).

The phrase “those who have been called” refers to God’s initiating call to know Him (cf. Heb 3:1; Joh 6:44; Joh 6:65; Rom 8:28; Rom 8:30; Rom 9:24). See full note at Heb 3:1.

The concept of “inheritance” is linked to the Levites’ unique relationship to YHWH. They were His inheritance and He was theirs (not land like the other tribes). The new covenant believers are now like OT priests (cf. 2Pe 3:5; 2Pe 3:9; Rev 1:6). Believers have an eternal inheritance, which is provided by Christ, guarded by God (cf. 1Pe 1:3-5).

SPECIAL TOPIC: RANSOM/REDEEM

“inaugurated” See note at Heb 10:20.

Heb 9:19 “goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop” The author seems to have combined the cleansing by sprinkling blood on a leper in Lev 14:6-7 with the consecration of the Tem Commandments at Sinai in Exo 24:1-9. The tabernacle was not in existence in chapter 24 (cf. Exodus 40). Josephus tells us that sprinkling with blood was part of the ritual of Exodus 40.

This word “goats” is missing in several ancient Greek manuscripts (P46, c, K, L) as well as the Syriac translation and the Greek text used by Origen. Goats were usually used for sin offerings, not covenant ratifications (although not exclusively, cf. Gen 15:9). Goats are omitted in the ratification of the “ten words” (Torah) in Exo 24:1-8. Possibly “goats” is another allusion to the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16, where goats are an integral part of the ritual.

It is difficult from our modern perspective to claim that Acts 7 (Stephen’s sermon) and the author of Hebrews (chapter 9’s description of the ancient tabernacle) are inaccurate. There is so much that is unknown about the ancient rituals themselves and the ever-changing rabbinical traditions associated with them.

Heb 9:20 This is a quote from Exo 24:8.

Heb 9:22 “almost say all things” Some things were cleaned without blood in the OT system: (1) Lev 5:11; (2) Num 16:46; (3) Num 31:22-23; (4) Exo 19:10; Exo 32:30-32; Lev 15:5; Lev 16:26; Lev 16:28; Lev 22:6; (5) Psalms 51. See note below.

“without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” In the OT cleansing required (1) fire, (2) water, or (3) blood. This author takes sin seriously. Forgiveness involves a life forfeited (cf. Lev 17:11; Lev 17:14). The OT sacrificial system (cf. Leviticus 1-7) sets the stage for our understanding of Christ’s substitutionary death (cf. Mat 26:28; Mar 10:45; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 5:21).

In the OT there were several ways things/people were cleansed without blood.

1. by fire (cf. Lev 13:52; Lev 13:55; Lev 16:27; Num 31:23)

2. water (cf. Exod. 19:30; Lev 15:5; Lev 16:26; Lev 16:28; Lev 22:6; Num 31:24)

3. flour sacrifice (cf. Lev 5:11-13)

4. incense (cf. Num 16:46-48)

5. intercession (cf. Exo 32:30-32)

6. prayer of confession and contrition (cf. Psalms 32, 51)

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

for this cause = on account of (Greek. dia) this.

Mediator. See Heb 8:6.

the = a.

new. See Heb 8:8.

testament = covenant, as in Heb 9:4.

by means, &c. Literally death having taken place.

redemption. Greek. apolutrosis. See Rom 3:24. Compare Heb 9:12

transgressions. Greek. parabasis. See Heb 2:2. Compare App-128.

under = upon (based upon). Greek. epi. App-104.

promise, &c. = the promised eternal inheritance. Figure of speech Hypallage. App-6.

inheritance. Compare 1Pe 1:4.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

15.] See summary above at Heb 9:13. This pre-eminent spiritual virtue of His redeeming blood constitutes his fitness to be Mediator of the new covenant, the main blessing of which, forgiveness, extends even back over the insufficient former one, and ensures the inheritance to the called. And on this account ( is not to be taken as Schlichting, Bhme, and Bleek, prospectively, responded to by the below: for in this case we should have an entire break between the last verse and this. It is true, as Del. observes, that a new side of Christs work is here introduced: but it is one which stands in the closest relation to that which has preceded. Rather should we refer backwards, and understand it, on account of this virtue of His blood: or if it seem better, extend its reference further back still, over Heb 9:11-14, on account of the great work which He hath accomplished by his death: = because these things are so) is He mediator of a new covenant (see ch. Heb 8:6 and note. There is a stress on , but not so strong an one as Bl. and Del. suppose: Del. would explain,-therefore is the covenant, of which He is the mediator, a new one. But surely this predicate does not carry the logical weight of the sentence, but rather both the words, , the latter of which is taken up and responded to by below, and the former by in the next verse. For its meaning here, see below), in order that,-death having taken place, for the propitiation of the transgressions under the first covenant,-they who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (first, the object of the new covenant is an eternal inheritance,-cf. , Heb 9:11, , ch. Heb 2:5; and therefore the idea of inheritance having once come in, gives to that shade of meaning which is deepened and insisted on below, viz. that of a TESTAMENTARY covenant or arrangement. Then, going backwards from ,- , an expression (see reff.) used also by St. Luke, is to be taken in the sense of receiving the fulfilment of a promise, not merely of having the promise granted. Then, the are the of ch. Heb 3:1; cf. also of Php 3:14; and reff. here. Calvin well remarks, Loquitur de vocatis, ut Judos, qui hujus vocationis erant participes, magis officiat. This end, of the called being put in possession of the promise of the eternal inheritance, is to be attained, . Without this death, it could not be attained. The full reason of this, that death must take place first, is presently gone into: it is with the concluding words of this clause that we are at present concerned. These transgressions under the first covenant are in fact those of all mankind. Israel was a pattern of Gods dealings with all: and His revelation of His will to Israel extended categorically to all mankind. Against this will, primvally revealed, revealed to the patriarchs, revealed in the law, our parents and the antediluvian earth, the sons of Noah and the postdiluvian earth, Israel itself as a people, had deeply and repeatedly transgressed: and before a new inheritance by testament could come in, there must be a propitiation of all these former transgressions. All the propitiatory sacrifices, so called, of the former covenant, were but imperfect and typical: but as this is to be a real inheritance, so there must be real and actual propitiation. Cf. the remarkable parallel, Act 13:39, , . See more below. This is fully and strikingly treated by Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 300: see also Delitzschs note here.

It is right to mention that some versions and expositors take together. Thus Syr., Faber Stap., Chr. F. Schmid, al., and recently, Tholuck and Ebrard (this latter, apparently, missing the sense of ): which arrangement would perhaps be grammatically justifiable, but according neither to our Writers usage, nor to the requirements of the sentence. The severing, of a genitive in government from its governing noun is not uncommon in our Epistle, and frequently found in other governments also, in St. Luke: and, the stress being here on inheritance, as presently taken up in the next verse, it is not probable that it would be introduced merely in the most insignificant place possible, as a mere adjunct to the description of the subject of the sentence. So that on all grounds the other and more usually accepted construction is to be preferred. The with dat. , in the sense of under, during the time of, the first ., easily gets its meaning from the primitive sense of close superposition. The things happening , had it for their substratum, were superimposed on it, as it were. See ch. Heb 10:28; and Winer, edn. 6, 48. c).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 9:15. , of the new testament) Here the testament is rather urged, than the newness of the testament: comp. Heb 9:16.- , by means of death that took place) that is, at the time when the death had taken place. The moment of this (His) death properly divides the Old Testament from the New.- , for the redemption of the transgressions, that were under the first testament) There is a passage of Paul very like this in Rom 3:24-25. The preposition , under, not merely denotes the time, but intimates that the first testament had no power of redemption, and that the people of old were more on account of it transgressors. , the compound, occurs here: , the simple word, occurs, Heb 9:12.-, the promise) given to Abraham.-, might receive) for formerly they could not.- ) those called, named heirs (ch. Heb 3:1).-, of the inheritance) An apposite appellation; for there is an allegory: testament, death, inheritance.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Heb 9:15-24

THE ETERNAL INHERITANCE

SECURED FOR THE CALLED

AND FAITHFUL OF ALL AGES,

THROUGH THE DEATH AND

MEDIATION OF THE LORD JESUS

Heb 9:15-24

Heb 9:15 —And for this cause-(kai dia tonto) on this account; viz., that the blood of Christ has an inherent power and efficacy, such as the legal sacrifices had not: a power to purify the conscience from dead works, and to fit all who are purified and sanctified by it for the service and enjoyment of the living God for this very reason.

Heb 9:15 —he is the mediator of the new testament,-This clause is explained with sufficient fullness in our notes on Heb 8:6 Heb 8:8, to which the reader is referred. The word rendered testament (diatheke) means here a covenant, and the new testament of this verse is the same as the New Covenant of Heb 8:8.

Heb 9:15 —that by means of death, etc.-Or more literally, so that [his] death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions grounded on the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance. The Apostle here plainly declares that the death of Christ was necessary in order to the redemption of the transgressions which were committed under the Old Covenant during the Jewish age. But what was then true in this respect of the Jewish age, was also equally true of all previous ages. For as Hofmann says, our author here regards the history of Gods relations to mankind as one great whole, of which the religious history of Israel forms a typical part, exhibiting in one crucial instance the incapacity of the whole human race to satisfy the requirements of the Divine will. From this point of view, atonement for transgressions under the law will mean the same thing as the atonement of the sins of men in general, regarded as violations of the revealed will of God; and the death of Christ will be an atonement, not merely for sins in the abstract, but especially for sin in its most aggravated form, as conscious transgression of that revealed will. The special reference here made to transgressions under the covenant of Sinai has its ground not only in this, that that covenant had a real significance for mankind in general, but also that the point which the sacred writer has here mainly in view, is the transition from it and its failures to the saving dispensation of the Gospel. That transition could not take place without a death which would annihilate the transgressions of the former covenant. But the death of bulls and goats was wholly unavailing for the purpose. (Heb 10:4.) And hence the necessity that Christ should die for the people, before the called of any age could have an absolute right to the free and full enjoyment of the eternal inheritance.

