Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 9:18
Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.
18. Whereupon ] Rather, “Wherefore;” because both “a covenant” and “a testament” involve the idea of death.
neither ] “not even.”
was dedicated ] Lit. “has been handselled” or “inaugurated.” The word is from the same root as “Encaenia,” the name given to the re-dedication of the Temple by the Maccabees (Joh 10:22. Comp. Deu 20:5 ; 1Ki 8:63; LXX.). The perfect is used by the author, as in so many other instances.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Whereupon – Hothen – Whence. Or since this is a settled principle, or an indisputable fact, it occurred in accordance with this, that the first covenant was confirmed by the shedding of blood. The admitted principle which the apostle had stated, that the death of the victim was necessary to confirm the covenant, was the reason why the first covenant was ratified with blood. If there were any doubt about the correctness of the interpretation given above, that Heb 9:16-17, refer to a covenant, and not a will, this verse would seem to be enough to remove it. For how could the fact that a will is not binding until he who makes it is dead, be a reason why a covenant should be confirmed by blood? What bearing would such a fact have on the question whether it ought or ought not to be confirmed in this manner? Or how could that fact, though it is universal, be given as a reason to account for the fact that the covenant made by the instrumentality of Moses was ratified with blood?
No possible connection can be seen in such reasoning. But admit that Paul had stated in Heb 9:16-17, a general principle that in all covenant transactions with God, the death of a victim was necessary, and everything is plain. We then see why he offered the sacrifice and sprinkled the blood. It was not on the basis of such reasoning as this: The death of a man who makes a will is indispensable before the will is of binding force, therefore it was that Moses confirmed the covenant made with our fathers by the blood of a sacrifice; but by such reasoning as this: It is a great principle that in order to ratify a covenant between God and his people a victim should be slain, therefore it was that Moses ratified the old covenant in this manner, and therefore it was also that the death of a victim was necessary under the new dispensation. Here the reasoning of Paul is clear and explicit; but who could see the force of the former?
Prof. Stuart indeed connects this verse with Heb 9:15, and says that the course of thought is, The new covenant or redemption from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore ( hothen) the old covenant, which is a type of the new, was sanctioned by the blood of victims. But is this the reasoning of Paul? Does he say that because the blood of a Mediator was to be shed under the new dispensation, and because the old was a type of this, that therefore the old was confirmed by blood? Is he not rather accounting for the shedding of blood at all, and showing that it was necessary that the blood of the Mediator should be shed rather than assuming that, and from that arguing that a typical shedding of blood was needful? Besides, on this supposition, why is the statement in Heb 9:16-17, introduced? What bearing have these verses in the train of thought? What are they but an inexplicable obstruction?
The first testament – Or rather covenant – the word testament being supplied by the translators.
Was dedicated – Margin, Purified. The word used to ratify, to confirm, to consecrate, to sanction. Literally, to renew.
Without blood – It was ratified by the blood of the animals that were slain in sacrifice. The blood was then sprinkled on the principal objects that were regarded as holy under that dispensation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 18. Whereupon] . Wherefore, as a victim was required for the ratification of every covenant, the first covenant made between God and the Hebrews, by the mediation of Moses, was not dedicated, , renewed or solemnized, without blood-without the death of a victim, and the aspersion of its blood.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Forasmuch as all testaments are put in force by the death of the testator, and all covenants are most strongly confirmed by death and blood in Gods own judgment, thence it is that the Mosaical covenant was confirmed by them.
Dedicated; egkekainistai, strictly taken, signifieth made new, or renewed. It is not used in the New Testament but in this place, and Heb 10:20; the Syriac translate it here confirmed, or ratified. In the Old Testament the Septuagint use it to express the Hebrew Deu 20:5. In which law, for a man who had built a house, and was called out to the wars, to return and dedicate it, was to take possession of it, and secure it from the claim of another. Here it is properly used to make sure, firm, and inviolable; and that by blood, typical of Christs, which is the highest and most solemn ratification. So were the covenants before ratified, but especially under the law, and the Mosaical covenant itself, as appears by instance, Gen 15:9,10,17,18; 31:44,54; compare Exo 24:5,7,8.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. Whereuponrather,”Whence.”
dedicated“inaugurated.”The Old Testament strictly and formally began on that day ofinauguration. “Where the disposition, or arrangement,is ratified by the blood of another, namely, of animals, which cannotmake a covenant, much less make a testament, it is notstrictly a testament, where it is ratified by the death of himthat makes the arrangement, it is strictly, Greek ‘diathece,‘Hebrew ‘berith,‘ taken in a wider sense, a testament“[BENGEL]; thus, in Heb9:18, referring to the old dispensation, we may translate, “thefirst (covenant)”: or better, retain “the first(testament),” not that the old dispensation, regardedby itself, is a testament, but it is so when regarded asthe typical representative of the new, which is strictly aTestament.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Whereupon neither the first testament,…. Or the first administration of the covenant of grace under the law:
was dedicated without blood; or “confirmed” without it, that dispensation being a typical one; and that blood was typical of the blood of Christ, by which the new covenant or testament is ratified; see Ex 24:7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The first covenant ( ). Supply as in 9:1.
Has been dedicated (). Stands dedicated. Perfect passive indicative of , a late verb in LXX, one papyrus, and in N.T. only here and 10:20. It means to renew, to inaugurate (1Sam 11:14; 2Chr 15:8) and in 1Ki 8:63 to dedicate. Note (Joh 10:22) for the feast of dedication.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Whereupon [] . Rend. wherefore, or for which reason : on the general principle that a covenant must be ratified by death.
Neither the first testament was dedicated without blood [ ] . Rend. “neither hath the first (covenant) been inaugurated without blood.” There is surely no excuse for inserting testament here, as A. V., since the allusion is clearly to the ratification of a covenant with blood. But further, as this and the verses immediately following are intended to furnish a historical illustration of the statements in vers. 16, 17, we seem forced either to render covenant in those verses, or to assume that the transaction here related was the ratification of a will and testament, or to find our writer guilty of using an illustration which turns on a point entirely different from the matter which he is illustrating. Thus : a testament is of force after men are dead. It has no force so long as the testator is alive. Wherefore, the first covenant was ratified by slaying victims and sprinkling their blood. For the incident see Exo 24:8. jEnkainizein only here and ch. 10 20 LXX, to renew, 1Sa 11:14; 2Ch 14:8; Psa 1:10 : to dedicate, 1Ki 8:63; 1 Macc. 4 86. Comp. ta ejnkainia the feast of dedication, Joh 10:22. Rend. ouJude neither, as A. V., and not not even, in which case the meaning would be, “not even the first covenant, although its ministries did not perfect the worshipper as touching the conscience,” a thought which would be foreign to the point, which is merely the analogy in the matter of death.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Whereupon neither the first testament,” (othen oide he prote) “From which basic truth neither the first covenant,” the Mosaic covenant or will is referred to as the “first” covenant, Exo 24:6-8; Heb 13:20.
2) “Was dedicated without blood,” (choris haimatos egkekainistai) “Has been dedicated or inaugurated (apart from) blood,” typifying the coming shed blood of Christ for the redemption of man and the whole world from the blight and curse of Satan and Sin; The death of the sacrifice-animal made the will of God effective on behalf of the one offering it by faith, Heb 9:22; Heb 10:4; Heb 10:14; Lev 17:11.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
18. Whereupon neither the first, etc. It hence appears that the fact is what is mainly urged, and that it is not a question about the word, though the Apostle turned to his own purpose a word presented to his attention in that language in which he wrote, as though one, while speaking of God’s covenant, which is often called in Greek μαρτυρία, a testimony, were to recommend it among other things under that title. And doubtless that is a testimony, μαρτυρία, to which angels from heaven has borne witness, and of which there have been so many illustrious witnesses on earth, even all the holy Prophets, Apostles, and a vast number of martyrs, and of which at last the Son of God himself became a surety. No one in such a discourse would deem any such thing as unreasonable. And yet the Hebrew word, תעודה will admit of no such meaning as a covenant; but as nothing is advanced but what is consistent with the thing itself, no scrupulous regard is to be paid to the meaning of a word.
The Apostle then says, that the old testament or covenant was dedicated with blood. He hence concludes, that men were even then reminded, that it could not be valid and efficacious except death intervened. For though the blood of beasts was then shed, yet, he denies that it availed to confine an everlasting covenant. That this may appear more clearly, we must notice the custom of sprinkling which he quotes from Moses. He first teaches us that the covenant was dedicated or consecrated, not that it had in itself anything profane; but as there is nothing so holy that men by their uncleanness will not defile, except God prevents it by making a renewal of all things, therefore the dedication was made on account of men, who alone wanted it.
He afterwards adds, that the tabernacle and all the vessels, and also the very book of the law, were sprinkled; by which rite the people were then taught, that God could not be sought or looked to for salvation, nor rightly worshipped, except faith in every case looked to an intervening blood. For the majesty of God is justly to be dreaded by us, and the way to his presence is nothing to us but a dangerous labyrinth, until we know that he is pacified towards us through the blood of Christ, and that this blood affords to us a free access. All kinds of worship are then faulty and impure until Christ cleanses them by the sprinkling of his blood. (153)
For the tabernacle was a sort of visible image of God; and as the vessels for ministering were destined for his service, so they were symbols of true worship. But since none of these were for salvation to the people, we hence reasonably conclude, that where Christ does not appear with his blood, we have nothing to do with God. So doctrine itself, however unchangeable may be the will of God, cannot be efficacious for our benefit, unless it be dedicated by blood, as is plainly set forth in this verse.
I know that others give a different interpretation; for they consider the tabernacle to be the body of the Church, and vessels the faithful, whose ministry God employs; but what I have stated is much more appropriate. For whenever God was to be called upon, they turned themselves to the sanctuary; and it was a common way of speaking to say that they stood before the Lord when they appeared in the temple.
(153) It is worthy of notice that the Apostle mentions here several things which are not particularly by Moses in Exo 24:3, where the account is given; and yet what is there stated sufficiently warrants the particulars mentioned here. The blood of “goats” is not mentioned, and yet burnt offerings are said to have been offered, and goats were so offered; see Lev 1:10. Moses says nothing of “scarlet wool and hyssop;” but he mentions “sprinkling,” and this was commonly done thereby; see Lev 14:51. “Blood” only is mentioned by Moses; but we find that when sprinkled, “water” was often connected with it. See Lev 14:52; Num 19:18 The main difficulty is respecting “the book” being sprinkled, which is not stated by Moses. But as the altar was sprinkled, there was the same reason for sprinkling the book, though that is not expressly mentioned. However, it is evident that this was the general opinion among the Jews, for otherwise the Apostle would not have mentioned it in an Epistle especially addressed to them.
Then the “tabernacle,” it was not expressly mentioned that it was sprinkled with blood when consecrated; and this was some time after the covenant was made. The setting up of the tabernacle is mentioned in Exo 40:17. In the previous verses, Exo 40:9, there is a direction given to anoint the tabernacle, and all its vessels, and also to hallow them and to anoint the alter, and to sanctify it. The hallowing or sanctifying was no doubt done by sprinkling them with blood. See as a proof of this Exo 29:21. We hence perceive how well acquainted the writer must have been with the Jewish rituals. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Heb. 9:18. The first covenant.Reverting to the older and safer term. Heb. 9:16-17, are a sort of aside, a sudden thought that came to the writer, somewhat in the Pauline manner. Dedicated.Or initiated. There was a foreshadowing of the death of Christ in the blood-sealings of the covenant.
Heb. 9:19. Spoken.Read aloud the commandments which were the covenant requirements and conditions. Of calves and of goats.A general expression for the sacrificial victims. Goats are not especially mentioned on this occasion (Exo. 24:5). Scarlet wool, and hyssop.Not mentioned in Exodus 24. The water (itself an emblem and means of cleansing) was designed to prevent the coagulation of the blood, and to increase the quantity of the purifying fluid. The scarlet wool may have been used to bind the hyssop to the stick of cedar-wood, which was the instrument of sprinkling (Moulton). The book.Not specially mentioned in Exo. 24:6-8. (This is one of several instances in which the writer shows himself learned in the Jewish legends, Hagadoth.) Book and people may be taken as representing the two parties to the covenant.