But does it follow from this, as many suppose, that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other faithful men of the Patriarchal and Jewish ages were still under the dominion of sin and death, until Christ came, and by his death and alleged descent into Hades procured their deliverance? I think not, for the Scriptures everywhere teach that these holy men of old were justified by faith and obedience as well as we (Rom 4:4; Jas 2:21-23, etc.), and this of course implies that they were received and treated by God as just persons, and that after their death they were immediately translated, if not directly to heaven, at least to a place and state of high spiritual enjoyment (Exo 3:6; Dan 12:13; Luk 16:23-26, etc.). And this is manifestly Pauls idea in Rom 3:25-26, where he says in substance that God had, as it were, passed by the sins of those faithful men for a time, and that in the end of the ages he had set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for a demonstration of his administrative justice in doing so. That no sin was ever forgiven absolutely, without the blood of Christ, is of course conceded, and so also no debt was ever paid absolutely by a mere paper currency. But nevertheless we know that thousands of obligations have been practically cancelled by notes, bonds, and other like documents. And just so God seems to have administered the affairs of his government during the Patriarchal and Jewish ages. He, too, so to speak, issued in the meantime a sort of promissory notes, based on the infinite value of the blood of Christ, which he knew was to be shed in due time. By means of these notes he was enabled (if I may say it with reverence) to meet, for the time being, all the claims of justice, and still to treat as just and righteous all who like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, became loyal subjects of his government. But no one could read his title clear to mansions in the skies, until by the blood of Christ his sins were all cancelled absolutely, and the notes and bonds that had been issued in behalf of the sinner were all redeemed by the one great atoning sacrifice. See notes on Heb 11:39-40.

Heb 9:15 —they who are called-That is, all in every age who by faith and obedience have become the children of God, and heirs according to the promise. For all such, God has provided an inheritance which is incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away. (1Pe 1:4.) But before any could rightfully inherit it and claim it as their own, the covenant through which it has been provided had to be sealed and ratified with the blood of Jesus. The necessity of this the Apostle now proceeds to illustrate (1) by the analogous case of a will of testament; and (2) by example of the Old Covenant.

Heb 9:16 —For where a testament is, etc.-That is, before a testament can have any legal force, the death of the testator must be known and publicly acknowledged as a fact. The reference which our author makes to the eternal inheritance at the close of the preceding verse, suggested to his mind the case of a testament, and this thought he now takes up, not for the purpose of proving, but simply of illustrating the necessity of Christs death.

Heb 9:17 —For a testament is of force after men are dead:-This is a well known law of all civilized nations. So long as the testator lives, it is his privilege to change his will as he pleases, and nothing but his death can therefore immutably fix and ratify its various stipulations. Previous to this indeed, his intended heirs may be allowed to enjoy to any extent the benefits of his estate. But not until the will is ratified by his death, can they claim a legal right to the inheritance as their own. And so it was with respect to the eternal inheritance. After Abraham had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. (Heb 6:15.) That is, immediately after his death he was received into the enjoyment of the promised rest, as one of Gods elect, and henceforth he was allowed to partake of the benefits of the inheritance so far as he was capable of enjoying them. (Heb 11:10 Heb 11:16.) And he also doubtless looked forward to the time when he and his children would be constituted the rightful owners of all things (Rom 4:13; 1Co 3:21-23), not excepting the redeemed and renovated earth. See notes onHeb 2:5-9. But it was not until the New Covenant was inaugurated by the death of Christ and ratified by his blood, that any one could claim, as we now claim, an absolute right to the eternal inheritance.

I see no reason for the protracted controversy that critics have kept up with respect to the meaning of the word diatheke in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses. It is quite evident that the dia- themenos of these verses is the maker of the diatheke, and that his death must of necessity take place before the diatheke can have any legal force. This is not true in the case of a covenant, but only in the case of a will or testament. And hence, beyond all doubt, the word diatheke in these verses means a will or testament. But on the other hand, it is equally obvious that this word cannot in this sense be literally applied to any of Gods arrangements with men, nor does our author so intend to apply it. He refers to the well- known law of a will as an analogous case, merely for the purpose of illustrating his point, and of so impressing more deeply on the mind of his readers the necessity of Christs death, before God could consistently bestow on the heirs of the promise a right in fee-simple to the eternal inheritance. The word diathemenos means both a covenanter and a testator, and the word diatheke means in like manner both a covenant and a testament. And hence it was perfectly natural and legitimate that our author should, in this instance, pass from the first meaning of diatheke to the second, without however intending to apply the word to any of Gods arrangements in a sense which would be altogether inapposite.

Heb 9:18 —Whereupon neither was the first testament dedicated without blood.-Or more literally, Wherefore neither was the first covenant inaugurated without blood. The sixteenth and seventeenth verses are but an illustration of the fundamental principle submitted in the fifteenth, viz., that the death of Christ was necessary in order to redemption from the sins committed under the Old Covenant, and also to the rightful inauguration of the New Covenant, so that all the redeemed might have a legal right to the eternal inheritance. This thought the Apostle now proceeds to illustrate still further by referring to the way in which the Old Covenant was inaugurated. Since therefore it is thus and so in the case of a will, it is also analogically true of all the diathekai of God; they, too, must be inaugurated and ratified by means of death and the sprinkling of blood. And hence even the Old Covenant, which was but a type of the New, was not inaugurated without blood.

Heb 9:19 —For when Moses had spoken, etc.-There is reference here to the solemn transactions that are recorded in Exo 24:1-8. When Moses had received from God the laws and ordinances recorded in Exodus 20-23, he recited them to the people, and they all answered with one voice and said, All the words which the Lord hath said we will do. After this; he wrote all the words and commandments of the Lord in a book; and when he had again recited them to the people, and had received their second response, he then proceeded, as our author says, to ratify the covenant, by taking the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, with which he sprinkled both the book and all the people. The account of these transactions, as given by both Moses and Paul, is very brief, each of them writing under the influence of plenary inspiration, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, selected only such particulars as best served to accomplish his purpose. Moses makes no mention of the blood of goats, nor of the water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, which were used on the occasion, nor does he speak of the sprinkling of the book of the covenant. And Paul, on the other hand, says nothing about building the altar and the twelve pillars, nor does he specify the particular kinds of offerings which were offered by the young men at the bidding of Moses. Like the Gospel narratives, however, these accounts are both true so far as they go, for on no fair principle of interpretation can mere omissions be construed as inconsistencies or discrepancies. The hyssop and scarlet wool were used on other occasions for the sprinkling of blood and water. See Exo 12:22; Lev 14:4-7; Num 19:18-19, etc. Usually the bunch of hyssop was fastened to a stick of cedar wood, by means of a scarlet band, and then wrapped round with scarlet wool for the purpose of absorbing the blood and the water that were to be sprinkled.

Heb 9:20 —Saying, This is the blood of the testament-That is, This is^the blood by means of which the covenant is ratified, and you yourselves purified and consecrated to God, as his peculiar people. This shows that without the shedding and sprinkling of blood, the people could not be received into covenant relation with God: nay more, that without this blood, the covenant itself could have no validity.

Heb 9:20 —Which God hath enjoined unto you.-The use of the word enjoined (eneteilato) shows very clearly that the Sinaitic Covenant was not a mere compact or agreement (suntheke), as made between equals. On the contrary, it was a solemn arrangement (dia- theke) proposed by God himself to the people for their acceptance; and which when accepted unconditionally on their part, had to be ratified with blood.

Heb 9:21 —Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, etc.-This cannot have reference to the occasion spoken of in Exo 24:1-8; for the Tabernacle was not then constructed. But the Apostle must refer here to the consecration of the Tabernacle according to the directions given in Exo 40:9-11. True indeed there is no explicit mention made in these about the sprinkling of blood. God simply says to Moses, Thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the Tabernacle and all that is therein, and thou shalt hallow it and all the vessels thereof; and it shall be holy. And thou shalt anoint the altar of burnt-offerings and all its vessels, and sanctify the altar; and it shall be an altar most holy. And thou shalt anoint the laver and its foot, and sanctify it. In all this, there is nothing said about the sprinkling of blood on either the Tabernacle or its furniture. But neither is there anything said in the following verses (12-16) of the same chapter, about sprinkling blood on Aaron and his sons: and yet we know from Lev 8:30, that blood, as well as oil, was sprinkled on the Priests at the time of their consecration. The mere silence of Moses is therefore no evidence that the Tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry were not purified with blood, as well as anointed with oil. We all believe on the testimony of Paul (Act 20:35), that Christ said on one occasion, It is more blessed to give than to receive; though this saying is not recorded in any of the Gospel narratives. And just so we reason in the case under consideration. The statement of Paul is quite sufficient on this point, without further evidence; though it is worthy of notice that the testimony of Josephus is to the same effect as that of Paul. Speaking of the consecration of the Priests he says, And when Moses had sprinkled Aarons vestments, himself, and his sons, with the blood of the beasts that were slain, and had purified them with spring water and ointment, they became Gods Priests. After this manner did he consecrate them and their garments for seven days together. The same did he to the Tabernacle and the vessels thereto belonging,-both with oil first incensed, as I said, and with blood of bulls and rams slain day by day, one, according to its kind. (Ant. iii. 8, 6.) From this statement of Jo, as well as from the narrative of Moses (Ex. 40: 9-16), it seems most likely that the consecration of the Tabernacle and that of the Priest took place at the same time.

Heb 9:22 —And almost all things are by the law purged with blood: -That is, the Law required that almost everything defiled in any way, should be purified by means of blood. In some cases, indeed, purification was made by means of water (Lev 16:26 Lev 16:28; Num 31:24) ; and in others, by fire and water (Num 31:22-23) ; but the exceptions to the general rule of purification by blood, were but few.

Heb 9:22 —And without the shedding of blood is no remission.-To this law, there was no exception. Every sin required an atonement; and no atonement could be made without blood. The only apparent exception given in the Law is in the case of one who was too poor to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons for a sin- offering. (Lev 5:11-13.) In that event, he was required to bring to the Priest the tenth part of a ephah (about seven pints) of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, a handful of which, the Priest was to burn as a memorial upon the altar. But that even in this case, the sin of the poor man was not forgiven without the shedding of blood, seems evident from what follows in the next verse of the same chapter, where it is said, And the priest shall make an atonement for him for the sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him. This atonement, it seems, could not be made without blood; for God says (Lev 17:11), I have given it [the blood] to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. This law was regarded by the Jews as universal in its application: for in the Talmud it is said, There is no atonement except in blood (Yoma 51). It is most likely therefore that in this case, the Priest was required to make an atonement for the sin of the poor man, at the public expense. The memorial was made with flour; but the atonement with blood.

Heb 9:23 —It was therefore necessary, etc.-Without these sacrifices required by the Law, the Tabernacle and all its furniture would have been unclean; and the Priests themselves would have been unclean; so that no acceptable service could have been rendered to God in either the court or the Tabernacle. Nay more, without these sacrifices, the book of the covenant would have been unclean, and the covenant itself would never have been ratified. The very existence of the Theocracy depended, therefore, on the shedding and sprinkling of blood, without which the whole nation of Israel would have been cast off as an unclean thing.