Heb. 9:21. Tabernacle.Nothing is actually said of their being so sprinkled; only of their being anointed with oil. Josephus, however, confirms the text. See Exo. 11:9-10.
Heb. 9:22. Almost all.Some were cleansed by water (Lev. 16:26; Lev. 16:28; Num. 31:22-23). The cleansing efficacy of blood is a symbol, not a fact. Is no remission.The writer does not say of sins, and these words should not be added to the verse. He is stating a historical fact with regard to the old Mosaic system, and refers entirely to ceremonial offences. The Rabbins have a proverb, No expiation except by blood.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Heb. 9:18-22
The Blood of the Covenant.The word testament used in the previous verses is supplied in Heb. 9:18, and it would have been better to have put in the old and familiar term covenant. This is done in the R.V. Any arrangement made between two parties for their mutual benefit, which may be ratified by some common act, is called a covenant. In the simple society of the ancient East, covenants could only be ratified by the taking of mutual vows and pledges, or by the sharing together in some symbolical and suggestive act. Sometimes a bargain was ratified by the two parties joining hands, before witnesses, in the gate of the city; at other times by mutually raising a heap of stones, and calling it by a particular name. There was also a custom of this kind: Wine was poured into an earthen vessel, and the contracting parties, cutting their arms with a knife, let some of the blood run into the wine, with which they stained their armour, and of which both parties drank, uttering at the same time the most dreadful curses upon the party that violated the treaty. In this passage the ratification of the Old Testament covenant with God is in part described. The great leader and lawgiver, Moses, had been in the mount with God, had received the law as from the Divine hand, and on his return to the camp he had gathered the tribes in a solemn assembly, and received from them the emphatic declaration of their resolve, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. Then Moses prepared for a solemn act of ratification. He built an altar under the hill; that altar was to represent Jehovah, the one party to the covenant. He also set up twelve pillars, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. These represented the people, the other party to the covenant, the party to whom the covenant terms were offered. Then Moses slew certain animals, and divided the blood that flowed from them, sprinkling some on the altar, in token of Gods making a vow to observe and keep all that He had pledged and promised in the covenant. The other half of the blood he kept back awhile, until he had again read to the people the covenant terms and the covenant sanctions, and had again received the peoples acceptance in their united exclamation, All that the Lord hath said unto us will we do, and be obedient. Then he took that half of the blood, and sprinkled it on those twelve representative pillars, expressing thus the solemn vow of the people, and making the vow take this impressive form: We pledge our very life to our obedience. If we fail to keep this covenant, let our life be forfeited, let that life be taken, as has been taken the life of these beasts. Now in this ancient and formal Jewish covenant we are to see the model of the spiritual covenant which God makes with man in creating him, and arranging his sustenance and circumstancethe covenant which man makes with God in accepting life at His hands. Nobody is obliged to live: to choose to live is to accept Gods covenant terms. We may not, as individuals, be able to appeal to a personal scene of ratification. That was done for our humanity by our first human father, Adamjust as it was done for all the Jewish race by that one Mosaic generation. And it was broken for us by that first father, as representing us. So we all come into the world with the claims of the everlasting covenant as strong upon us as upon Adam, but with all those disturbed conditions about us which have followed upon breaking the covenant, and with our life forfeit (as part of the life of humanity), in accordance with the solemn vow and pledge of that covenant. If then we are to be restored to gracious relations with God, we need
I. That God should be honoured by the surrender of the life that was pledged, if the covenant was broken.The Israelites sealed their covenant with blood. They thus expressed their readiness to surrender their own blood if they broke the covenant. They did break it, and their lives we forfeited. God might have demanded the life of every Israelite, in vindication of His broken covenant. The fact that it was a covenant of mercy offered by God, and freely accepted by man, only makes the conditions more solemn. God can righteously demand one of two thingsobedience to the covenant conditions, or the yielding of the forfeit. No man can save his honour, if he permits a covenant made with him to be broken, without taking any notice of the forfeit or penalty. Meeting us in our human sphere, and graciously using our human language, God shows us that He could not. The life of all Israel stood forfeited unto God. In this we have a modela representation in material things of spiritual realitiesof the great human covenant. To that also life is vowed and pledged. And that covenant too is broken. Our life, our whole life, is forfeit unto God. God cannot pass by that dishonoured covenant of His mercy. The penalty to which man pledged himself to submit must be exacted. Covenant-breakers must die,die the death of the Divine absence from them; die the second, the spiritual death. Or else such satisfaction must be offered as shall uphold the Divine honour, declare the righteousness and worth of the Divine covenant in a most glorious manner, and so allow the penalty to be remitted. God can make no new covenant with men until, in some altogether satisfactory way, the old is honoured. And this every man feels is necessary to meet his deepest sense of right. How then has the difficulty been met? God has been pleased to permit the penalty to be exacted from one person only, a great race-head, a second Adam. Instead of demanding the forfeited life of every man, He required only the death of the representative man. And then comes in the marvel of all marvels. The God of the broken covenant was willing Himself to provide that one representative man. Here is a glimpse at least into the mystery of Christs death. God saw humanity in HimGod accepted Him as the yielded life that was forfeit by the terms of the broken human covenant. In that one God-mans voluntary death the old covenant is honoured, even while it is put away for ever. We could have no sure ground of hope, if that old covenant had not been so gloriously vindicated and honoured, or if God had not released the Sin-bearer from the grave, and accepted Him as the great human representative.
II. We need that the covenant should be newly made and newly ratified.And that also is done for us in Christ. He who bears for us the forfeit of the old is the gracious Mediator of the new. And the new covenant is a better covenant,a covenant not of formal terms, but of gracious promises; not of particular deeds, but of the inner heart, and of the whole life. And this second, or new, covenant was also ratified by blood-shedding. It was taken under the same tremendous vows as the old; it was sealed by an infinitely more worthy sacrifice. The patterns of things in the heavenlies were purified with blood of bulls and goats, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. Yielding His life, as at once the forfeit of the old covenant and the solemn vow of the new, behold God and man are now one again, in Christ. Ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
III. The new covenant must be definitely accepted by each individual.We must personally and voluntarily enter into covenant. Its reconciliation, its access, its privileges, its status, cannot be ours until we willingly and lovingly accept the covenant made for us, and sealed for us, by the Lord Jesus Christ. He stands for men; by his own act of surrender each man must ensure that He stands for him, and is his Representative, his Mediator, and his Lord. But each must enter into the covenant for himself. No man can do it for him. No covenant of any fellow-creature will stand for him. Those who are within the privileges and responsibilities of the new covenant are counted one by one.
The Blood is the Life.The warm blood of men, and of quadrupeds and birds, seemed to contain the very soul or life of the living earthly creatureto be almost identical with his soul. Now when the life and the soul were held to be something sacred, and the more tender feelings of certain nations took this view very early, it would follow that the blood too must be considered a sacred thing, and be regarded quite differently from the rest of the body. The sight of that which was held to be the soul itself carried the mind immediately to thoughts of God, placed directly before it something full of mystery, and filled it with profound awe.Ewald.
Death for Remission.How can the death of Christ be a condition of the remission of sins? This the crux of the whole subject.
1. The writer never suggests that Christ liberates us from liability to punishment by being Himself punished in our stead. It is true he said that Christ was offered to bear the sins of many (Heb. 9:28), but he does not say that this was to bear the punishment of sins; on the contrary, he carries our thoughts away to ideas of sacrifices in his use of the word offered.
2. Neither does the writer teach that the value of the Atonement was derived from the amount of pain endured by our Lord. As we have seen, he attaches great importance to the sufferings of Christ, but this is in regard to His priesthood, not His sacrifice. He became a perfect priest, fully able to sympathise with His people, by means of the things which He suffered. Certainly the spirit of surrender requisite where much suffering has to be faced is proportionately greater than where the sacrifice is easily made. Thus suffering comes to enhance the value of sacrifice. But it does this indirectly, and it is not the suffering itself, but the refusal to shrink from it, which is valued. In the Hebrew ritual the death of the victims was as painless as possible; there is not a hint that their sufferings entered into the consideration of the worshippers. The real sacrifice was made by the offerer in the surrender of his property. The case of our Lord is entirely differentfor one thing, because He appears in the two functions of sacrificing priest and sacrificial victim. It is in regard to the former of these functions, as the priest making the offering, that His sufferings come to be considered with supreme interest.
3. Where, then, is the specific value of His sacrifice? The author emphatically contrasts the tabernacle sacrifices with the sacrifice of our Lord, affirming that the former could only have a subjective influence on the worshippers as reminders of sin, not any objective efficacy in expiration thereof, because it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins (Heb. 10:4). That is to say, he saw quite clearly that no animal sacrifice could constitute a real atonement. Coming to the very different sacrifice of Christ, he quotes from Psalms 40, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me (Heb. 10:5). The first step, then, is the Incarnation. Christ comes in a human body. The following words in the quotation from the psalm are cited to indicate the purpose of the Incarnation in this connection: Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God (Heb. 10:7). Christ was incarnate in order that, among other things, He might be subject to obedience. We are reminded of St. Pauls thought that He took on Him the form of a servant when He was found in fashion as a man in order that He might become obedient even unto death (Php. 2:7-8). Further on the author tells us distinctly that our sanctificationand the whole course of the argument shows that by this he means our consecration to God in the cleansing of our consciences, i.e. the effecting of the Atonementis accomplished by our Lord doing the will of God: By the which will we have been sanctified (chap.Heb. 10:10). The whole of our Lords life was a course of perfect obedience to the will of God; that obedience was most severely tested, and, standing the test triumphantly, reached its crown and climax at the cross. We need not search through regions of theological speculation; the truth is writ large upon the plain facts of our Lords history. He would have been false to His mission if He had turned aside at the last, and fled into some safe retreat out of the reach of His enemies to end His days in obscurity. He was a martyr to His mission. His death was more than martyrdom, because He was more than man, and so through martyrdom could effect what no merely human martyr ever accomplished. His obedience was a superhuman obedience in a human life. Hence its supreme value. Can we not understand how God would accept this as the most precious of all offerings? Primitive man presents fruits from his farm and animals from his flock. These are simple, childlike gifts. Christ offers the one real sacrifice God cares for. God has no delight in blood. Mere death cannot be any satisfaction to Him. But He rejoices in obedience to His will; and when that obedience climbs to its highest pinnacle in an unflinching submission to death, He has the greatest offering that can be made. It is in response to such an offering, the obedience unto death of His own Son, that God grants remission of sins. This seems to be the idea of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, and I venture to say it is a nearer approach to a theory of the Atonement than is to be found anywhere else in the New Testament.Prof. W. F. Adeney, M.A.
SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES
Heb. 9:22. No Remission save by Blood-shedding.Heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the sacrifice of Christ is not than what it is.Jowett.
Repentance insufficient.By the general prevalence of propitiatory sacrifices over the heathen world, the notion of repentance alone being sufficient to expiate guilt appears to be contrary to the general sense of mankind.Bishop Butler.
Taking the Blood.The death of the victim, instead of being a vicarious punishment, was no essential part of the transaction, but merely incidental as a means of affording the blood. The essence of the whole sacrificial service was the sprinkling of the blood, as the bearer of the life, upon Gods altar, thus symbolising the giving away of the offerers life to God; in other words, his returning back again to God, by repentance and faith and self-dedication, after being separated from Him by sin.Bhr.
The Blood as a Type.Nearly all things were purged with blood; certainly without blood was no remissionthat peculiar thing remission was inseparable from blood. Sin-offerings were not merely tokens of the restoration of friendship between God and the offender; but the blood was the type of the great propitiation, and an acknowledgment, on the part of the offerer, that he had himself deserved death. It showed also that the death and suffering, not of the offender, but of one perfectly guiltless and incapable of sin, alone could procure remission.Webster and Wilkinson.