Heb 9:23 —But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these;-This profoundly significant phrase naturally suggests to our minds the following queries: (1) What are the better sacrifices with which the heavenly things are cleansed? (2) What are the heavenly things that are cleansed by means of these sacrifices? And (3) what is meant by the sacrificial cleansing of these heavenly things?

(1) By the better sacrifices is evidently meant the sacrifice of Christ himself. The plural is put for the singular by synecdoche, because of the plurality of the Levitical sacrifices which are spoken of in the same verse. See a similar case in Luk 16:9.

(2) The heavenly things include all the antitypes of the Jewish Tabernacle, etc. The Holy Place had to be cleansed with the blood of bulls and goats, and so also had the Most Holy Place. (Lev 16:11-20; Heb 9:21.) But the former was a type of the Church, as Gods dwelling-place on Earth; and the latter was a type of Heaven itself where God ever dwells with the spirits of the just made perfect. See notes on Heb 8:2, and also on Heb 9:11-12. It is evident therefore that in the heavenly things are included both the Church on earth and the Church of the redeemed in Heaven. For as our author says, Christ has not entered into holy places made with hands, counterparts of the true, but into Heaven itself, now to be manifested in the presence of God in our behalf.

(3) The third query is confessedly one of great difficulty: and it may perhaps be entirely above our present very limited attainments in the knowledge of Divine things. That the Church on Earth with all that pertains to it, needs the cleansing influence of the blood of Christ in order to make it a fit temple for the Holy Spirit, and to qualify its members severally for a place in the upper Sanctuary, is obvious enough. On this point, therefore, discussion is wholly unnecessary. But why should Heaven itself, or anything belonging to it, need to be cleansed by the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus? In reply to this question it is alleged (1) that the necessity arises from the sin of those angels who kept not their first estate, but who in consequence of their rebellion were cast down to Tartarus. (2Pe 2:4; Jud 1:6.) But angels are not embraced in our premises; and must not therefore be forced into our conclusions. See note on 2: 16. (2) It is supposed that in consequence of the presence of sin in us, the Holy of holies in the heavenly world could not be reopened for our approach, until it was itself anointed with the blood of atonement (Stier).

In the verb purified (katharisesthai), says Bloomfield, there is a metonymy, such as we often find when things partly similar and partly dissimilar are compared. For by the legal purifications, an entrance was afforded to the Sanctuary; so, by taking the effect as standing for the cause, Heaven is said to be purified or consecrated by the service of Christ, instead of saying that an entrance by it is given to that Heaven. So Rosenmuller and others. This is plausible ; but to my mind it is not altogether satisfactory. It looks too much like making the substance conform to the shadow, rather than the shadow to the substance.

Nothing short of a real purification of the heavenly things will, it seems to me, fairly meet the requirements of the text. And I am therefore inclined to think that for the present, at least, this is for us rather a matter of faith than of philosophy. When we can fully comprehend and explain how much more holy God is than any of the holy angels (Rev 15:4), and how it is that the very heavens are not clean in his sight (Job 15:15), we may then perhaps understand more clearly than we do now, how it is that the heavenly things, embracing even the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, should need to be purified with the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus. The fact itself seems to be clearly revealed in our text; but the reason of it is not so obvious. Can it be owing to the fact, that many of the saints were admitted into Heaven in anticipation of the death of Christ, and that though justified by faith, through the grace and forbearance of God, they nevertheless required the purifying application of the blood of Christ when shed, in order to make them absolutely holy. See notes on Heb 9:15.

Heb 9:24 —For Christ is not entered, etc.-In this verse the Apostle brings to a close the argument begun in the fifteenth, showing the necessity of Christs death in order that the called might have an absolute right to the eternal inheritance. The services of the wordly sanctuary required the blood of bulls and of goats, without which the high priest could not enter the Holy of holies to intercede for the people. But now the sphere and object of Christs ministry require better sacrifices than these. For Christ, as our author says, did not enter into holy places made with hands, mere counterparts of the true, but into heaven itself, now to be manifested in the presence of God in our behalf. And hence the necessity that he should have to offer a sacrifice sufficient to meet, to the fullest extent, all that is required by infinite Justice.

By the holy places (hagia) of our text are meant such as those into which the Jewish high priest entered in performing the services of the ancient Tabernacle. The word rendered figures (antitupa) means properly copies taken from a given pattern (tupos) ; such as counterfeit bills, etc. According to Scripture usage, the original heavenly realities are properly called archetypes (archetupa) ; the patterns shown to Moses in the Mount, the types (tupos) ; and the counterparts of these constructed by Moses, antitypes (antitupa). But in our modern usage we are wont to call the last of these types; and to apply both the names archetypes and antitypes to the original heavenly realities which the types were made to represent. The verb appear (emphanisthenai) is used in a forensic sense to denote that Christ is now manifested in the presence of God as our Advocate. The whole comparison, says Prof. Stuart, is taken from the custom of the Jewish high priest, who when he entered the most Holy Place was said to appear before God or to draw near to God, because the presence of God was manifested over the Mercy Seat in the Holy of holies; and God was represented, and was conceived of by the Jews as sitting enthroned upon the Mercy Seat. Now as the high priest appeared before God in the Jewish Temple and offered the blood of beasts for expiation on the great Day of Atonement in behalf of the Jewish nation, so Christ in the heavenly Temple enters the most Holy Place with his own blood to procure pardon (aionon lutrosin) for us.

Commentary on Heb 9:15-24 by Donald E. Boatman

Heb 9:15 –And for this cause

It means on account of this (blood). It may also be translated, therefore, or wherefore.

Heb 9:15 –He is the mediator

Jesus is the Mediator for man. Note that he does not call Him testament.

No need for any other is felt if we know Christ in His purity.

Heb 9:15 –new covenant

Testament is also used for covenant, Covenant is better, It is the new contract between God and man. The word means both covenant and testament F.N. of American Standard Bible.

Milligan: It means covenant, McKnight: If it is testament, who died for it to be in force?

Heb 9:15 –that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions

That by means of death all men could have forgiveness. Heb 10:4 says that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.

a. We would ask then, Are the Jews who were faithful in their sacrifices lost?

b. This verse surely answers the question, saying that those under the first covenant are taken care of by the sacrifice of Jesus.

Heb 9:15 –that were under the first covenant

Does this mean all the dead Jews, or does it mean simply those who were living under the first covenant? Milligan: The death of Christ was necessary in order to accomplish the redemption of the transgressions which were committed under the old covenant during the Jewish age. p. 257. The exception Milligan states would be those who were justified by faith-Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. Rom 4:23, Jas 2:21-23. Where did these men go? Milligan, 251:

a. If not immediately to heaven, at least to a place and state of high spiritual enjoyment.

1. Exo 3:6.

2. Dan 12:13.

3. Luk 10:23-24.

b. This is what Paul refers to in Rom 3:25-26.

Heb 9:15 –they that have been called

Blood of bulls and goats Christ

Adam-XXX-Eternity

Heb 10:4Blood

Heb 9:15 –may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance

This is not a physical land inheritance, but an eternal one in the presence of God.

a. 1Pe 1:4 : An inheritance incorruptible, undefiled that fadeth not away reserved in heaven for you.

b. Jesus said: Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. Our inheritance is with Christ as a joint heir. Rom 8:17.

Heb 9:16 –for where a testament is

Newell says to translate the word testament is confusing and incorrect.

a. A covenant has a mediator but not a testament, he says.

b. A testament has someone to execute it; so Newell is strained here.

Milligan: The word means both covenant and testament, and here he uses the second meaning. Calvin: The Greek means both. p. 208.

Heb 9;16–there must of necessity

Death is necessary to the culmination of a testament. Inheritance follows the death of the testator.

Heb 9:16 –be the death of him that made it

The testament, or will, goes into effect after the death of the testator. As long as the testator lives, he can change that will, but death fixes its points.

Heb 9:17 –for a testament is of force, where there hath been a death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth

Legal language is used here. The testament is generally kept in a safety deposit box until the death of the testator. A division of the inheritance follows the death of the testator.

Heb 9:18 –wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood

God has always emphasized sacrifice.

a. Their sacrifices were to keep alive the knowledge of the fact of sin and the need of forgiveness.

b. We have baptism, and the Lords Supper, to remind us today, See Exo 24:4-8 for the dedication.

Heb 9:19 –for when every commandment had been spoken

This refers to Exo 24:4-8, When they were recited the people said, This we will do, He then wrote them and reread them, Heb 9:7, The people responded again, Then they were ratified by the blood.

Heb 9:19 –He took the blood of calves and goats with water

a. They represented all the people.

b. It was impossible to have blood enough for all.

Milligan says Moses doesnt mention all the details. Paul adds here that the water, blood of bulls and goats, scarlet wool, hyssop, sprinkling of the book of the covenant were part of the ceremony.

Heb 9:19 –and scarlet wool

The wool was to help absorb the water and blood. It was scarlet, no doubt, for symbolism.

Heb 9:19 –and hyssop

Occasions for the use of it are found in Exo 12:22; Lev 14:4-7; Num 19:18-19. Usually the bunch of hyssop was fastened to a stick of cedar wood by means of a scarlet band and then wrapped round with scarlet wool for the purpose of absorbing the blood and water that were to be sprinkled. (Milligan, p. 260.)

Heb 9:19 –and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people

Upon the book-why?

a. To show that it was ratified by blood.

b. The book was then sanctified for their obedience.

The people were sanctified to obey the words of the book.

Heb 9:20 –saying, (Exo 24:8) This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward

This is the blood by which the covenant is ratified. This was not a covenant of equals, but words sanctified from one who had the right to command.

Heb 9:21 –moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry be sprinkled in like manner with the blood

This is not the same occasion as in Exo 24:1-8 referred to, but later when it was constructed. The tabernacle was not constructed in Exo 24:1-8 so it must refer to Exo 40:9-11.

Heb 9:22 –and according to the law I may almost say all things are cleansed with blood

Almost: the law required that almost everything defiled should be purified by blood. In some cases it was done with water:

a. Lev 16:26-28.

b. Num 31:24.

Sometimes it was done by fire and water:

a. Num 31:22-23.

Heb 9:22 –and apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission

Blood is spoken of as being essential to atonement.

a. Lev 17:11 : I have given it (the blood) to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

The poorest people who could not afford a sacrifice no doubt had theirs made by public expense. (Milligan, p. 261.)

a. Lev 5:11-13 : Those too poor to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons for a sin offering were to bring seven pints of an ephah of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, a handful of which the priest was to burn as a memorial upon the altar.

b. Note, however, Heb 9:13. The priest made atonement for him, which was very likely a blood sacrifice at public expense.

c. The memorial was made with flour, but the atonement was with blood.

Heb 9:23 –It was necessary therefore

The necessity is found only in the type. If the old is to picture the new, then cleansing is necessary.

Heb 9:23 –that the copies of the things in the heavens

Perhaps the church is referred to. It was bought with blood. Act 20:28 : . . . feed the church of the Lord which He purchased with His own blood.

a. If the church is not meant here, then heaven is, and heaven then is cleansed.

b. If the tabernacle is a picture of the church, then the church may be referred to.

The heavenly pattern was to be cleansed in a different way than the old.

Milligan: Copy is also translated pattern.

Heb 9:23 –should be cleansed with these

McKnight says this refers to the cleansing of the tabernacle.

a. See Lev 16:16-18 where atonement is made for the Holy Place.

b. This made it ceremonially prepared for the worship services. The copies, or pattern, were made ceremonially clean to picture a pure church and a pure heaven.

Heb 9:23 –but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these

Milligan says perhaps because of the sins of angels, Heaven itself must be cleansed.

Heavenly things do not necessarily have to be in heaven. Milligan: The heavenly things refers to both the church on earth and heaven itself. The church is a heavenly thing, the kingdom of heaven, so why believe he is talking about heaven itself?

Why would heaven need to be cleansed?

a. Milligan says: Take this as a matter of faith, for we cannot give a satisfying answer.

Heb 9:24 –For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true, but into heaven itself now to appear before the face of God for us

Does heaven have a tabernacle?

a. Yes, according to Rev 11:19.

So Heb 9:23 may refer to heaven.

Is heaven in need of cleansing?

a. We would first answer no, for God does not dwell where sin is.

b. Our answer is to be qualified, however. See Job 15:15; Job 25:5.

The important part of the verse for us is expressed in now to appear before the face of God for us.

a. The cleansing of heaven may not be clear, but this surely is.

b. Christ is before God for us.

Study Questions

1594. What is meant by for this cause?

1595. What is the work of a mediator?

1596. Is there room for Christs mother here in forgiving sin?

1597. What kind of a covenant does Jesus serve?

1598. Is God obligated to keep His part of the covenant if man fails to keep his?

1599. Does the blood of Christ act backwards as well as forwards?

1600. For whom was Christs blood shed?

1601. Can we say then that the Jews under the old covenant are saved?

1602. Were all saved by the blood of Christ?

1603. Who was excepted, according to Milligan?

1604. Compare Rom 4:3-4 and Jas 2:21-23 for his proof texts.

1605. Does Rom 3:25-26 teach that Christs blood was retroactive?

1606. What is meant by passing over in Rom 3:25? Does it mean rolled forward?

1607. What does the calling refer to here?

1608. Is it the Hebrew promised land or eternal life?

1609. How is the inheritance described?

1610. How does 1Pe 1:4 describe it?

1611. With whom is our inheritance? Rom 8:17.

1612. What is meant by testament?

1613. Is it as good a word as covenant?

1614. What are the differences between testament and covenant?

1615. What is necessary for the fulfillment of a testament?

1616. When do we inherit from a testament?

1617. Whose death is necessary?

1618. Does death fix the terms with finality?

1619. Is it logical to say that Jesus was the dead Testator of the New Testament?

1620. What kind of language is used here in regard to the testament.

1621. Then do we have the right to be legalistic in our preaching?

1622. What is necessary to set a will in force?

1623. How was the first covenant dedicated?

1624. Why did God require the constant sacrifices?

1625. What do we have today to remind us of sin?

1626. What commandments are referred to here? Cf. Exo 24:4-8.

1627. Did the people approve?

1628. Where is this occasion discussed in the Old Testament?

1629. Why was water mixed with the blood?

1630. Why was wool used?

1631. Why was it scarlet wool?

1632. What is hyssop?

1633. How was it used?

1634. Why was the book sprinkled?

1635. Why were the people sprinkled?

1636. Is this a covenant between equals?

1637. Have we the right to question the one who has the right to command?

1638. What is the significance of the tabernacle and vessels being sanctified by bipod? Was it done frequently? Cf. Exo 24:1-8; Exo 40:9-11.

1639. Is the church sprinkled with blood? Cf. Eph 5:25-26.

1640. Is the author in doubt when he says, I may almost say?

1641. What does he mean by almost?

1642. Do you think that you can express a better translation of this verse?

1643. What things were not purified by blood?

1644. What other element was used? Cf. Lev 16:26-28; Num 31:24.

1645. What other cleanser was used? Cf. Num 31:22-23.

1646. What was the purpose of blood being shed, as expressed in this verse? Cf. Lev 17:11.

1647. How could sin be atoned if one could not afford a blood sacrifice? Cf. Lev 5:11-13.

1648. What is meant by memorial?

1649. Did the priest offer blood for the poor people?

1650. If so, how were these offerings financed?

1652. What was necessary as expressed in Heb 9:23?

1653. What is meant by copies of the things in the heavens?

1654. Is copies referring to sacrifice or tabernacle or both?

1655. Was the tabernacle a copy of something in heaven?

1656. Was heaven cleansed? If so, how?

1657. Could it mean that He simply entered heaven with His blood?

1658. What is referred to by the word these?

1659. If the tabernacle was a type of the church, and it was cleansed, what should we expect of the church?

1660. Do you know of any dirty churches?

1661. What will cleanse the church?

1662. Does heaven have to be cleansed? Cf. Job 15:15 and Job 25:5.

1663. Does heavenly refer to a place or a kind of things?

1664. If the church and the kingdom of God are the same, could it be considered the heavenly things referred to?

1665. If heaven had to be cleansed, how could it have been cleansed by Christs blood when it was shed on earth?

1666. This verse teaches that Christ entered a holy place. Does heaven have a tabernacle? Cf. Rev 11:19.

1667. What is meant by appear before the face of God?

1668. Why is He before the face of God?

1669. How may we harmonize this with other passages where Christ is seated at the right hand of God?

1670. How often does Christ offer Himself?

1671. How often does Christ enter the Holy Place?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

, , , , .

. Vulg., et ideo, and therefore. Syr., , propter hoe, for this; or propterea, itaque ob id, and for this cause.

. Syr., , he himself was the mediator. He is the mediator. Heb., , a man coming between.

. Vulg., ut morte intercedente, by the interposition of death. The Syriae reads the passage, Who by his death was a redeemer unto them who had transgressed against the first testament; probably, to avoid the difficulty o that expression, for the redemption of transgressions. The Ethiopic corrupts the whole text.

, in redemptionem eorum praevaricationum. Vulg., ad redemptionem eorum transgressionum; properly, for the redemption of transgressions, or those transgressions which were.

. Vulg., Syr., that they may receive the promise who are called to the eternal inheritance. But in the Original and in the Vulgar eternal inheritance is joined unto and regulated by the promise; the promise of an eternal inheritance.[9]

[9] See the note on the ensuing verse. Ed

Heb 9:15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament, they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

The things which are to be considered in this verse are,

1. The note of connection in the conjunction, and.

2. The ground of the ensuing assertion: For this cause.

3. The assertion itself: He is the mediator of the new testament.

4. The especial reason why he should be so: For the redemption of transgressions under the first testament.

5. The way whereby that was to be effected: By means of death.

6. The end of the whole: That they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

But before we proceed unto the exposition of the whole or any part of it, a difficulty must be removed from the words as they lie in our translation. For an inquiry may be justly moved, why we render the word by a testament in this place, whereas before we have constantly rendered it by a covenant. And the plain reason of it is, because from this verse unto the end of the chapter the apostle argues from the nature and use of a testament among men, as he directly affirms in the next verse. Hereby he confirms our faith in the expectation of the benefits of this , that is, covenant or testament. We may answer, he doth it because it is the true and proper signification of the word. is properly a testamentary disposition of things; as is a covenant. For in the composition of the word there is nothing to intimate a mutual compact or agreement, which is necessary unto a covenant, and is expressed in . However, there is a great affinity in the things themselves: for there are covenants which have in them free grants and donations, which are of the nature of a testament; and there are testaments whose force is resolved into some conventions, conditions, and agreements, which they borrow from the nature of covenants. So there is such an affinity between them as one name may be expressive of them both.

But against this it will be replied, That what the apostle speaks unto is in the Hebrew called , that is, a covenant, and it nowhere signifies a testament; so that from thence the apostle could not argue from the nature of a testament what is required thereunto and what doth depend thereon.Hereunto it is answered, That the LXX. constantly rendering , berith, by , and not by , the apostle made use of that translation and that signification of the word. But this will not solve the difficulty; for it would resolve all the apostles arguings in this great and important mystery into the authority of that translation, which is fallible throughout, and (at least as it is come to us) filled with actual mistakes. We must therefore give another answer unto this objection. Wherefore I say,

1. The word could not be more properly rendered by any one word than by . For it being mostly used to express the covenant between God and man, it is of such a nature as cannot properly be termed , which is a covenant or compact upon equal terms of distributive justice between distinct parties; but Gods covenant with man is only the way and the declaration of the terms whereby God will dispose and communicate good things unto us, which hath more of the nature of a testament than of a covenant in it.

2. The word is often used to express a free promise, with an effectual donation and communication of the thing promised, as hath been declared in the foregoing chapter; but this hath more of the nature of a testament than of a covenant.

3. There is no word in the Hebrew language whereby to express a testament but only. Nor is there so in the Syriac: their is nothing but . The Hebrews express the thing by , to order, dispose, give command concerning the house or household of a dying man, Isa 38:1; 2Sa 17:23. But they have no other word but berith to signify it; and therefore, where the nature of the thing spoken of requires it, it is properly rendered a testament, and ought so to be.

Wherefore there is no force used unto the signification of the word in this place by the apostle. But that which makes the proper use of it by him evident in this place, is that he had respect unto its signification in the making of the covenant with the people at Sinai; for this he compares the new testament unto in all its causes and effects. And in that covenant there were three things:

1. The prescription of obedience unto the people on the part of God; which was received by their consent in an express compliance with the law and terms of it, Deu 5:1-27. Herein the nature of it, so far as it was a covenant, did consist.