Sin and Trespass were atoned for, in a civil and ecclesiastical point of view, by appropriate sacrifices which bore the like names. But in this case the remission was only from a temporal penalty or calamity. It was not possible that such sacrifices could atone for sin, as viewed by the righteous governor of the world. God, as the head and king of the Jewish nation, granted remission of the penalty which Jewish law inflicted in many cases, on certain conditions. But this had respect merely to this present world, and not to the accountability of transgressors before the tribunal of the universe, in the world above. Even temporal forgiveness could not be obtained without shedding of bloodso the necessity of atoning blood which possessed a higher virtue than that of beasts, in order to remove the penalty against sin, that was threatened in respect of a future world.Moses Stuart.
Remission and Blood-shedding.In these words, apart from shedding of blood is no remission, we may find a fact stated and a fact suggested. The fact stated is that, under the Old Testament dispensation, the particular thing called remission was always attended with blood-shedding. The fact suggested is that, under the New Testament dispensation, Jesus Christ did actually shed His blood for the remission of sins. It is possible to sweep away all the deeper meanings of the Jewish sacrifices by regarding them only as expressions of dependence and trust. We have to ask, not what is sacrifice to a man, but what to a sinful man, one who carries the burden of conscious transgression, and the fear of just penalty. In the Jewish sacrifices the sin of the individual or the nation was symbolically transferred, by confession, to the victim that was sacrificed. The Jewish view of sacrifice is thus stated by Abrabanel: The blood of the offerer deserved to be shed, and his body to be burned, for his sin; only the mercy of the Divine Name accepted this offering from him as a substitute and propitiation, whose blood should be instead of his blood, and its life instead of his life. In the New Testament is given the historical fact that Jesus did die; or, to use the familiar figure, did shed His blood. These two facts, the blood-shedding of Judaism and the blood-shedding of Jesus, answer to each other, as do type and antitype. The patterns of things in the heavens (spiritual things) were purified with these (the blood of animals); but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than theseeven with the life, the will, the surrender, the sacrifice, of a spiritual being. The reality was not found in the Jewish sacrifices. They were but pictures of the reality. They bore relation to ceremonial offences, not to sin, in a spiritual sense. In the Old Testament economy there was a figure and an underlying reality. And in the New Testament sacrifice there is a corresponding outward figure and underlying spiritual reality. The Jewish system required of its worshipper a sacrifice which could have a twofold relation:
(1) Could die as the bearer of his penalty, and
(2) in its spotlessness could be accepted in his stead. That was the figure; but the man who rightly apprehended that ceremonial penalty and pollution saw it to represent the moral penalty under which his sin had brought him, and the moral pollution with which his sin had defiled him. A spiritually minded Jew must have said, Restored to the tabernacle service, I am not restored to God: looked upon as clean by the priests, I am not looked upon as clean before God. No blood of beasts can touch moral pollution: no death of bulls or goats can carry away moral penalty. And so in the infinite sacrifice and meritorious blood-shedding of the Son of God there is a figure and an answering reality. If the sacrifice of Jesus had been only a spiritual sacrifice, if it had found no expression in bodily sufferings and bodily death, we men, so imprisoned in the senses, could never have realised it, could never have reached the blessing of it. Christs bodily sufferings and blood-shedding are not, in themselves, His great sacrifice. They are the form it took for bodily eyes to see, the body it wore for this mortal sphere, the temple within which the real sacrifice of an obedient will was offered. And as the Jewish worshipper looked past the blood of bulls and of goats, and rested in the spiritual sacrifice, which was to be made in the person of Messiah, so the Christian worshipper now goes in behind the bodily sufferings and human death of our Divine Lord, which are to him somewhat as the outward ceremonies were to the Jew, and discerns the inner, spiritual, infinitely satisfying sacrifice presented by Him when He made His soul an offering for sin. Sin is a spiritual thing. It may express itself in deeds done in the body; but, in its essence, it is a thing of the spirit and the will. The sin is a soul-sin. The penalty is a soul-death. The remission can only come by a soul-sacrifice. When we say that Christ, as our sacrifice, bore the penalty for us, we mean the spiritual penalty. It found fitting outward expression in the agonies of an ignominious and violent death, but the infinite depth of suffering lay hiddenin behindin the Redeemers soul. Finding only once what seemed a suitable utterance in human language, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? The chief objection against the truth of our Lords substitutionary sacrifice is, that it represents the innocent as suffering for the guilty, which is supposed to override our natural sense of justice. But higher laws do affect lower ones. Abraham in loyal obedience to God put aside parental justice, and assayed to offer his son. Are there no cases in which our sense of justice permits the innocent to suffer for the guilty? Is there any law, in heaven or earth, that prevents an innocent man from voluntarily taking the place of the guilty? Is our sense of justice wronged when a man knowingly and willingly marries an almost bankrupt woman, and makes himself legally responsible for all her debts? And may not the Lord Jesus, knowingly, and willingly, and lovingly, marry this poor bankrupt bride of Humanity, and, with His eternal riches, bear all the burden of her debt? May not the Lord Jesus sustain such a relation to us, of His own free, generous, pitying sympathy, that, most righteously, our penalty should be transferred to Him? In the voluntary sacrifice of Christ; in that yielding of His soul, through the body, to the sinners spiritual death, all men may see Gods authority vindicated, Gods honour established, sin exhibited in its hatefulness, sin smitten and broken in its power, and men deterred from loving and seeking it. And since it is God Himself who provided the sacrificenay, God Himself who is in the sacrificethe revelations of the Divine glory and justice do not affright us; the disclosures of the infinite hatefulness of sin do not overwhelm us. The sacrifice of Jesus brings us full remissionholiness and mercy hand in hand: in it righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
Christs Voluntary Sin-bearing.When we see the offended God, the injured Sovereign, holy, just, and goodwhen we see Him at such a cost Himself provide the expiation which the dignity of His own law demands, and actually send His Son to die in our room, it is then that we begin to see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the beauty and majesty of the Divine character, and the generous tears which suffuse our eyes are the first tears of true repentance which we have ever shed. That cross of Christ, with its great atoning sacrifice, lets me see God to be so great, and man so littlethe Sovereign to be so good, and the rebel to be so bad: it shows on the one side such holiness and such love, whilst it shows on the other guilt so heinous, wickedness so inexcusable, and ruin so complete, that we need not wonder though we find mans pride reject the humbling truth. Orthodox people are charged with teaching that the philosophy of sacrifice consists in the necessity of punishingthat it is justice to let the blow fall somewhere, no matter where; blood must flow. But we never affirm that God visited our sins on the head of one who had no connection with these sins at all. God visited the sin on the head of One who, though personally innocent of it, did nevertheless put Himself voluntarily into such a relationship to the sinners as involved Him in the fullest legal responsibility for the sin. A man is beheaded for crimes that his hands have committedthe body is a whole. So Christ and His Church are one body; He is the Head. When God the Father exacted the penalty of His peoples sins from Jesus, He did so from One who, as the Head of the body, was as righteously responsible for them as if He had committed them all.Article, Family Treasury, August 1868.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 9
Heb. 9:22. Propitiation by Sacrifice.It has often been remarked that the idea of propitiation by sacrifice is to be found in connection with all the sacrifices of heathen nations. This is strikingly illustrated by the following account of one of the festivals of the North American Indians:Dr. Edward Walsh describes a village, the houses of which surrounded a large green or common, in the centre of which the council-house or temple was erected. It was lighted, he says, by a few small, square apertures, close to the eaves, which also let out the smoke; consequently, it was somewhat dark. The door facing the west had a rude but spacious portico. The roof, which had a high pitch, was propped up within by four strong posts, between which was the hearth, with a large kettle over it. There was a seat all round, and the walls, which were formed of split plank, were half-way up covered with mats. Here we found a great number of Indians assembled. The women were ranged outside the wall, and the men surrounded the fire inside, at the head of whom was the high priest in his pontificals. His face was painted like the quarterings of a coat of arms, and he was furnished with a beard: he wore on his head a high tiara of beaver fur, stuck round with dyed porcupine quills: he had over his chest a kind of stomacher, worked in figures, and ornamented with wampum, which was supposed to represent the Jewish Urim and Thummim; in this, the Indians imagine some little spirit resides, which they talk to and consult in dubious events. Whilst the usual dance or chorus was performing, a dog which had been previously selected and fattened was boiling in the kettle: when cooked, the flesh was cut off, and the bones scraped clean and wrapped up in its skin. The flesh was then divided into small bits, and handed round on a wooden platter, to all those that surrounded the fire: at the same time, the high priest dipped a branch of hemlock pine in the broth, and sprinkled it everywhere, as well on the people as on the walls. The ceremony concluded with the circular dance and chant, in which the women joined. This chant, or hymn, is sung by all the Indian nations in North America, however they may differ in custom and language. Humboldt even heard it in Mexico, and it is supposed to be synonymous with the hallelujah of the Psalms. It was pricked down for me by a gentleman who understood musical composition. To my ears it sounds like the lullaby of the nursery:
Tam le yah al lah le lu lah tam ye lah yo ha wah ha ha hah!
It must be admitted that this ceremony bears some rude resemblance to the feast of the Passover, substituting a dog for a lamb, of which they have none; but dogs are sacrificed on all solemn occasions.
Eastern Covenant Customs.While in Abyssinia, Bruce the traveller wished to go from one place to another, and the sheikh had assured him that the journey might be undertaken with safety. But, said Bruce, suppose your people meet us in the desert, how shall we fare in that case? Should we fight? I have told you, sheikh, already, said he, cursed be the man that lifts his hand against you, or even does not defend and befriend you to his own loss, even were it Ibrahim, my own son. Then after some conversation, the old man muttered something to his sons in a dialect Bruce did not understand, and in a little time the whole hut was filled with people, the priests and monks of their religion, and the heads of families. The great people joined hands, and uttered a kind of prayerreally the oathabout two minutes long, by which they declared themselves and their children accursed if ever they lifted their hands against me in the field, in the desert, or on the river; or, in case that I or mine should fly to them for refuge, if they did not protect us at the risk of their lives, their families, and their fortunes, or as they emphatically expressed it, to the death of the last male child among them Medicines and advice were given on my part, faith and promises pledged on theirs; then two bushels of wheat and seven sheep were carried down to my boat.
Classical Covenant Customs.An ancient writer relates that Agamemnon, the leader of the Greeks at the siege of Troy, to confirm his faith sworn to Achilles, ordered victims to be brought. He took one, and with his sword divided it in the midst, placed the pieces opposite to each other, and holding his sword, reeking with blood, passed between the separated pieces. Livy, the Roman historian, relates that in the time of Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great, it was the custom, at the lustration or purification of the armies, to cut off the head of a dog, and then make the whole army file between the head and the trunk. Compare Jer. 34:18.
The Scottish League and Covenant.The most remarkable modern reproduction of the ancient covenant may be found in Scottish history. It was a confession of faith made in the year 557, A.D., and a mutual agreement to maintain that confession even at peril of death. As the hour drew near people from all quarters flocked to the spot, and before the commissioners appeared the Greyfriars Church and Churchyard, Edinburgh, were densely filled with the gravest, the wisest, and the best of Scotlands pious sons and daughters. The long roll of parchment was brought, the meaning and purpose of the covenant explained. Then a deep and solemn pause ensued; not the pause of irresolution, but of modest diffidence, each thinking every other more worthy than himself to place the first name upon this sacred bond. An aged nobleman, the venerable Earl of Sutherland, at last stepped slowly and reverentially forward, and with throbbing heart and trembling hand subscribed Scotlands covenant with God. All hesitation in a moment disappeared. Name followed name in quick succession, till all within the Church had given their signatures. It was then removed into the churchyard, and spread out on a level gravestone. Here the scene became still more impressive. The intense emotions of many became irrepressible. Some wept aloud; some burst into a shout of exultation; some after their names added the words till death; and some, opening a vein, subscribed with their own warm blood. And when every particle of space was filled, there was another solemn pause. The nation had framed a covenant in former days, and had violated its engagements; if they, too, should break this sacred bond, how deep would be their guilt! Such seems to have been their thought; for, as if moved by one spiritthe one eternal Spiritwith low, heart-wrung groans, and faces bathed in tears, they lifted, with one consent, their right hands to heaven, avowing by this sublime appeal that they had now joined themselves unto the Lord in an everlasting covenant, which should not be forgotten.T. Guthrie.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(18) Whereupon.Better, Wherefore not even has the first (covenant) been dedicated (or, inaugurated) without blood. (See Exo. 24:6-8.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
18. Whereupon In accordance with this demand of death for a testament, the emblem of death, namely, blood, is freely shed and abundantly used.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For this reason even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood. For 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, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded towards you”.’