2. There was a promise and conveyance of an inheritance unto them, namely, of the land of Canaan, with all the privileges of it. God declared that the land was his, and that he gave it unto them for an inheritance. And this promise or grant was made unto them without any consideration of their previous obedience, out of mere love and grace. The principal design of the book of Deuteronomy is to inlay this principle in the foundation of their obedience. Now the free grant and donation of an inheritance of the goods of him that makes the grant, is properly a testament. A free disposition it was of the goods of the testator.

3. There was in the confirmation of this grant the intervention of death. The grant of the inheritance of the land that God made was confirmed by death and the blood of the beasts offered in sacrifice; whereof we must treat on verses 18-20. And although covenants were confirmed by sacrifices, as this was, so far as it was a covenant, namely, with the blood of them; yet as in those sacrifices death was comprised, it was to confirm the testamentary grant of the inheritance. For death is necessary unto the confirmation of a testament; which then could only be in type and representation; the testator himself was not to die for the establishment era typical inheritance.

Wherefore the apostle having discoursed before concerning the covenant as it prescribed and required obedience, with promises and penalties annexed unto it, he now treats of it as unto the donation and communication of good things by it, with the confirmation of the grant of them by death; in which sense it was a testament, and not a covenant properly so called. And the arguing of the apostle from this word is not only just and reasonable, but without it we could never have rightly understood the typical representation that was made of the death, blood, and sacrifice of Christ, in the confirmation of the new testament, as we shall see immediately.

This difficulty being removed, we may proceed in the exposition of the words.

First. That which first occurs is the note of connection, in the conjunction and. But it doth not here, as sometimes, infer a reason of what was spoken before, but is emphatically expletive, and denotes a progress in the present argument; as much as also, moreover.

Secondly. There is the ground of the ensuing assertion, or the manner of its introduction: For this cause. Some say that it looks backward, and intimates a reason of what was spoken before, or why it was necessary that our consciences should be purged from dead works by the blood of Christ, namely, because he was the mediator of the new covenant; others say it looks forward, and gives a reason why he was to be the mediator of the new testament, namely, that by means of death for the transgressions, etc. It is evident that there is a reason rendered in these words of the necessity of the death and sacrifice of Christ, by which alone our consciences may be purged from dead works. And this reason is intended in these words, , For this cause. And this necessity of the death of Christ the apostle proves, both from the nature of his office, namely, that he was to be the mediator of the new covenant, which, being also a testament, required the death of the testator; and from what was to be effected thereby, namely, the redemption of transgressions and the purchase of an eternal inheritance. Wherefore these are the things which he hath respect unto in these words, For this cause.

But withal the apostle in this verse enlargeth his discourse, as designing to comprehend in it the whole dispensation of the will and grace of God unto the church in Christ, with the ground and reason of it. This reason he layeth down in this verse, giving an account of the effects of it in those that follow. Hereunto respect is had in this expression.

For the exposition of the words themselves, that is, the declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost, and nature of the things contained in them, we must leave the order of the words and take that of the things themselves. And the things ensuing are declared in them:

1. That God designed an eternal inheritance unto some persons.

2. The way and manner of conveying a right and title thereunto was by promise.

3. That the persons unto whom this inheritance is designed are those that are called.

4. That there was an obstacle unto the enjoyment of this inheritance, which was transgression against the first covenant.

5. That this obstacle might be removed, and the inheritance enjoyed, God made a new covenant; because none of the rites, ordinances, or sacrifices of the first covenant, could remove that obstacle, or expiate those sins.

6. The ground of the efficacy of the new covenant unto this end was, that it had a mediator, a high priest, such as had been already described.

7. The way and means whereby the mediator of the new covenant did expiate sins under the old was by death; nor could it otherwise be done, seeing this new covenant, being a testament also, required the death of the testator.

8. This death of the mediator of the new testament did take away sins by the redemption of them: For the redemption of transgressions.

All which must be opened, for the due exposition of these words.

1. God designed unto some an eternal inheritance. And both the reason of this grant with the nature of it must be inquired into:

(1.) As unto the reason of it: God in our first creation gave unto man, whom he made his son and heir, as unto things here below, a great inheritance, of mere grace and bounty. This inheritance consisted in the use of all the creatures here below, in a just title unto them and dominion over them. Neither did it consist absolutely in these things, but as they were a pledge of the present favor of God, and of mans future blessedness upon his obedience. This whole inheritance man forfeited by sin. God also took the forfeiture, and ejected him out of the possession of it, and utterly despoiled him of his title unto it. Nevertheless he designed unto some another inheritance, even one that should not be lost, that should be eternal. It is altogether vain and foolish to seek for any other cause or reason of the preparation of this inheritance, and the designation of it unto any person, but only his own grace and bounty, his sovereign will and pleasure. What merit of it, what means of attaining it, could be found in them who were considered under no other qualification but such as had wofully rejected that inheritance which before they were instated in? And therefore is it called an inheritance, to mind us that the way whereby we come unto it is gratuitous adoption, and not purchase or merit.

(2.) As unto the nature of it, it is declared in the adjunct mentioned; it is eternal. And it is so called in opposition unto the inheritance which by virtue of the first testament God granted unto the Israelites in the land of Canaan. That was an inheritance, and was conveyed by a promise. And when God threatened to deprive them of that land, he said he would disinherit them, Num 14:12. And this inheritance consisted not only in the land itself, but principally in the privileges of holy worship and relation unto God which they enjoyed therein, Rom 9:4-5. But yet all things that belonged unto it were in themselves carnal and temporary, and only types of good things to come. In opposition hereunto God provided an eternal inheritance. And as the state of those who are to receive it is twofold, namely, that in this life, and that in the life to come, so there are two parts of their inheritance, namely, grace and glory; for although grace be bestowed and continued only in this life, yet the things we enjoy by virtue of it are eternal. The other part of their inheritance is glory; which is the way of the full, unchangeable possession and enjoyment of it. This, therefore, is not to be excluded from this inheritance, at least as the end and necessary consequent of it. But that which is principally and in the first place intended by it, is that state of things whereinto believers are admitted in this life. The whole inheritance of grace and glory was in the first place given and committed unto Jesus Christ. He was appointed heir of all things, Heb 1:2. By him is it communicated unto all believers; who thereby become heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, Rom 8:15-17. For the Lord Christ, as the great testator, did in and by his death bequeath unto them all his goods, as an eternal legacy. All that grace, mercy, and glory, all the riches of them which are prepared in the covenant, are comprised herein. And a goodly inheritance it is; the lines are fallen unto believers in pleasant places. And the way whereby we become interested in this inheritance is by gratuitous adoption. If sons, then heirs.

This is that which is the end of all, and regulates all that precedes in this verse. It declares the way whereby .God would communicate unto some persons the inheritance which in free grace and bounty he had provided. And,

Obs. 1. It is an act of mere sovereign grace in God to provide such a blessed inheritance for any of them who had sinfully cast away what they were before intrusted withal. And into this are all Gods following dealings with the church to be resolved. If there was nothing in us to move God to provide this inheritance for us, no more is there of the communication of any part of it unto us; as we shall see further on the next words.

2. The way whereby God did convey or would communicate this inheritance unto any, was by promise: Might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. The Syriac translation refers the inheritance unto the called: Those that are called to an eternal inheritance. But in the original it respects the promise: The promise of an eternal inheritance; for by the promise is assurance given of it, and it is the means of the actual conveyance of it unto us. And the apostle hath respect unto what he had discoursed about the promise of God, and the confirmation of it by his oath, Heb 6:15-18. So he declares it also, Gal 3:18. The promise made unto Abraham, and confirmed by the oath of God, was concerning the eternal inheritance by Christ. The inheritance of Canaan was by the law, or the first covenant; but this was by promise. And we may consider three things:

(1.) What is the promise intended.

(2.) How and why it was by promise.

(3.) How we do receive the promise of it.

(1.) The promise principally intended is that which was given unto Abraham, and confirmed by the oath of God: for the inheritance, that is, the eternal inheritance, was of the promise, Gal 3:18, namely, that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed. It includes, indeed, the first promise, made unto our first parents, which was the spring and foundation of it, and respects all the following promises concerning the Lord Christ and the benefits of his mediation, with all the grace which is administered by them, which were further declarations and confirmations of it; but that great solemn promise is principally intended: for the apostle designs to convince the Hebrews that neither by the law nor by the sacrifices and ordinances of it they could come unto the inheritance promised unto Abraham and his seed. This was the promise of eternal inheritance, whereof that of the land of Canaan was a type only.

(2.) We must inquire how and why this inheritance is conveyed by promise. And God made this settlement by promise for these ends;

[1.] To evince the absolute freedom of the preparation and grant of it. The promise is everywhere opposed unto every thing of works or desert in ourselves. It hath no respect unto what we were or did deserve. The land of Canaan was given to the posterity of Abraham by promise. And therefore doth God so often mind them of the freedom of it, that it was an act of mere love and sovereign grace, which in themselves they were so far from deserving, as that they were altogether unworthy of it, Deu 9:4-5; Deu 7:7-8. Much less hath the promise of the eternal inheritance respect unto any thing of works in ourselves.

[2.] To give security unto all the heirs of it unto whom it was designed. Hence in this promise and the confirmation of it, there was the highest engagement of the faithfulness and veracity of God. There was so, to the end that the promise might be sure unto all the seed, Rom 4:16. Wherefore God doth not only declare the relation of it unto his essential truth, God, who cannot lie, hath given this promise of eternal life,

Tit 1:2, but hath confirmed it with his oath; that by two immutable things, wherein it was impossible that God should lie, it might be established.The reasons of the use and necessity hereof have been declared on Heb 6:17-18.

[3.] It was thus conveyed, and is communicated by promise unto all the heirs of it in their successive generations, that the way of obtaining this inheritance on our part might be by faith, and no otherwise; for what God hath only promised doth necessarily require faith unto its reception, and faith only. There is nothing can contribute aught unto an interest in the promise, but the mixing of it with faith, Heb 4:2. And it is of faith, that it may be by grace, Rom 4:16; namely, that it may be evidenced to be of the mere grace of God, in opposition unto all worth, works and endeavors of our own. And if all grace and glory, all benefits of the mediation of Christ, our sanctification, justification, and glorification, be an inheritance prepared in grace, conveyed by promise, and received by faith, there is no place left for our own works, with reference unto the procurement of an interest in them. Freely it was provided, freely it is proposed, and freely it is received.

(3.) We may inquire what it is to receive the promise. And it hath a double sense:

[1.] As the promise may be considered formally or materially. To receive the promise formally as a promise, is to have it declared unto us, and to mix it with faith, or to believe it. This it is to receive the promise, in opposition unto them by whom it is rejected through unbelief. So Abraham is said to receive the promises, Heb 11:17, in that when they were given unto him,

he staggered not through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, Rom 4:20.

[2.] As the promise is materially considered, so to receive it is to receive the thing promised. So it is said of the saints under the old testament, that they obtained a good report through faith, but received not the promise, Heb 11:39. They received the promises by faith in them as proposed; but the principal thing promised, which was the coming of Christ in the flesh, they received not. The receiving of the promise here mentioned is of both kinds, according to the distinct parts of this inheritance. As unto the future state of glory, we receive the promise in the first way; that is, we believe it, rest upon it, trust unto the truth of God in it, and live in the expectation of it. And the benefit we receive hereby, as unto our spiritual life and consolation, is inexpressible. As unto the foundation of the whole inheritance, in the oblation and sacrifice of Christ, and all the grace, mercy, and love, with the fruits of them, whereof in this life we are made partakers, and all the privileges of the gospel, believers under the new testament receive the promise in the second sense; namely, the things promised. And so did they also under the old testament, according to the measure of the divine dispensation towards them. And we may observe,

Obs. 2. All our interest in the gospel inheritance depends on our receiving the promise by faith. Though it be prepared in the counsel of God, though it be proposed unto us in the dispensation of the gospel, yet, unless we receive the promise of it by faith, we have no right or title unto it.

Obs. 3. The conveyance and actual communication of the eternal inheritance by promise, to be received by faith alone, tends exceedingly unto the exaltation of the glory of God, and the security of the salvation of them that do believe. For, as unto the latter, it depends absolutely on the veracity of God, confirmed by his oath. And faith, on the other hand, is the only way and means of ascribing unto God the glory of all the holy properties of his nature, which he designs to exalt in this dispensation of himself.

3. The persons unto whom this inheritance is designed, and who do receive the promise of it, are those that are called. It is to no purpose to discourse here about outward and inward calling, effectual and ineffectual, complied with or not: no others are intended but those that actually receive the promise. It was the design of God, in this whole dispensation, that all the called should receive the promise; and if they do not so, his counsel, and that in the greatest work of his wisdom, power, and grace, is frustrated. They are the called according to his purpose, Rom 8:28; those who obtain the inheritance being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, Eph 1:11. God here puts forth his almighty power, that his purpose, or the counsel of his will, may be established, in giving the inheritance unto all that are called: Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified, or gave them the whole eternal inheritance, Rom 8:30. Hence Estius, an expositor of the Roman church, chargeth the contrary opinion in Catharinus as unorthodox. It is not a general call, wherein those who are so called may or may not receive the inheritance; but what God designs unto them that are intended, they are so called as that they shall assuredly be made partakers of it. This is the end that God designed in the dispensation of himself by Jesus Christ here declared, and therefore respect is had thereunto in the whole of it.

Some think that by the called here, those only are intended who were so under the old testament: for mention is made only of the redemption of transgressions under that covenant; in what sense shall be immediately declared. But this is contrary both unto the design of the apostle and the use of the word. For on that supposition, he says no more but that Christ was the mediator of the new testament,that those might be saved who lived and died under the old. But his principal design is to prove the advantage that we now have, even above the elect themselves under the old testament; yet so as not to exclude them from the same benefit with us by. the mediation of Christ, as unto the substance of it. And the called, in the language of this apostle, doth principally signify the called in Christ Jesus.

Obs. 4. Effectual vocation is the only way of entrance into the eternal inheritance; for it is accompanied with adoption, which gives us right and title thereunto, Joh 1:12. In vain do they expect it who are not so called.

4. Things being thus prepared in the counsel and grace of God, yet there was an obstacle in the way of actually receiving the promise; namely, the transgressions that were under the first testament. God designed unto the elect an eternal inheritance; yet can they not be made partakers of it, but in such a way as was suited unto his glory. It was unjust and unreasonable that it should be otherwise. Whereas, therefore, they were all of them guilty of sin, their sins must be expiated and taken out of the way, or they cannot receive the promise of the inheritance.

, . Our word transgressions doth properly express the original word. And in the distribution of sins by their names into , and , Lev 16:21, we render by it. But it compriseth all sorts of sins whereby the law is transgressed, be they great or small. Every thing that hath the nature of sin must be expiated, or the inheritance cannot be enjoyed.

Obs. 5. Though God will give grace and glory unto his elect, yet he will do it in such a way as wherein and whereby he may be glorified also himself. Satisfaction must be made for transgression, unto the honor of his righteousness, holiness, and law.

There are yet sundry difficulties in this expression, which must be inquired into. For,

(1.) The redemption or expiation of sins is confined unto those under the old testament; whence it should seem that there is none made for those under the new.

Ans. The emphasis of the expression, sins under the old testament, respects either the time when the sine intended were committed, or the testament against which they were committed. And the preposition will admit of either sense. Take it in the first way, and the argument follows a fortiori, as unto the sins committed under the new testament; though there be no expiation of sins against it, which properly are only final unbelief and impenitency. For the expiation intended is made by the mediator of the new testament: and if he expiated the sins that were under the first testament, that is, of those who lived and died whilst that covenant was in force, much more doth he do so for them who live under the administration of that testament whereof he is the mediator; for sins are taken away by virtue of that testament whereunto they do belong. And it is with peculiar respect, unto them that the blood of Christ is called the blood of the new testament, for the redemption of sins.

But yet more probably the meaning may be, the sins that were and are committed against that first covenant, or the law and rule of it. For whereas that covenant did in its administration comprise the moral law, which was the substance and foundation of it, all sins whatever have their form and nature with respect thereunto. So sins under the first covenant, are all sins whatever; for there is no sin committed under the gospel but it is a sin against that law which requires us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and all our strength. Either way, the sins of them who are called under the new testament are included.

(2.) It is inquired whether it is the nature of the sins intended that is respected, or the persons guilty of them also under that testament. The Syriac translation avoids this difficulty, by rendering the words of the abstract, the redemption of transgressions, in the concrete, a redeemer unto them who had transgressed. That it is a certain sort of sins that is intended, Socinus was the first that invented. And his invention is the foundation of the exposition not only of Schlichtingius, but of Grotius also on this place. Such sins they say they are, as for which no expiation was to be made by the sacrifices of the law, sins of a greater nature than could be expiated by them; for they only made expiation of some smaller sins, as sins of ignorance, or the like. But there is no respect unto the persons of them who lived under that testament; whom they will not grant to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. Wherefore, according unto them, the difference between the expiation of sin by the sacrifices of the law and that by the sacrifice of Christ, doth not consist in their nature, that the one did it only typically, and in an external representation, by the purifying of the flesh, the other really and effectually; but in this, that the one expiated lesser sins only, the other greater also.

But there is nothing sound or consonant unto the truth in this interpretation of the words. For,

[1.] It proceeds on a false supposition, that there were sins of the people (not only presumptuous sins, and which had impenitency in them) for which no atonement was made, nor expiation of them allowed; which is expressly contrary unto Lev 16:16; Lev 16:21. And whereas some offenses were capital amongst them, for which no atonement was allowed to free the sinner from death, yet that belonged unto the political rule of the people, and hindered not but that typically all sorts of sins were to be expiated.

[2.] It is contrary unto the express design of the apostle. For he had proved before, by all sorts of arguments, that the sacrifices of the taw could not expiate any sin, could not purge the conscience from dead works; that they made nothing perfect. And this he speaks not of this or that sin, but of every sin wherein the conscience of a sinner is concerned, Heb 10:1-2. Hence two things follow:

1st. That they did not, in and of themselves, really expiate any one sin, small or great. It was impossible, saith the apostle, that they should do so, Heb 10:4; only they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh: which overthrows the foundation of this exposition.

2dly. That they did typify and represent the expiation of all sorts of sins whatever, and made application of it unto their souls. For if it was so, that there was no atonement for their sins, that their consciences were not purged from dead works, nor themselves consummated, but only had some outward purification of the flesh, it cannot be but they must all eternally perish; but that this was not their condition the apostle proves from hence, because they were called of God unto an eternal inheritance, as he had proved at large concerning Abraham, Hebrews 6. Hence he infers the necessity of the mediation and death of Christ, as without the virtue whereof all the called under the first covenant must perish eternally, thero being no other way to come to the inheritance.

(3.) Whereas the apostle mentions only the sins under the first covenant, as unto the time past before the exhibition of Christ in the flesh, or the death of the mediator of the new testament, what is to be thought of them who lived during that season who belonged not unto the covenant, but were strangers from it, such as are described Eph 2:12? I answer, The apostle takes no notice of them; and that because, taking them generally, Christ died not for them. Yea, that he did not so, is sufficiently proved from this place. Those who live and die strangers from Gods covenant have no interest in the mediation of Christ.

Wherein the redemption of those transgressions did consist shall be declared in its proper place. And we may observe,

Obs. 6. Such is the malignant nature of sin, of all transgression of the law, that unless it be removed, unless it be taken out of the way, no person can enjoy the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Obs. 7. It was the work of God alone to contrive, and it was the effect of, infinite wisdom and grace to provide, a way for the removal of sin, that it might not be an everlasting obstacle against the communication of an eternal inheritance unto them that are called. 5. We have declared the design of God here represented unto us, who are the persons towards whom it was to be accomplished, and what lay in the way as a hinderance of it. That which remains in the words, is the way that God took and the means that he used for the removal of that hinderance, and the effectual accomplishment of his design.

This in general was, first, the making of a new testament. He had fully proved before that this could not be done by that covenant against which the sins were committed, neither by the priests, nor sacrifices, nor any other duties of it. Therefore had he promised the abolition of it, because of its weakness and insufficiency unto this end, as also the introduction of a new to supply its defects, as we have seen at large in the exposition of the foregoing chapter. For it became the wisdom, goodness, and grace of God, upon the removal of the one for its insufficiency, to establish another that should be every way effectual unto his purpose, namely, the communication of an eternal inheritance unto them that are called. But then the inquiry will be, how this covenant or testament shall effect this end; what is in it, what belongs unto it that should be so effectual, and by what means it might attain this end. All these are declared in the words. And,

6. In general, all this arose from hence, that it had a mediator, and that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, was this mediator. The dignity of his person, and thereon both the excellency and efficacy of his priestly office, whereunto alone respect is had in his being called here a mediator, he had abundantly before demonstrated. Although the word in general be of a larger signification, as we have declared on Heb 8:6, yet here it is restrained unto his priestly office, and his acting therein. For whereas he had treated of that alone in the foregoing chapter, here, declaring the grounds and reasons of the necessity of it, he says, For this cause is he the mediator. And proceeding to show in what sense he considers him as a mediator, he doth it by his being a testator and dying; which belongs to his priestly office alone. And the sole end which in this place he assigns unto his mediatory office, is his death: That by means of death. Whereas, therefore, there were sins committed under the first covenant, and against it, and would have been so for ever, had it continued, which it was no way able so to take away as that the called might receive the inheritance, the Lord Christ undertook to be the mediator of that covenant, which was provided as a remedy against these evils. For herein he undertook to answer for and expiate all those sins. Whereas, therefore, expiation of sin is to be made by an act towards God, with whom alone atonement is to be made, so as that it may be pardoned, the mediation of Christ here intended is that whereby, suffering death in our stead, in the behalf of all that are called, he made atonement for sin.