Indeed such a death was ever seen as necessary for an important covenant. It sealed it permanently. And it was specifically true of the first covenant. The first idea of the application of blood was that none could withdraw on pain of death. That is why the first covenant, the old covenant, was dedicated with blood and sprinkled on the altar and the people. It bound both parties irrevocably while the conditions were fulfilled. And once the conditions were broken there arose ‘the transgressions which were under the first covenant’, and the parties involved in these were, as a result, doomed to die. Thus any new covenant had also necessarily to take into account the need for atonement. Death must be implicit in any new covenant simply because it was required of those who had broken the old.
The making of the old covenant is now described in detail. Once it had been declared, and Moses had described every commandment in the covenant to all the people (for all were to be involved and must know what they were agreeing to), he carried out ceremonial sacrifices in order to seal the covenant with blood, applying the blood both to the record of the covenant itself, and to all the people (Exo 24:6-8). By this they were bound to obedience to it on pain of death, and God, as the One to Whom the sacrifices were offered, was equally bound to them while they faithfully kept the covenant.
Yet as the context here makes clear, that blood was not just a symbol of the sacredness of the contract, it was also a requirement because of the sinfulness already present on the part of one of the parties involved. Such a contract could not have been made without cleansing for sin. For there was a past to be atoned for, and as we are shortly to be informed, the main purpose of the shedding of blood is the remission of sin (Heb 9:22). Furthermore the whole context here is of cleansing from sin (Heb 9:12-14; Heb 9:21-22). Any explanation therefore that lacks that necessity is itself lacking.
So we may undoubtedly recognise here that the shedding of blood, as well as sealing the covenant, also had a cleansing significance, for whenever blood was shed sacrificially in relation to anything connected with God such a meaning was necessarily involved. Because the contract was made with sinners, cleansing must therefore be involved.
The passage in Exodus does not mention the sprinkling of the blood on the book It does, however, bring the book into close connection with the ceremony. The blood there is sprinkled on the specially erected altar and on the people connecting God with His people. The book may well have been placed on the altar in such ceremonies. The writer may well have been writing on the basis of his knowledge of such ceremonies, or of some tradition which drew this out. Nor does the passage mention the method of sprinkling which is described in the detail given here, which is in fact partly similar to that for the sprinkling of the ashes of the heifer (Num 19:6). Note how here it is just assumed that these had been used in the sprinkling. It was thus clearly a recognised custom to use scarlet wool and hyssop for sprinkling, compare Lev 14:4; Lev 14:6-7.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Centrality of Death In God’s Saving Purposes In Order For All Things To Be Cleansed and Purified ( Heb 9:18-28 ).
We are now looking at the detailed explanation of Heb 1:3. How did the Son make purification of sins? By coming as the Christ Messiah and shedding His blood for all who would receive Him. Just as the shedding of blood was central in the old covenant, so it is in the new. But whereas the old required many and continual sacrifices through the centuries, the new required only one sacrifice for sin for ever. For He was so immense that His once-for-all sacrifice covered the sin of all ages and of all people for all time. All Who would might therefore reach out for salvation, receiving it as God’s free gift and being finally saved to the uttermost through Him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The type of the Old Testament sacrifices:
v. 18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
v. 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,
v. 20. saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
v. 21. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the Tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.
v. 22. And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. The statement of the preceding paragraph, that Christ became the Mediator of the New Testament by His death, by the shedding of His blood, is here substantiated by a reference to the type of the Old Testament: Whence neither the first (covenant) has been inaugurated without blood. The children of Israel were received into the covenant of the Lord through death, over the dead bodies of the sacrificial animals as representing the people. The death of these animals was necessary, partly as a means of expiating the sins of the people, partly as indicating that the people died to the past and became wholly the peculiar nation of the Lord. So even the first covenant, imperfect and temporary as it was, was not ratified without the shedding of blood and the resulting death of the animals substituted for the believers.
This fact is shown in one pertinent instance: For when every command according to the Law had been spoken by Noses to all the people, he took the blood of bullocks and of goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled it upon the book itself and the entire people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you. The inspired author here refers to a story with which his readers were familiar. After Moses, in agreement with the command of the Lord, had repeated to all the people all the precepts which God had spoken, when they all had had an opportunity clearly to understand the obligations they assumed on entering the covenant, then Moses impressed the matter upon their minds by a solemn ceremony. The proper animals having been slaughtered, he took blood of bullocks and goats, added water to it, either to prevent coagulation or to symbolize the fact of cleansing, tied some scarlet wool on a stick of hyssop or wild marjoram, which was also associated with purifying, and then used this device for the purpose of sprinkling. See Num 19:6; Lev 14:4-7; Lev 14:49-52. He first sprinkled some of the blood upon the book itself, that is, upon the roll on which he had written the words of the Lord, the terms of the covenant, and then upon the people, as a party to the covenant, saying, at the same time, that this blood was the blood of the testament, that God thereby ratified the covenant between Himself and the nation chosen by Him. See Exo 24:3-8. Note that the words used by Moses are very much like those used by Christ at the institution of the Eucharist, by which the Lord signified that by the shedding of His sacrificial blood alone, for the remission of sins, the everlasting covenant of the New Testament is ratified.
But the author adds another point: And he even sprinkled with blood both the Tabernacle and the vessels of the ministry likewise; and practically everything is purified with blood according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood remission does not take place. What had happened on this occasion was later repeated in just as solemn a manner, Lev 8:15-19, namely, when the Tabernacle was dedicated with appropriate ceremonies, Aaron in this case acting on behalf of Moses, at God’s command. It seems that while Moses attended to the anointing of the Tabernacle and its appointments personally, Exo 40:9-11, and also sprinkled the blood of Aaron’s sin-offering upon the altar with his own hands, the high priest afterward performed the consecration of all the holy vessels used in the work of the Levitical priesthood. The author is right, therefore, in stating that practically all things were cleansed by blood according to the rite of the Old Testament, blood being the symbol or agency of purification. Water was used for cleansing only from certain pollutions. The conclusion, then, is fully justified that without blood-shedding there is no remission of sins. Thus it was in the Old Testament. The application for the new covenant is obvious, namely, that there is no salvation but through the sacrificial death of Christ. He gave His life for the life of the world, and thereby gained eternal life for the world.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Heb 9:18. Whereupon, neither the first testament, &c. Whence neither was the first covenant originally transacted, or made without blood.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 9:18 . ] wherefore, sc . because, according to Heb 9:16-17 , a becomes valid only through the intervention of death. To enclose Heb 9:16-17 within a parenthesis, and refer back to Heb 9:15 (Zachariae, Morus, Storr, Heinrichs, Conybeare, Bisping), is arbitrary.
] the augmenting: not even .
] the first, or Old Testament, sc . . Erroneously do Wetstein and Koppe (in Heinrichs) supplement .
] was inaugurated, i.e. introduced in a valid manner. The verb occurs in the N. T. only here and Heb 10:20 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 9:18-22 . The first also was not inaugurated without blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission under the Mosaic law.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Ver. 18. Was dedicated ] Or initiated to holy use, Lev 16:15-16 , .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
18 .] Whence ( , . Thl.) neither has the first ( , testament) been inaugurated (perf., inasmuch as the rites &c. belonging to it were still subsisting. is an Alexandrine verb: used in the LXX for to re-create or make anew: also for to put forth as new, to inaugurate : see reff., and numerous citations in Trommius. Notice that the reference is, here , simply to the first encnia of the law when it was put forth as new: not to any subsequent renewal of sacrifices by death: this is presently alluded to, Heb 9:21 ff. Thl. gives for , , . ) without (apart from, free from the exhibition of) blood .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Whereupon, &c. = Wherefore not even.
dedicated = inaugurated. Greek. erikainizo. Only here and Heb 10:20. Compare Joh 10:22.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
18.] Whence (, . Thl.) neither has the first (, testament) been inaugurated (perf., inasmuch as the rites &c. belonging to it were still subsisting. is an Alexandrine verb: used in the LXX for to re-create or make anew: also for to put forth as new, to inaugurate: see reff., and numerous citations in Trommius. Notice that the reference is, here, simply to the first encnia of the law when it was put forth as new: not to any subsequent renewal of sacrifices by death: this is presently alluded to, Heb 9:21 ff. Thl. gives for ,-, . ) without (apart from, free from the exhibition of) blood.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 9:18-22. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 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, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Under the law, some things were purified by fire or by water, but almost all things were purged with blood; and there was and still is, no remission of sin without shedding of blood.
Heb 9:23-26. 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. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
In every respect, our great High Priest was superior to the high priests under the law; though, in some points, they resembled him, and were types of him.
Heb 9:27-28. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
His one offering so fully met all the claims of divine justice on behalf of all his people that there was no need of another offering for sin, and no room for it, so his second coming will be without a sin offering unto salvation, as the passage may be rendered.
This exposition consisted of readings from Heb 9:18-28; and Heb 10:1-25.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Heb 9:18. , whence) The two words and differ; but yet they signify the same thing, in so far as both denote an agreement or an arrangement of that sort, which is ratified by blood. Where the agreement is ratified by the blood of another, viz. of animals, which cannot make a covenant, much less testify or make a testament, it is not properly , a testament; but yet , a covenant, is not very much different from the character (nature) of a testament, on account of the victims slain. Where the arrangement is ratified by the blood of him that makes the arrangement, i.e. by his death, it is properly , testament, which is also expressed by the Hebrew word , having (taken in) a wider signification. The particle , whence, ought not to be pressed too far, as if the Old Testament were also consecrated by the blood or death of the testator: but still it has its own proper force, in so far as it is intimated, that the New Testament, and therefore also the Old, needed to be dedicated with blood.-, was dedicated or initiated) So the LXX. express the Hebrew word . On the very day of initiation or dedication, the Old Testament most properly began, and it continued till the night and day when the Lord was betrayed and died.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
. . , , , , , . , .
, unde; hence, therefore. Syr., , propter hoc, quia, propter. For this cause. And hence it is, Arab. Syr., , was confirmed; dedicatum fuit, was dedicated, consecrated, separated unto sacred use.
. Syr., when the whole command was enjoined. Vulg. Lat., lecto omui mandato legis, the command of the law being read; taking and for the same. Arias, exposito secundum legem. Most, cum recitasset; having repeated, recited, namely, out of the book.
. The Syriac reads only , of an heifer; as the Arabic omits also, of goats; it may be in compliance with the story in Moses, without cause, as we shall see. is omitted in the Syriac.
Heb 9:18-22. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood. 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, saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry: and almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. What we have before observed is fully confirmed in this discourse, namely, that the apostle intended not to argue absolutely and precisely from the name and nature of a testament properly so called, and the use of it among men. For he makes use of these things no further but as unto what such a testament hath in common with a solemn covenant; which is, that they are both confirmed and ratified by death. Wherefore it was necessary that the new testament, as it was a testament, should be confirmed by death; and as it had the nature of a covenant, it was to be so by such a death as was accompanied by bloodshedding. The former was proved before, from the general nature and notion of a testament; the latter is here proved at large from the way and manner whereby the first covenant was confirmed or dedicated.
But the apostle in this discourse doth not intend merely to prove that the first covenant was dedicated with blood, which might have been despatched in a very few words; but he declares moreover, in general, what was the use of blood in sacrifices on all occasions under the law; whereby he demonstrates the use and efficacy of the blood of Christ, as unto all the ends of the new covenant. And the ends of the use of blood under the old testament he declares to have been two, namely, purification and pardon; both which are comprised in that one of the expiation of sin. And these things are all of them applied unto the blood and sacrifice of Christ in the following verses.
In the exposition of this context we must do three things:
1. Consider the difficulties that are in it.
2. Declare the scope, design, and force of the argument contained in it.
3. Explain the particular passages of the whole.
FIRST. Sundry difficulties there are in this context; which arise from hence, that the account which the apostle gives of the dedication of the first covenant and of the tabernacle seems to differ in sundry things from that given by Moses, when all things were actually done by him, as it is recorded, Exodus 24. And they are these that follow:
1. That the blood which Moses took was the blood of calves and goats, whereas there is no mention of any goats or their blood in the story of Moses.
2. That he took water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, to sprinkle it withal; whereas none of them are reported in that story.
3. That he sprinkled the book in particular; which Moses doth not affirm.
4. That he sprinkled all the people; that is, the people indefinitely, for all the individuals of them could not be sprinkled.
5. There are some differences in the words which Moses spake in the dedication of the covenant, as laid down verse 20.
6. That he sprinkled the tabernacle with blood, and all the vessels of it; when at the time of the making and solemn confirmation of the covenant the tabernacle was not erected, nor the vessels of its ministry yet made.
For the removal of these difficulties some things must be premised in general, and then they shall all of them be considered distinctly:
First, This is taken as fixed, that the apostle wrote this epistle by divine inspiration. Having evidence hereof abundantly satisfactory, it is the vainest thing imaginable, and that which discovers a frame of mind disposed to cavil at things divine, if from the difficulties of any one passage we should reflect on the authority of the whole, as some have done on this occasion. But I shall say with some confidence, he never understood any one chapter of the epistle, nay, nor any one verse of it aright, who did or doth question its divine original. There is nothing human in it, that savors, I mean, of human infirmity, but the whole and every part of it is animated by the wisdom and authority of its Author. And those who have pretended to be otherwise minded on such slight occasions as that before us, have but proclaimed their own want of experience in things divine. But,
Secondly, There is nothing, in all that is here affirmed by the apostle, which hath the least appearance of contradiction unto any thing that is recorded by Moses in the story of these things; yea, as I shall show, without the consideration and addition of the things here mentioned by the apostle, we cannot aright apprehend nor understand the account that is given by him. This will be made evident in the consideration of the particulars, wherein the difference between them is supposed to consist.
Thirdly, The apostle doth not take his account of the things here put together by him from any one place in Moses, but gathers up what is declared in the Law, in several places unto various ends. For, as hath been declared, he doth not design only to prove the dedication of the covenant by blood, but to show also the whole use of blood under the law, as unto purification and remission of sin. And this he doth to declare the virtue and efficacy of the blood of Christ under the new testament, whereunto he makes an application of all these things in the verses ensuing. Wherefore he gathers into one head sundry things wherein the sprinkling of blood was of use under the law, as they are occasionally expressed in sundry places. And this one observation removes all the difficulties of the context; which all arise from this one supposition, that the apostle gives here an account only of what was done at the dedication of the first covenant. So, in particular, by the addition of those particles, , Heb 9:21, which we well render moreover, he plainly intimates that what he affirms of the tabernacle and the vessels of its ministry was that which was done afterwards, at another time, and not when the covenant was first confirmed.
On these grounds we shall see that the account given of these things by the apostle is a necessary exposition of the record made of them by Moses, and no more.
1. He affirms that Moses took the blood , of calves and goats, And there is a double difficulty herein: for,
(1.) The blood that Moses so used was the blood of oxen, Exo 24:5; which seems not to be well rendered by , of calves. But this hath no weight in it. For , the word there used, signifies all cattle of the herd, great and small, every thing that is generis bovini. And there is no necessity from the words that we should render there by oxen, nor here by calves; we might have rendered both words by bullocks. But,
(2.) There is no mention at all of goats in the story of Moses; and, as we observed, it is here omitted by the Syriac translator, but without cause.
Ans. [1.] There were two sorts of offerings that were made on this occasion;
1st, Burnt-offerings;
2dly, Peace-offerings: Exo 24:5, They offered burnt- offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings.
The distinct expression of them proves the offerings to have been distinct: , they offered burnt-offerings, and they sacrificed, or slew peace-offerings. And as for the peace-offerings, it is said that they were of bullocks or oxen; but it is not said of what sort the burnt-offerings were. Yea, and it may be that although bullocks only are mentioned, yet that goats also were sacrificed in this peace-offering; for it is so far from being true what Ribera observes on the place, that a goat was never offered for a peace-offering, that the contrary unto it is directly expressed in the institution of the peace-offering, Lev 3:12. Wherefore the blood of goats might be used in the peace-offering, though it be not mentioned by Moses. But,
[2.] The apostle observes, that one end of the sacrifice at the dedication of the first covenant was purging and making atonement, Heb 9:22-23; for in all solemn sacrifices blood was sprinkled on the holy things, to purify them and make atonement for them, Lev 16:14; Lev 16:19-20. Now this was not to be done but by the blood of an expiatory sacrifice; it was not to be done by the blood of peace-offerings. Wherefore the burnt-offerings mentioned by Moses were expiatory sacrifices, to purge and make atonement. And this sacrifice was principally of goats, Lev 16:9. Wherefore the text of Moses cannot be well understood without this exposition of the apostle. And we may add hereunto, also, that although the blood of the peace-offering was sprinkled on the altar, Lev 3:13, yet was it not sprinkled on the people, as this blood was; wherefore there was the use of the blood of goats also, as a sin-offering, in this great sacrifice.
[3.] In the dedication of the priests these two sorts of offerings were conjoined, namely, peace-offerings and sin-offerings, or burnt-offerings for sin, as here they were. And therein expressly the blood of goats was used, namely, in the sin-offering, as the blood of bullocks was in the peace- offering, Lev 9:3-4. Neither is there mention anywhere of burnt- offerings or sin-offerings and peace-offerings to be offered together, but that one of them was of goats; and therefore was so infallibly at this time, as the apostle declares.
2. It is affirmed in the text, that he took the blood with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled it; but there is mention of none of these things in the story of Moses, but only that he sprinkled the blood. But the answer hereunto is plain and easy. Blood under the law was sprinkled either in less or greater quantities. Hereon there were two ways of sprinkling. The one was with the finger; when a small quantity of blood, it may be, some few drops of it, were to be sprinkled, it was done with the finger, Lev 8:15; Lev 16:14. The quantity being small, though the blood were unmixed, and almost congealed, it might be so sprinkled. But there was a sprinkling whereunto a greater proportion of blood was required; as namely, when a house was to be sprinkled, and thereby purified. This was done by mixing running water with the blood, and then sprinkling it with scarlet wool and hyssop, Lev 14:50-52. For these things were needful thereunto. The water prevented the blood from being so congealed as that it could not be sprinkled in any quantity; the scarlet wool took up a quantity of it out of the vessel wherein it was; and the bunch of hyssop was the sprinkler. Whereupon, when Moses sprinkled the altar, book, and people, he did it ,by one of these two ways, for other there was none. The first way he could not do it, namely, with his finger, because it was to be done in a great quantity; for Moses took that half of it that was to be sprinkled on the people and put it into basins, Exo 24:6; Exo 24:8. It was therefore infallibly done this latter way, according as our apostle declares.
3. It is added by the apostle that he sprinkled the book; which is not expressed in the story. But the design of the apostle is to express at large the whole solemnity of the confirmation of the first covenant, especially not to omit any thing that blood was applied unto; because in the application he refers the purification and dedication of all things belonging unto the new covenant unto the blood of Christ. And this was the order of the things which concerned the book: Moses coming down from the mount, told the people by word of mouth all things which God had spoken unto him, or the sum and substance of the covenant which he would make with them: Exo 24:3, And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, that is, the words spoken on mount Sinai, the ten commandments; and all the judgments, that is, all the laws contained in Exodus 21-23, with this title, , These are the judgments, Exo 21:1. Upon the oral rehearsal of these words and judgments, the people gave their consent unto the terms of the covenant:
All the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said, will we do, Exo 24:3. Hereon Moses made a record, or wrote all the words of the LORD in a book, Exo 24:4. This being done, the altar and pillars were prepared, Exo 24:4. And it is evident that the book which he had written was laid on the altar, though it be not expressed. When this was done, he sprinkled the blood on the altar, Exo 24:6. After which, when the book had been sprinkled with blood as it lay on the altar, it is said, He took the book, that is, from off the altar, and read in the audience of the people, Exo 24:7. The book being now sprinkled with blood, as the instrument and record of the covenant between God and the people, the very same words which were before spoken unto the people are now recited or read out of the book. And this could be done for no other reason, but that the book itself, being now sprinkled with the blood of the covenant, was dedicated to be the sacred record thereof.
4. In the text of Moses it is said that he sprinkled the people; in explanation whereof the apostle affirms that he sprinkled all the people. And it was necessary that so it should be, and that none of them should be excluded from this sprinkling; for they were all taken into covenant with God, men, women, and children. But it must be granted, that for the blood to be actually sprinkled on all individuals in such a numberless multitude is next unto what is naturally impossible: wherefore it was done in their representatives; and what is done towards representatives as such, is done equally towards all whom they do represent. And the whole people had two representatives that day:
(1.) The twelve pillars of stone, that were set up to represent their twelve tribes; and, it may be, to signify their hard and stony heart under that covenant, Exo 24:4. Whereas those pillars were placed close by the altar, some suppose that they were sprinkled, as representing the twelve tribes.
(2.) There were the heads of their tribes, the chief of the houses of their fathers, and the elders, who drew nigh unto Moses, and were sprinkled with blood in the name and place of all the people, who were that day taken into covenant.
5. The words which Moses spake unto the people upon the sprinkling of the blood are not absolutely the same in the story and in the repetition of it by the apostle. But this is usual with him in all his quotations out of the Old Testament in this epistle. He expresseth the true sense of them, but doth not curiously and precisely render the sense of every word and syllable in them.
6. The last difficulty in this context, and that which hath an appearance of the greatest, is in what the apostle affirms concerning the tabernacle and all the vessels of it; namely, that Moses sprinkled them all with blood. And the time which he seems to speak of, is that of the dedication of the first covenant. Hence a twofold difficulty doth arise; first, as unto the time; and secondly, as unto the thing itself. For at the time of the dedication of the first covenant, the tabernacle was not yet made or erected, and so could not then be sprinkled with blood. And afterwards, when the tabernacle was erected, and all the vessels brought into it, there is no mention that either it or any of them was sprinkled with blood, but only anointed with the holy oil, Exo 40:9-11. Wherefore, as unto the first, I say the apostle doth plainly distinguish what he affirms of the tabernacle from the time of the dedication of the first covenant. The manner of his introduction of it, , And moreover the tabernacle, doth plainly intimate a progress unto another time and occasion. Wherefore the words of Exo 40:21, concerning the sprinkling of the tabernacle and its vessels, do relate unto what follows, Exo 40:22, and almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and not unto those that precede, about the dedication of the first covenant: for the argument he hath in hand is not confined unto the use of blood only in that dedication, but respects the whole use of the blood of sacrifices under the law; which in these words he proceeds unto, and closeth in the next verse. And this wholly removes the first difficulty. And as unto the second, expositors generally answer, that aspersion or sprinkling with blood did commonly precede unction with the holy oil. And as unto the garments of the priests, which were the vessels or utensils of the tabernacle, it was appointed that they should be sprinkled with blood, Exo 29:21; and so it may be supposed that the residue of them were also. But to me this is not satisfactory. And be it spoken without offense, expositors have generally mistaken the nature of the argument of the apostle in these words. For he argues not only from the first dedication of the tabernacle and its vessels, which, for aught appears, was by unction only, but making, as we observed before, a progress unto the further use of the blood of sacrifices in purging, according to the law, he giveth an instance in what was done with respect unto the tabernacle and all its vessels, and that constantly and solemnly every year; and this he doth to prove his general assertion in the next verse, that under the law almost all things were purged with blood. And Moses is here said to do what he appointed should be done. By his institution, that is, the institution of the law, the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were sprinkled with blood. And this was done solemnly once every year; an account whereof is given, Lev 16:14-16; Lev 16:18-20. On the solemn day of atonement, the high priest was to sprinkle the mercy-seat, the altar, and the whole tabernacle with blood, to make an atonement for them, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, the tabernacle remaining among them in the midst of their uncleanness, Lev 16:16. This he takes notice of, not to prove the dedication of the first covenant and what belonged thereunto with blood, but the use of blood in general to make atonement, and the impossibility of expiation and pardon without it. This is the design and sense of the apostle, and no other. Wherefore we may conclude, that the account here given concerning the dedication of the first covenant, and the use of blood for purification under the law, is so far from containing any thing opposite unto or discrepant from the records of Moses concerning the same things, that it gives us a full and clear exposition of them.
SECONDLY. The second thing to be considered, is the nature of the argument in this context; and there are three things in it, neither of which must be omitted in the exposition of the words.
He designeth,
1. To prove yet further the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the mediator of the new testament, both as it had the nature of a testament and that also of a solemn covenant.
2. To declare the necessity of the kind of his death, in the way of a sacrifice by the effusion of blood; because the testament, as it had the nature of a solemn covenant, was confirmed and ratified thereby.
3. To manifest the necessity of shedding of blood in the confirmation of the covenant, because of the expiation, purging, and pardon of sin thereby. How these things are proved, we shall see in the exposition of the words.
THIRDLY, There are in the words themselves,
1. A proposition of the principal truth asserted, Heb 9:18.
2. The confirmation of that proposition: which is twofold;
(1.) From what Moses did, Heb 9:19;
(2.) From what he said, Heb 9:20.
3. A further illustration of the same truth, by other instances, Heb 9:21.
4. A general inference or conclusion from the whole, comprising the substance of what he intended to demonstrate, Heb 9:22. In the proposition there are five things considerable:
1. A note of introduction; whereupon.
2. The quality of the proposition, it is negative; neither was.
3. The subject spoken of; the first.
4. What is affirmed of it; it was dedicated.
5. The way and manner thereof; it was not without blood.
1. The note of introduction is in the particle , which the apostle frequently makes use of in this epistle, as a note of inference in those discourses which are argumentative. We render it by therefore, and wherefore; here, whereupon. For it intimates a confirmation of a general rule by especial instances. He had before laid it down as a general maxim, that a testament was to be confirmed by death. For thereupon the first testament was confirmed with the blood of sacrifices shed in their death. Wherefore let not any think it strange that the new testament was confirmed by the death of the testator; for this is so necessary, that even in the confirmation of the first there was that which was analogous unto it. And moreover, it was death in such a way as was required unto the confirmation of a solemn covenant.
2. The proposition hath a double negative in it, , and , neither was it without blood; that is, it was with blood, and could not otherwise be.
3. The subject spoken of is , the first; that is , testament, or covenant. And herein the apostle declares what he precisely intended by the first or old covenant, whereof he discoursed at large, Hebrews 8. It was the covenant made with the people at Horeb; for that and no other was dedicated in the way here described. And, to take a brief prospect into this covenant, the things ensuing may be observed:
(1.) The matter of it, or the terms of it materially considered, before it had the formal nature of a covenant. And these were all the things that were written in the book before it was laid on the altar; namely, it was that epitome of the whole law which is contained in chapters 20-23, of Exodus And other commands and institutions that were given afterwards belonged unto this covenant reductively. The substance of it was contained in the book then written.
(2.) The manner of the revelation of these terms of the covenant. Being proposed on the part of God, and the terms of it being entirely of his choosing and proposal, he was to reveal, declare, and make them known. And this he did two ways:
[1.] As unto the foundation and substance of the whole in the decalogue. He spake it himself on the mount, in the way and manner declared, Exodus 19, 20.
[2.] As unto the following judgments, statutes, and rites, directive of their walking before God, according to the former fundamental rule of the covenant. These he declared by revelation unto Moses; and they are contained in chapters 21-23.
(3.) The manner of its proposal. And this also was twofold:
[1.] Preparatory. For before the solemn covenanting between God and the people, Moses declared all the matter of it unto the people, that they might consider well of it, and whether they would consent to enter into covenant with God on those terms; whereon they gave their approbation of them.
[2.] Solemn, in their actual and absolute acceptance of it, whereby they became obliged throughout their generations. This was on the reading of it out of the book, after it was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant on the altar, Exo 24:7.
(4.) The author of this covenant was God himself: The covenant which the Load hath made with you, verse 8. And immediately after, he is thereon called the God of Israel, verse 10; which is the first time he was called so, and it was by virtue of this covenant. And the pledge or token of his presence, as covenanting, was the altar, the altar of Jehovah; as there was a representative pledge of the presence of the people in the twelve pillars or statues.
(5.) Those with whom this covenant was made were the people; that is, all the people, as the apostle speaks, none exempted or excluded. It was made with the men, and women, and children, Deu 31:12; even all on whom was the blood of the covenant, as it was on the women; or the token of the covenant, as it was on the male children in circumcision; or both, as in all the men of Israel.
(6.) The manner on the part of the people of entering into covenant with God, was in two acts before mentioned:
[1.] In a previous approbation of the matter of it;
[2.] In a solemn engagement into it. And this was the foundation of the church of Israel.
This is that covenant whereof there is afterwards in the Scripture such frequent mention, between God and that people, the sole foundation of all especial relation between him and them. For they took the observation of its terms on themselves for their posterity in all generations, until the end should be. On their obedience hereunto, or neglect hereof, depended their life or death in the land of Canaan. No farther did the precepts and promises of it in itself extend. But whereas it did not disannul the promise that was made unto Abraham, and confirmed with the oath of God, four hundred years before, and had annexed unto it many institutions and ordinances prefigurative and significant of heavenly things, the people under it had a right unto, and directions for the attaining of an eternal inheritance. And something we may hence observe.
Obs. 1. The foundation of a church-state among any people, wherein God is to be honored in ordinances of instituted worship, is laid in a solemn covenant between him and them. So it was with this church of Israel. Before this they served God in their families, by virtue of the promise made unto Abraham, but now the whole people were gathered into a church-state, to worship him according to the terms, institutions, and ordinances of the covenant. Nor doth God oblige any unto instituted worship but by virtue of a covenant. Unto natural worship and obedience we are all obliged, by virtue of the law of creation and what belongs thereunto. And God may, by a mere act of sovereignty, prescribe unto us the observation of what rites and ordinances in divine service he pleaseth. But he will have all our obedience to be voluntary, and all our service to be reasonable. Wherefore, although the prescription of such rites be an act of sovereign pleasure, yet God will not oblige us unto the observance of them but by virtue of a covenant between him and us, wherein we voluntarily consent unto and accept of the terms of it, whereby those ordinances of worship are prescribed unto us, And it will hence follow,
(1.) That men mistake themselves, when they suppose that they are interested in a church-state by tradition, custom, or as it were by chance, they know not how. There is nothing but covenanting with God that will instate us in this privilege. And therein we do take upon ourselves the observance of all the terms of the new covenant. And they are of two sorts:
[1.] Internal and moral, in faith, repentance, and obedience;
[2.] Such as concern the external worship of the gospel, in the ordinances and institutions of it.
Without such a covenant formally or virtually made, there can be no church-state. I speak not at all of any such covenants as men may make or have made among themselves, and with God, upon a mixture of things sacred, civil and political, with such sanctions as they find out and agree upon among themselves. For whatever may be the nature, use, or end of such covenants, they no way belong unto that concerning which we treat. For no terms are to be brought hereinto but such as belong directly unto the obedience and ordinances of the new testament. Nor was there any thing to be added unto or taken from the express terms of the old covenant. whereby the church-state of Israel was constituted And this was the entire rule of Gods dealing with them. The only question concerning them was, whether they had kept the terms of the covenant or no. And when things fell into disorder among them, as they did frequently, as the sum of Gods charge against them was that they had broken his covenant, so the reformation of things attempted by their godly kings before, and others after the captivity, was by inducing the people to renew this covenant, without any addition, alteration, or mixture of things of another nature.
(2.) That so much disorder in the worship of God under the gospel hath entered into many churches, and that there is so much negligence in all sorts of persons about the observance of evangelical institutions, so little conscientious care about them, or reverence in the use of them, or benefit received by them; it is all much from hence, that men understand not aright the foundation of that obedience unto God which is required in them and by them. This, indeed, is no other but that solemn covenant between God and the whole church, wherein the church takes upon itself their due observance. This renders our obedience in them and by them no less necessary than any duties of moral obedience whatever. But this being not considered as it ought, men have used their supposed liberty, or rather, fallen into great licentiousness in the use of them, and few have that conscientious regard unto them which it is their duty to have.
Obs. 2. Approbation of the terms of the covenant, consent unto them, and solemn acceptance of them, are required on our part, unto the establishment of any covenant between God and us. and our participation of the benefits of it. Thus solemnly did the people here enter into covenant with God, whereby a peculiar relation was established between him and them. The mere proposal of the covenant and the terms of it unto us, which is done in the preaching of the gospel, will not make us partakers of any of the grace or benefits of it. Yet this is that which most content themselves withal. It may be they proceed to the performance of some of the duties which are required therein; but this answers not the design and way of God in dealing with men. When he hath proposed the terms of his covenant unto them, he doth neither compel them to accept of them nor will be satisfied with such an obedience. He requires that upon a due consideration of them, we do approve of them, as those which answer his infinite wisdom and goodness, and such as are of eternal advantage unto us; that they are all equal, holy, righteous, and good. Hereon he requires that we voluntarily choose and consent unto them, engaging ourselves solemnly unto the performance of them all and every one. This is required of us, if we intend any interest in the grace and glory prepared in the new covenant.
Obs. 3. It has been the way of God from the beginning, to take children of covenanters into the same covenant with their parents. So he dealt with this people in the estabhsnment of the first covenant; and he hath made no alteration herein in the establishment of the second. But we must proceed with the exposition of the words.
4. Of this covenant it is affirmed, that it was consecrated with blood, or was not dedicated without blood. is solemnly to separate any thing unto a sacred use. is the same in Hebrew. But it is not the sanction of the covenant absolutely that the apostle intends in this expression, but the use of it. The covenant had its sanction, and was confirmed on the part of God, in offering of the sacrifices. In the killing of the beasts, and offering of their blood. did the ratification of the covenant consist. This is included and supposed in what is signified by the dedication of it. But this is not an effect of the shedding and offering of blood, but only of the sprinkling of it on the book and the people. Thereby had it its , its consecration or dedication unto sacred use, as the instrument of the peculiar church relation between God and that people, whereof the book was the record. So was every thing consecrated unto its proper use under the law, as the apostle declares. This, therefore, is the meaning of the words: That first covenant, which God made with the people at mount Sinai, wherein he became their God, the God of Israel, and they became his people, was dedicated unto sacred use by blood, in that it was sprinkled on the book and the people, after part of the same blood had been offered in sacrifice at the altar.Hence it follows that this, which belongs so essentially unto the solemn dedication and confirmation of a covenant between God and the church, was necessary also unto the dedication and confirmation of the new covenant, which is that which is to be proved.
Obs. 4. It is by the authority of God alone that any thing can be effectually and unchangeably dedicated unto sacred use, so as to have force and efficacy given unto it thereby. But this dedication may be made by virtue of a general rule, as well as by an especial command.