But moreover, God had a further design herein. He would not only free them that are called from that death which they deserved by their sins against the first covenant, but give them also a right and title unto an eternal inheritance, that is, of grace and glory; wherefore the procurement hereof also depends on the mediation of Christ. For by his obedience unto God in the discharge thereof he purchased for them this inheritance, and bequeathed it unto them, as the mediator of the new testament.

The provision of this mediator of the new testament is the greatest effect of the infinite wisdom, love, and grace of God. This is the center of his eternal counsels. In the womb of this one mercy all others are contained. Herein will he be glorified unto eternity.

(1.) The first covenant of works was broken and disannulled, because it had no mediator.

(2.) The covenant at Sinai had no such mediator as could expiate sin. Hence,

(3.) Both of them became means of death and condemnation.

(4.) God saw that, in the making of the new covenant, it was necessary to put all things into the hand of a mediator, that it also might not be frustrated.

(5.) This mediator was not in the first place to preserve us in the state of the new covenant, but to deliver us from the guilt of the breach of the former, and the curse thereon. To make provision for this end was the effect of infinite wisdom.

7. The especial way and means whereby this effect was wrought by this mediator, was by death: Morte obita, facta, interveniente, intercedente. By means of death, say we. Death was the means, that whereby the mediator procured the effect mentioned. That which in the foregoing verse is ascribed unto the blood of Christ, which he offered as a priest, is here ascribed unto his death as a mediator. For both these really are the same: only in the one, the thing itself is expressed, it was death; in the other, the manner of it, it was by blood: in the one, what he did and suffered, with respect unto the curse of the first covenant, it was death; in the other, the ground of his making expiation for sin by his death, or how it came so to do, name]y, not merely as it was death or penal, but as it was a voluntary sacrifice or oblation.

It was therefore necessary unto the end mentioned that the mediator of the new testament should die: not as the high priests of old died, a natural death for themselves; but as the sacrifice died that was slain and offered for others. He was to die that death which was threatened unto transgressors against the first covenant; that is, death under the curse of the law. There must therefore be some great cause and end why this mediator, being the only begotten of the Father, should thus die.

This was, say the Socinians, that he might confirm the doctrine that he taught. He died as a martyr, not as a sacrifice. But,

(1.) There was no need that he should die unto that end; for his doctrine was sufficiently confirmed by the scriptures of the Old Testament, the evidence of the presence of God in him, and the miracles which he wrought.

(2.) Notwithstanding their pretense, they do not assign the confirmation of his doctrine unto his death, but unto his resurrection from the dead.

Neither indeed do they allow any gracious effect unto his death, either towards God or men, but only make it something necessarily antecedent unto what he did of that kind. Nor do they allow that he acted any thing at all towards God on our behalf. Whereas the Scripture constantly assigns our redemption, sanctification, and salvation, to the death and blood of Christ, these persons

[1.] Deny that of itself it hath any influence into them: wherefore,

[2.] They say that Christ by his death confirmed the new covenant; but hereby they intend nothing but what they do also in the former, or the confirmation of his doctrine, with an addition of somewhat worse. For they would have him to confirm the promises of God as by him declared, and no more; as though he were Gods surety to us, and not a surety for us unto God. Neither do they assign this unto his death, but unto his resurrection from the dead. But suppose all this, and that the death of Christ were in some sense useful and profitable unto these ends, which is all they plead, yet what use and advantage was it of, with respect unto them, that he should die an accursed death, under the curse of the law and a sense of Gods displeasure? Hereof the Socinians, and those that follow them, can yield no reason at all. It would become these men, so highly pretending unto reason, to give an account upon their own principles of the death of the only-begotten Son of God, in the highest course and most intense acts of obedience, that may be compliant with the wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God, considering the kind of death that he died. But what they cannot do, the apostle doth in the next words.

8. The death of the mediator of the new testament was for the redemption of transgressions; and for this end it was necessary. Sin lay in the way of the enjoyment of the inheritance which grace had prepared. It did so in the righteousness and faithfulness of God. Unless it were removed, the inheritance could not be received. The way whereby this was to be done, was by redemption. The redemption of transgressions, is the deliverance of the transgressors from all the evils they were subject unto on their account, by the payment of a satisfactory price. The words used to express it, , , , , , will admit of no other signification. Here it must answer the purging of conscience by the blood of Christ. And he calls his life a ransom, or price of redemption. And this utterly destroys the foundation of the Socinian redemption and expiation for sin; for they make it only a freedom from punishment by an act of power. Take off the covering of the words, which they use in a sense foreign to the Scripture and their proper signification, and their sense is expressly contradictory unto the sense and words of the apostle. He declares Christ to have been the high priest and mediator of the new testament in the same acts and duties; they teach that he ceased to be a mediator when he began to be a priest. He affirms that the blood of Christ doth expiate sin; they, that he doth it by an act of power in heaven, where there is no use of his blood. He says that his death was necessary unto, and was the means or cause of the redemption of transgressions, that is, to be a price of redemption, or just compensation for them; they contend that no such thing is required thereunto. And whereas the Scriptures do plainly assign the expiation of sin, redemption, reconciliation and peace with God, sanctification and salvation, unto the death and blood-shedding of Christ; they deny them all and every one to be in any sense effects of it, only they say it was an antecedent sign of the truth of his doctrine in his resurrection, and an antecedent condition of his exaltation and power: which is to reject the whole mystery of the gospel.

Besides the particular observations which we have made on the several passages of this verse, something may yet in general be observed from it; as,

Obs. 8. A new testament providing an eternal inheritance in sovereign grace; the constitution of a mediator, such a mediator, for that testament, in infinite wisdom and love; the death of that testator for the redemption of transgressions, to fulfill the law, and satisfy the justice of God; with the communication of that inheritance by promise, to be received by faith in all them that are called; are the substance of the mystery of the gospel. And all these are with wonderful wisdom comprised by the apostle in these words.

Obs. 9. That the efficacy of the mediation and death of Christ extended itself unto all the called under the old testament, is an evident demonstration of his divine nature, his pre-existence unto all these things, and the eternal covenant between the Father and him about them.

Obs. 10. The first covenant did only forbid and condemn transgressions; redemption from them is by the new testament alone.

Obs. 11. The glory and efficacy of the new covenant, and the assurance of the communication of an eternal inheritance by virtue of it, depend hereon, that it was made a testament by the death of the mediator; which is further proved in the following verses.

Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

redemption (See Scofield “Rom 3:24”).

transgressions Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

the mediator: Heb 7:22, Heb 8:6, Heb 12:24, 1Ti 2:5

the new: Heb 8:8, 2Co 3:6

means: Heb 9:16, Heb 9:28, Heb 2:14, Heb 13:20, Isa 53:10-12, Dan 9:26

for: Heb 9:12, Heb 11:40, Rom 3:24-26, Rom 5:6, Rom 5:8, Rom 5:10, Eph 1:7, 1Pe 3:18, Rev 5:9, Rev 14:3, Rev 14:4

the first: Heb 9:1, Heb 8:7, Heb 8:13

they which: Heb 3:1, Rom 8:28, Rom 8:30, Rom 9:24, 2Th 2:14

promise: Heb 6:13, Heb 11:13, Heb 11:39, Heb 11:40, Jam 1:12, 1Jo 2:25

eternal: Psa 37:18, Mat 19:29, Mat 25:34, Mat 25:36, Mar 10:17, Luk 18:18, Joh 10:28, Rom 6:23, 2Ti 2:10, Tit 1:2, Tit 3:7, 1Pe 1:3, 1Pe 1:4, 1Pe 5:10

Reciprocal: Gen 17:8 – everlasting Lev 4:31 – a sweet Num 35:28 – after the death Psa 119:111 – Thy testimonies Isa 42:6 – and give Isa 51:6 – my salvation Jer 30:21 – and I Jer 31:31 – I Dan 9:27 – confirm Mar 14:24 – This Act 2:39 – as many Act 20:32 – and to give Act 26:18 – inheritance Rom 3:25 – remission 1Co 11:25 – the new Gal 3:13 – redeemed Gal 3:22 – that Gal 4:5 – redeem Gal 4:24 – the two Col 3:24 – ye shall 2Ti 1:1 – the promise Heb 5:9 – eternal Heb 10:36 – ye might 2Pe 1:4 – are given

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

MEDIATION AND ATONEMENT

He is the Mediator of the New Testament and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Heb 9:15-22

God has entered into covenant relationship with men. That has been proved in chapter viii., but it is implied here.

I. The covenant.

(a) Its history.

(b) Its substance. An eternal inheritance is given in this covenant. What is this? Romans 8. tells of redemption, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, glorification. (See also Ephesians 1.)

(c) Its fact. A covenant helps confidence. A verbal promise is something; so, too, a written promise; but how much more rest we find in a sealed and delivered bond! That is what the Bible isGods covenant.

II. God could make no covenant with man without the shedding of bloodthat is the point here; only by means of death could they who are called receive the promised eternal inheritance. Now, how is that point established to the satisfaction of the Hebrew? By the analogy of the Jewish covenant.

(a) The Jewish covenant was based on sacrifice (Heb 9:18-20).

(b) The Jewish covenant was declared to be typical.

(c) The Jewish type was only the expression of a necessary truth. In the nature of things, there can be no union between God and man without atonement.

III. Atonement is only perfectly met in the death of Christ.Heb 9:14-15 teach that the virtue of His sacrifice enables Him to be the Mediator of the new covenant.

(a) The old sacrifices were unable to expiate moral offences.The Hebrew found a stumbling-block in the Cross; but the writer shows that so far from Christs death being a mystery, it was a necessity.