5. The assertion of the apostle concerning the dedication of the first covenant with blood is confirmed by an account of the matter of fact, or,
First, What Moses did therein, Heb 9:19.
Heb 9:19. 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.
There are two things considerable in the words:
1. The person made use of in the dedication of the covenant; which was Moses.
2. What he did therein; which is referred unto two heads:
(1.) His speaking or reading the terms of the covenant, every precept out of the book;
(2.) His sprinkling of the book and people with blood.
1. Moses was the internuncius between God and the people in this great transaction. On Gods part he was immediately called unto this employment, Exodus 3. And on the part of the people he was chosen, and desired by them to transact all things between God and them, in the making and confirmation of this covenant; because they were not able to bear the effects of Gods immediate presence, Exo 20:19; Deu 5:22-27. And this choice of a spokesman on their part God did approve of, verse 28. Hence he became in a general sense a , a mediator between God and men, in the giving of the law, Gal 3:19. Whatever, therefore, was done by Moses in this whole affair of the dedication of the covenant, on the part of God or of the people, was firm and unalterable, he being a public person authorized unto this work. And,
Obs. 1. There can be no covenant between God and men but in the hand or by virtue of a mediator. The first covenant, in the state of innocency, was immediately between God and man. But since the entrance of sin it can be so no more. For,
(1.) Man hath neither meetness nor confidence to treat immediately with God. Nor,
(2.) Any credit or reputation with him, so as to be admitted as an undertaker in his own person. Nor,
(3.) Any ability to perform the conditions of any covenant with God.
Obs. 2. A mediator may be either only an internuncius, a messenger, a daysman; or also a surety and an undertaker. Of the first sort was the mediator of the old covenant; of the latter, that of the new.
Obs. 3. None can interpose between God and a people in any sacred office, unless he be called of God and approved of the people, as was Moses.
2. That which Moses did in this affair was first in way of preparation. And there are three things in the account of it:
(1.) What he did precisely.
(2.) With respect unto whom.
(3.) According to what rule or order he did it:
(1.) He spake every precept. Vulg. Lat., lecto omni mandato, having read every command; which is the sense intended. is as much in this place as recited. So it is rendered by most translators, cum recitasset; that is, when he had read in the book. For his first speaking unto the people, Exo 24:3, is not here intended, but his reading in the audience of the people, Exo 24:7. He spake what he read, that is, audibly; so it is in the story, He read it in the audience of the people, so as that they might hear and understand. It is added by the apostle, that he thus read, spake, recited every precept or command. He took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people, saith the text; that is, the whole book, and all that was contained in it, or every precept. And the whole is reduced by the apostle unto precepts, It was , Eph 2:15; a law, a system of precepts. And it is so called to intimate the nature of that covenant. It consisted principally in precepts or commandments of obedience, promising no assistance for the performance of them. The new covenant is of another nature; it is a covenant of promises. And although it hath precepts also requiring obedience, yet is it wholly founded in the promise, whereby strength and assistance for the performance of that obedience are given unto us. And the apostle doth well observe that Moses read every precept unto all the people; for all the good things they were to receive by virtue of that covenant depended on the observation of every precept. For a curse was denounced against every one that continued not in all things written in the book of the law to do them, Deu 27:26; Gal 3:10.And we may observe,
Obs. 4. A covenant that consisted in mere precepts, without an exhibition of spiritual strength to enable unto obedience, could never save sinners. The insufficiency of this covenant unto that end is that which the apostle designs to prove in all this discourse. But thereon a double inquiry may be made:
[1.] Why God gave this covenant, which was so insufficient unto this great end? This question is proposed and answered by the apostle, Gal 3:19.
[2.] How then did any of the people yield obedience unto God, if the covenant exhibited no aid or assistance unto it? The apostle answereth in the same place, that they received it by faith in the promise, which was given before, and not disannulled by this covenant.
Obs. 5. In all our dealings with God respect must be had unto every one of his precepts. And the reason hereof is given by the apostle James, namely, that the authority of God is the same in every one of them, and so may be despised in the neglect of the least as well as of the greatest, Jas 2:10-11.
(2.) To whom did Moses thus read every precept? It was, saith the apostle, to all the people. In the story it is said indefinitely, In the audience of the people; as afterwards, He sprinkled the people. The apostle adds the note of universality in both places; all the people. For whereas these things were transacted with the representatives of the people, (for it was naturally impossible that the one-half of the individuals of them should hear Moses reading,) they were all equally concerned in what was said and done. Yet I do believe, that after Moses first told the people, that is, the elders of them, all the words of the LORD, Exo 24:3, there were means used by the elders and officers to communicate the things, yea, to repeat the words unto all the people, that they might be enabled to give their rational consent unto them. And we may observe,
Obs. 6. The first eminent use of the writing of the book of the law, (that is, of any part of the Scripture, for this book was the first that was written,) was, that it might be read unto the people. He gave not this book to be shut up .by the priests; to be concealed from the people, as containing mysteries unlawful to be divulged, or impossible to be understood. Such conceits befell not the minds of men, until the power and ends of religion being lost, some got an opportunity to order the concerns of it unto their own worldly interest and advantage.
Obs. 7. This book was both written and read in the language which the people understood and commonly spake. And a rule was herein prescribed unto the church in all ages; if so be the example of the wisdom and care of God towards his church may be a rule unto us.
Obs. 8. God never required the observance of any rites or duties of worship without a previous warranty from his word. The people took not on them, they were not obliged unto obedience, with respect unto any positive institutions, until Moses had read unto them every precept out of the book.
Obs. 9. The writing of this book was an eminent privilege, now first granted unto the church, leading unto a more perfect and stable condition than formerly it had enjoyed. Hitherto it had lived on oral instructions, from traditions, and by new immediate revelations; the evident defects whereof were now removed, and a standard of divine truth and instruction set up and fixed among them.
(3.) There is the rule whereby Moses proceeded herein, or the warranty he had for what he did: According unto the law. He read every precept according to the law. It cannot be the law in general that the apostle intends, for the greatest part of that doctrine which is so called was not yet given or written; nor doth it in any place contain any precept unto this purpose. Wherefore it is a particular law, rule, or command, that is intended; according unto the ordinance or appointment of God. Such was the command that God gave unto Moses for the framing of the tabernacle: See thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount. Particularly, it seems to be the agreement between God and the people, that Moses should be the internuncius, the interpreter between them. According unto this rule, order, or divine constitution, Moses read all the words from God out of the book unto the people. Or it may be, the law may here be taken for the whole design of God in giving of the law; so as that according unto the law, is no more but, according unto the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God in giving of the law, with all things that belong unto its order and use. And it is good for us to look for Gods especial warranty for what we undertake to do in his service.
The second thing in the words is, what Moses did immediately and directly towards the dedication or consecration of this covenant. And there are three things to this purpose mentioned:
(1.) What he made use of.
(2.) How he used it.
(3.) With respect unto what and whom:
(1.) The first is expressed in these words: He took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop. He took the blood of the beasts that were offered for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, Exo 24:5-6; Exo 24:8. Unto this end, in their slaying he took all their blood in basins, and made an equal division of it. The one half he sprinkled on the altar, and the other half he sprinkled on the people. That which was sprinkled on the altar was Gods part; and the other was put on the people. Both the mutual stipulation of God and the congregation in this covenant, and the equality of it, or the equity of its terms, were denoted hereby. And herein lies the principal force of the apostles argument in these words: Blood was used in the dedication of the first covenant. This was the blood of the beasts offered in sacrifice unto God. Wherefore both death, and death by blood-shedding, was required unto the confirmation of a covenant So also, therefore, must the new covenant be confirmed; but with blood and a sacrifice far more precious than they were.
This distribution of blood, that half of it was on the altar, and half of it on the people, the one to make atonement, the other to purify or sanctify, was to teach the twofold efficacy of the blood of Christ, in making atonement for sin unto our justification, and the purifying of our natures in sanctification.
(2.) With this blood he took the things mentioned with respect unto its use, which was sprinkling. The manner of it was in part declared before. The blood being put into basons, and having water mixed with it to keep it fluid and aspersible, he took a bunch or bundle of hyssop bound up with scarlet wool, and dipping it into the basons, sprinkled the blood, until it was all spent in that service.
This rite or way of sprinkling was chosen of God as an expressive token or sign of the effectual communication of the benefits of the covenant unto them that were sprinkled. Hence the communication of the benefits of the death of Christ unto sanctification is called the sprinkling of his blood, 1Pe 1:2. And our apostle compriseth all the effects of it unto that end under the name of the blood of sprinkling, Heb 12:24 And I fear that those who have used the expression with some contempt, when applied by themselves unto the sign of the communication of the benefits of the death of Christ in baptism, have not observed that reverence of holy things that is required of us. For this symbol of sprinkling was that which God himself chose and appointed, as a meet and apt token of the communication of covenant mercy; that is, of his grace in Christ Jesus unto our souls. And,
Obs. 10. The blood of the covenant will not benefit or advantage us without an especial and particular application of it unto our own souls and consciences. If it be not as welt sprinkled upon us as it was offered unto God, it will not avail us. The blood of Christ was not divided, as was that of these sacrifices, the one half being on the altar, the other on the people; but the efficacy of the whole produced both these effects, yet so, as that the one will not profit us without the other. We shall have no benefit el the atonement made at the altar, unless we have its efficacy on our own souls unto their purification. And this we cannot have unless it be sprinkled on us, unless particular application be made of it unto us by the Holy Ghost, in and by an especial act of faith in ourselves.
(3.) The object of this act of sprinkling was the book itself and all the people. The same blood was on the book wherein the covenant was recorded, and the people that entered into it. But whereas this sprinkling was for purifying and purging, it may be inquired unto what end the book itself was sprinkled, which was holy and undefiled. I answer, There were two things necessary unto the dedication of the covenant, with all that belonged unto it:
[1.] Atonement;
[2.] Purification. And in both these respects it was necessary that the book itself should be sprinkled.
[1.] As we observed before, it was sprinkled as it lay upon the altar, where atonement was made. And this was plainly to signify that atonement was to be made by blood for sins committed against that book, or the law contained in it. Without this, that book would have been unto the people like that given to Ezekiel, that was written within and without; and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe, Eze 2:10. Nothing but curse and death could they expect from it. But the sprinkling of it with blood as it lay upon the altar was a testimony and assurance that atonement should be made by blood for the sins against it; which was the life of the things.
[2.] The book in itself was pure and holy, and so are all Gods institutions; but unto us every thing is unclean that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. So afterwards the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were purified every year with blood, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, Lev 16:16. Wherefore on both these accounts it was necessary that the book itself should be sprinkled.
The blood thus sprinkled was mingled with water. The natural reason of it was, as we observed, to keep it fluid and aspersible. But there was a mystery in it also. That the blood of Christ was typified by this blood of the sacrifices used in the dedication of the old covenant, it is the apostles design to declare. And it is probable that this mixture of it with water might represent that blood and water which came out of his side when it was pierced. For the mystery thereof was very great. Hence that apostle which saw it, and bare record of it in particular, Joh 19:34-35, affirms likewise that he came by water and blood, and not by blood only, 1Jn 5:6. He came not only to make atonement for us with his blood, that we might be justified, but to sprinkle us with the efficacy of his blood, in the communication of the Spirit of sanctification, compared unto water.
For the sprinkler itself, composed of scarlet wool and hyssop, I doubt not but that the human nature of Christ, whereby and through which all grace is communicated unto us, (for of his fullness we receive, and grace for grace,) was signified by it; but the analogy and similitude between them are not so evident as they are with respect unto some other types. The hyssop was a humble plant, the meanest of them, yet of a sweet savor, 1Ki 4:33; so was the Lord Christ amongst men in the days of his flesh, in comparison of the tall cedars of the earth. Hence was his complaint, that he was as a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people, Psa 22:6. And the scarlet wool might represent him as red in the blood of his sacrifice. But I will not press these things, of whose interpretation we have not a certain rule.
Secondly, The principal truth asserted is confirmed by what Moses said, as well as what he did:
Heb 9:20. Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
The difference between the words of Moses and the repetition of them by the apostle is not material, as unto the sense of them. , behold, in Moses, is rendered by , this; both demonstrative notes of the same thing. For in pronouncing of the words Moses showed the blood unto the people; and so, Behold the blood, is all one as if he had said, This is the blood. The making of the covenant in the words of Moses is expressed by , hath cut, divided, solemnly made. This the apostle renders by hath enjoined or commanded you. And this he doth partly to signify the foundation of the peoples acceptance of that covenant, which was the authority of God enjoining them or requiring them so to do; partly to intimate the nature of the covenant itself, which consisted in precepts and injunctions principally, and not absolutely in promises, as the new covenant doth. The last words of Moses, Concerning all these words, the apostle omits; for he includes the sense of them in that word, Which God hath commanded you. For he hath respect therein both unto the words themselves written in the book, which were precepts and injunctions, as also the command of God for the acceptance of the covenant.
That which Moses said is, This is the blood of the testament. Hence the apostle proves that death, and the shedding of blood therein, was necessary unto the consecration and establishment of the first testament. For so Moses expressly affirms in the dedication of it, This is the blood of the covenant; without which it could not have been a firm covenant between God and the people. Not, I confess, from the nature of a covenant in general, for a covenant may be solemnly established without death or blood; but from the especial end of that covenant, which in the confirmation of it was to prefigure the confirmation of that new covenant which could not be established but with the blood of a sacrifice. And this adds both force and evidence unto the apostles argument. For he proves the necessity of the death and blood-shedding or sacrifice of Christ in the confirmation of the new covenant from hence, that the old covenant, which in the dedication of it was prefigurative hereof, was not confirmed without blood. Wherefore, whereas God had solemnly promised to make a new covenant with the church, and that different from, or not according unto the old (which he had proved in the foregoing chapter), it follows unavoidably that it was to be confirmed with the blood of the mediator (for by the blood of beasts it could not be); which is that truth wherein he did instruct them. And nothing was more cogent to take off the scandal of the cross and of the sufferings of Christ.
For the enunciation itself, This is the blood of the covenant, it is figurative and sacramental. The covenant had no blood of its own; but the blood of the sacrifices is called the blood of the covenant, because the covenant was dedicated and established by it. Neither was the covenant really established by it; for it was the truth of God on the one hand, and the stability of the people in their professed obedience on the other, that the establishment of the covenant depended on. But this blood was a confirmatory sign of it, a token between God and the people of their mutual engagement in that covenant. So the paschal lamb was called the LORDS passover, because it was a sign and token of Gods passing over the houses of the Israelites when he destroyed the Egyptians, Exo 12:11-12. With reference it was unto those sacramental expressions which the church under the old testament was accustomed unto, that our Lord Jesus Christ, in the institution of the sacrament of the supper, called the bread and the wine, whose use he appointed therein, by the names of his body and blood; and any other interpretation of the words wholly overthrows the nature of that holy ordinance.
Wherefore this blood was a confirmatory sign of the covenant. And it was so,
1. From Gods institution; he appointed it so to be, as is express in the words of Moses.
2. From an implication of the interest of both parties in the blood of the sacrifice; God, unto whom it was offered; and the people, on whom it was sprinkled. For it being the blood of beasts that were slain, in this use of it each party as it were engaged their lives unto the observation and performance of what was respectively undertaken by them.
3. Typically, in that it represented the blood of Christ, and fore-signified the necessity of it unto the confirmation of the new covenant. See Zec 9:11; Mat 26:28; Luk 22:20; 1Co 11:25. So was it the blood of the covenant, in that it was a sign between God and the people of their mutual consent unto it, and their taking on themselves the performance of the terms of it, on the one side and the other.
Obs. 11. The condescension of God in making a covenant with men, especially in the ways of the confirmation of it, is a blessed object of all holy admiration. For,
1. The infinite distance and disproportion that is between him and us, both in nature and state or condition;
2. The ends of this covenant, which are all unto our eternal advantage, he standing in no need of us or our obedience; 3. The obligation that he takes upon himself unto the performance of the terms of it, whereas he might righteously deal with us in a way of mere sovereignty;
4. The nature of the assurance he gives us thereof, by the blood of the sacrifice, confirmed with his oath; do all set forth the ineffable glory of this condescension. And this will at length be made manifest in the eternal blessedness of them by whom this covenant is embraced, and the eternal misery of them by whom it is refused.
The apostle having given this full confirmation unto his principal assertion, he adds, for the illustration of it, the use and efficacy of blood, that is, the blood of sacrifices, unto purification and atonement.
Heb 9:21. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
The manner of the introduction of this observation, Heb 9:21, by , and in like manner, doth manifest that this is not a continuation of the former instance, in that which belongs thereunto; but that there is a proceed unto another argument, to evince the further use of the sprinkling of blood unto purification and atonement under the old testament. For the design of the apostle is not only to prove the necessity of the blood of Christ in sacrifice, but also the efficacy of it in the taking away of sins. Wherefore he shows that as the covenant itself was dedicated with blood, which proves the necessity of the blood of Christ unto the confirmation of the new covenant; so all the ways and means of solemn worship were purged and purified by the same means, which demonstrates its efficacy.
I will not absolutely oppose the usual interpretation of these words; namely, that at the erection of the tabernacle, and the dedication of it with all its vessels and utensils, there was a sprinkling with blood, though not expressly mentioned by Moses, for he only declares the unction of them with the holy oil, Exo 40:9-11. For as unto the garments of Aaron and his sons, which belonged unto the service of the tabernacle, and were laid up in the holy place, it is expressly declared that they were sprinkled with blood, Exo 29:21; and of the altar, that it was sprinkled when it was anointed, though it be not said wherewith. And Josephus, who was himself a priest, affirms that all the things belonging unto the sanctuary were dedicated with the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices; which things are usually pleaded for this interpretation. I shall not, as I said, absolutely reject it; yet because it is evident that the apostle makes a progress in these words, from the necessity of the dedication of the covenant with blood unto the use and efficacy of the sprinkling of blood in all holy administrations, that they might be accepted with God, I choose rather to refer the words unto that solemn sprinkling of the tabernacle and all the vessels of it by the high priest with blood of the expiatory sacrifice which was made annually, on the day of atonement. This the introduction of these words by and ; doth declare. As the covenant was dedicated with the sprinkling of blood, so in like manner afterwards, the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were sprinkled with blood unto their sacred use.
All the difficulty in this interpretation is, that Moses is said to do it, but that which we intend was done by Aaron and his successors. But this is no way to be compared with that of applying it unto the dedication of the tabernacle, wherein there is no mention made of blood or its sprinkling, but of anointing only. Wherefore Moses is said to do what he appointed to be done, what the law required which was given by him. So Moses is frequently used for the law given by him: Act 15:21, For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day; that is, the law. Moses, then, sprinkled the tabernacle, in that by an everlasting ordinance he appointed that it should be done. And the words following, Act 15:22, declare that the apostle speaks not of dedication, but of expiation and purification.
This sprinkling, therefore, of the tabernacle and its vessels, was that which was done annually, on the day of atonement, Lev 16:14-16; Lev 16:18. For thereon, as the apostle speaks, both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry were sprinkled with blood; as the ark, the mercy-seat, and the altar of incense. And the end of it was to purge them because of the uncleannesses of the people; which is that the apostle intends. And that which we are taught herein is, that,
Obs. 1. In all things wherein we have to do with God, whereby we approach unto him, it is the blood of Christ, and the application of it unto our consciences, that gives us a gracious acceptance with him. Without this all is unclean and defiled.
Obs. 2. Even holy things and institutions, that are in themselves clean and unpolluted, are relatively defiled, by the unholiness of them that use them; defiled unto them. So was the tabernacle, because of the uncleannesses of the people among whom it was. For unto the unclean all things are unclean.
From this whole discourse the apostle makes an inference which he afterwards applies at large unto his present purpose.
Heb 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
There are two parts of this verse, or there is a double assertion in it:
1. That almost all things are by the law purged with blood.
2. That without shedding of blood is no remission.
1. In the first of these there is considerable the assertion itself, and the limitation of it.
(1.) The assertion itself is, that by the law all things were purged with blood; according unto the law; the rules, the commands, the institutions of it; in that way of worship, faith, and obedience, which the people were obliged unto by the law. According unto the law, there was a necessity of the blood of sacrifices, for the purging of sin and making of atonement. This he infers and concludes from what he had said before, concerning the dedication of the covenant and the purification of the tabernacle with all the vessels of its ministry. And from hence he designs to prove the necessity of the death of Christ, and the efficacy of his blood for the purging of sin, whereof those legal things were types and representations. Of these legal purifications, or purgings by blood, we have treated already.
(2.) The limitation of this assertion is in the word , almost. Some few purifications there were under the law that were not by blood. Such, as some judge, was that by the ashes of a heifer mingled with water; whereof we have treated on verse 13. But I am not certain that this may be esteemed a purification without blood. For the heifer whose ashes were used in it was first slain, and its blood poured out; afterwards the blood as well as the flesh was burnt and reduced unto ashes. Wherefore that way of purification cannot be said to be without blood. And it was a type of the purifying efficacy of the blood of Christ, who offered himself a whole burnt-offering unto God, through the fire of the eternal Spirit. But there were two sorts of purifications under the law wherein blood was neither formally nor virtually applied or used. The one was by fire, in things that would endure it, Num 31:23 (and the apostle speaks of things as well as persons, as the word declares); the other was by water, whereof there were many instances. See Exo 19:10; Lev 16:26; Lev 16:28; Lev 22:6-7. All other purifications were , in blood; for ; , by the offering and sprinkling of blood.
From the consideration of the purifications mentioned, the apostle adds the limitation of almost. For the conceit of some of the ancients, that is as much as fere, and is to be joined with purged, were almost purged, that is, they were so only ineffectually, is most improper; for it is contrary to the natural construction of the words and the direct intention of the apostle. Only we may observe, that the purifications which were by fire and water were of such things as had no immediate influence into the worship of God, or in such cases as wherein the worship of God was not immediately concerned; nor of such things wherewith conscience was defiled. They were only of external pollutions, by things in their own nature indifferent, and had nothing of sin in them. And the sacred institutions which were not concerning the immediate worship of God, nor things which in themselves did defile the consciences of men, were as hedges and fences about those which really did so. They served to warn men not to come near those things which had a real defilement in themselves. See Mat 15:16-20.
Thus almost all things, that is, absolutely all which had any inward, real moral defilement, were purged with blood, and directed unto the purging efficacy of the blood of Christ. And we may observe, that,
Obs. 1. There was a great variety of legal purifications. For as all of them together could not absolutely purge sin, but only direct unto what would do so, so none of them by themselves could fully represent that one sacrifice by blood whereby all sin was to be purged; therefore were they multiplied.
Obs. 2. This variety argues that in ourselves we are ready to be polluted on all occasions. Sin cleaveth unto all that we do, and is ready to defile us even in our best duties.
Obs. 3. This variety of institutions was a great part of the bondage state of the church under the old testament; a yoke that they were not able to bear. For it was almost an insuperable difficulty to attain an assurance that they had observed them all in a due manner; the penalties of their neglect being very severe. Besides, the outward observation of them was both burdensome and chargeable. It is the glory of the gospel, that we are directed to make our address by faith on all occasions unto that one sacrifice by the blood of Christ, which cleanseth us from all our sins. Howbeit many that are called Christians, being ignorant of the mystery thereof, do again betake themselves unto other ways for the purification of sin, which are multiplied in the church of Rome.
Obs. 4. The great mystery wherein God instructed the church from the foundation of the world, especially by and under legal institutions, was, that all purging of sin was to be by blood. This was that which by all sacrifices from the beginning, and all legal institutions, he declared unto mankind. Blood is the only means of purging and atonement. This is the language of the whole law. All was to manifest that the washing and purging of the church from sin was to be looked for