(b) This incompleteness is met in Christ. More than death is essential; it must be the death of one able to satisfy the law on mans behalf. In this cause (that is, because of the infinite value of His sacrifice) He is the Mediator of the new covenant.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

Heb 9:15. The argument of this verse will receive further attention when we come to chapter 10:4. For the present it is well to state that whenever a man was forgiven under the Mosiac exercises, the sins were charged up against the blood of Christ (not “rolled forward”). Hence when Jesus came into the world in the form of flesh, it was necessary for Him to make all of those instances good by His own blood. Thus Christ was not required merely to give “a pint of blood” but He was made to give it all, and thus assure the whole world of the possibility for eternal inheritance.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 9:15. And for this cause (for the reason that His blood is thus efficacious, Heb 9:14, or because He has performed this great work, Heb 9:11-14) he is mediator of a new (emphatic) covenant, in order that, death having taken place (viz. His own) for redemption from (or expiration of) the transgressions under the first covenant, they that have been called (partakers of a heavenly calling, chap. Heb 3:1) may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. The first covenant left its transgressions unforgiven. It waited for the offering that had efficacy. The death of Christ, therefore, has a double work. It is offered once for all, and extends its efficacy forward to the end of time and backward to the entrance of the Law. It is the procuring cause of forgiveness for all dispensations (see Rom 3:24-26). The emphasis of the last words is on may receive the promise, i.e be put in possession of what was promisedthe eternal inheritance, the blessing of the Gospel-, the good things to come, including the eternal life, which is the completion of them all…. As the writer is speaking of the Old Covenant, those who are called refers properly to the Jews, but the principle applies to the Gentiles also, and to all economies.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

These words represent unto us one special benefit accruing by the death of Christ, namely, the ratification of the gospel-covenant; for by this means he took upon him the glorious office to be the Mediator of the new covenant, that by the intervention of his death he might make satisfaction of the sins of believers under the Old Testament, as well as for those that live under the New; and that as well those that lived before Christ’s coming in the flesh as since, might, by virtue of his death, obtain the promised eternal inheritance.

Note here, That God designed an eternal inheritance unto some persons; that the persons designed are them that are called; that the way and manner of conveying a right and title to his inheritance enjoyed, God made a new covenant, which had a Mediator, who expiated sin by the sacrifice of his death.

Note farther, That the efficacy and merit of Christ’s death and mediation extends itself to all that are effectually called, as well those that lived before his coming in the flesh, as to those that lived since.

Note lastly, How the covenant of grace is here called a Testament, because it received its ratification and confirmation by the blood of Christ. All things required in a testament are here found, namely, a testator deceased, Christ Jesus: Legacies bequeathed, temporal, spiritual, and eternal blessings; legates named, the heirs of promise; conditions required, upon which only the legacies may be obtained, faith, repentance, and sincere obedience; seals annexed, baptism, and the Lord’s supper; witnesses subscribing, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

The sum is this, That the death of Christ is the foundation, life, and soul of the new covenant; and that the new covenant is of the nature of a testament, and the benefits promised therein: To wit, remission of sin, reconciliation with God, sanctification on earth, and glorification in heaven, are legacies freely left us by our deceased Testator, who was dead but is alive again, and lives for evermore, to execute his own will and testament, of which the Scripture is the instrument, and the sacraments the seals.

Learn from the whole, 1. That there is an irrevocable grant of the whole inheritance of grace and glory made unto believers in the new covenant.

2. That as the grant of these things is free and gracious, so the enjoyment of them is secured against contingencies, by the death of Jesus Christ the great Testator. A testament is of force after men are dead; but of no strength at all whilst the testator liveth.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

–

The New Covenant Was Validated by Christ’s Death

Since it is a better sacrifice, Christ is the mediator of a new and better covenant, or will. It is through His death that the people of the old covenant will receive an actual (not ceremonial) cleansing from their sins. All of those from the past who were children of God can only receive the final promises of their covenants if Christ’s blood ratifies their agreements, which it does. It is a fact that Christ had to die so that all of the promises of God’s covenants with man could go into effect. No one could claim eternal life as a part of his inheritance until Christ died, since His death ratified all past and present covenant promises.

Summing up what he has already said, the writer tells his readers blood has to be shed for a testament, or covenant, to be in effect (see comment on 7:22). To prove the point, the writer related the story of the sprinkling of blood performed by Moses in the dedicating of the first covenant ( Exo 24:1-8 ). That sprinkling was with the blood of oxen, which could not take away sins (10:4). That is why the blood of Christ still had to be shed for the sins of those who died under the first covenant. Further, Moses had said that the blood sprinkled ratified the testament. The fact that God “commanded” them shows that this covenant was proposed by God and agreed to by the children of Israel. The importance of blood is further seen in the sprinkling of the tabernacle and all its vessels. Indeed, most acts of purification were by blood, under the law, and all atonement for sin was made with blood ( Heb 9:15-22 ; Exo 40:9-11 ; Lev 17:11 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Heb 9:15. And for this cause , on this account, that Christs blood is so efficacious; or for this end, that he might die and thereby procure redemption, and an eternal inheritance for us; he is the mediator Between God and man, making peace between them; of the new testament Or covenant rather, as the word is generally rendered in the New Testament, answering to the Hebrew word berith, which all the translators of the Jewish Scriptures have understood to signify a covenant. It is, however, such a covenant, as, having been procured for us, and confirmed by his death, is thereby become a testament. For through it we receive the blessings which Christ, by his will, designed for, and declared should be conferred upon believers through faith in his blood. Thus when he said, for their sakes I sanctify myself, Joh 17:19; that is, I offer up myself as a piacular victim, that they might be sanctified, or truly purged from their sins; he adds, as his last will and testament, Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I am. So here he is become a high-priest of good things to come, purchasing eternal redemption for us by his blood: and the mediator of that new covenant, in which God promises to be merciful to our transgressions, and to remember our sins no more, Heb 8:12; procuring the remission of them by the intervention of his death, that they who believe in him might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance Which he died to entitle them to, and confer upon them; whence it is styled the purchased possession, Eph 1:14. This therefore was his will and testament, that they, for whom he died, should live through him. And this testament could not be confirmed but by his death: he, therefore, was at once the mediator in whom the new covenant, promising to us remission of sins, was made, and the testator by whose death the testament, that they who believed in him should have eternal life, was ratified. So Dr. Whitby, who, however, observes, that the paragraph, to the end of Heb 9:20, will admit of a fair interpretation without supposing that any thing is said in it either of a testament or testator. See on the next verse. That by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions That is, for the redemption of transgressors from the guilt and punishment of those sins which were committed under the first covenant. In other words, He suffered for this end, that he might procure deliverance, not only from the condemnation due to the sins which have been committed since his death, but from that due to those which were committed during the former dispensation and state of the church, which could not be fully expiated by any of those sacrifices which belonged to the first covenant. They which are called And obey the call, or are made partakers of the grace of the gospel; might receive the promise of eternal inheritance The things promised in the new covenant, namely, not a temporary, earthly inheritance, such as the land of Canaan, promised in the first covenant, but that eternal glory which is promised in the new covenant.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Heb 9:15-21. It is shown, in a brief digression, that the death of Christ was necessary in order that the new covenant should come into force. An eternal inheritancei.e. an enduring fellowship with Godwas promised long ago to Gods people; and they could not obtain it under the first covenant, which afforded no real deliverance from sin. Before it could be obtained a death had to take place, so that all the sins of the past might be removed and men might start afresh under a new covenant (Heb 9:15). Why a death was necessary is explained by the analogy of a will or testament. The Greek word diatheke can mean either a covenant or a will, and the writer avails himself of this double meaning in order to bring out a particular aspect of the death of Christ. For a will to come into effect, the person who made it must die. This was recognised even in the case of the first covenant or will, which was ratified by the blood of a slain victim, in the solemn manner described in various OT texts (Lev 4:4; Num 19:6; Num 19:17 f.; Exo 12:12). Everything connected with that first covenant, the Tabernacle and all its furniture, was likewise sprinkled with blood. It may be regarded, indeed, as a fixed principle of the Law that every act which has for its aim the forgiveness of sins must be accompanied with the shedding of blood.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 15

For the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament. This language teaches us that the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ enures to the benefit of the penitent who lived before his day.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

9:15 {10} And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

(10) The conclusion of the former argument: therefore seeing the blood of beasts did not purge sins, the new Testament which was promised before, to which those outward things had respect, is now indeed established by the power by which all transgressions might be taken away, and heaven indeed opened to us. It follows that Christ shed his blood also for the fathers, for he was foreshadowed by these old ceremonies, otherwise, unless they served to represent him, they were not at all profitable. Therefore this Testament is called the latter, not concerning the power of it, (that is to say, remission of sins) but in respect of that time in which the thing itself was finished, that is to say, in which Christ was exhibited to the world, and fulfilled all things necessary for our salvation.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Since we have obtained "eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12) through the death of our Mediator and the "eternal [Holy] Spirit" (Heb 9:14), we can have hope in an "eternal inheritance." In contrast, believers under the Old Covenant enjoyed mainly temporary blessings and had comparatively little understanding of eschatological rewards.

"With a play on the double meaning of diatheke (both ’a covenant’ and ’a testament’), the author goes on to bring out the necessity for the death of Christ just as the death of the testator is required if a will is to come into force." [Note: Morris, p. 88.]

The readers should not feel guilty about abstaining from the rituals of the Old Covenant. Instead they should appreciate the accomplishments of Jesus Christ’s death. [Note: See Rodney J. Decker, "The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.] They should also turn their attention to obtaining what God had promised them as a future inheritance and continue to follow the Lord faithfully and patiently (Heb 6:12).

The New Testament revelation concerning the inheritance that believers can merit by faithful perseverance in the faith and good works is extensive. Some passages indicate that it involves participation in the wedding banquet at the beginning of the messianic kingdom (e.g., Mat 25:1-13; et al.). Others present it as involving an especially honorable resurrection (Luk 20:35). Still other passages speak of it as reigning with Christ (Mat 19:27-28; Luk 19:17-19; Luk 22:28-30; Rom 8:17-21) or as treasure in heaven (Mat 6:19-21; Mat 6:30; Mat 19:21; Luk 12:32-33; 1Ti 6:17-19). It also involves receiving praise and honor from Jesus Christ and the Father (Mat 6:1; Mat 6:5; Mat 6:16; Mat 25:21; Joh 12:26; 1Co 4:5; 1Pe 1:6-7; 2Pe 1:10-11). These honors are sometimes spoken of as crowns (Php 4:1; 1Co 9:24-27; 1Th 2:19; 2Ti 4:6-8; Jas 1:12; 1Pe 5:1-4; Rev 2:10; Rev 4:9-10). [Note: See Dillow, pp. 551-83.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles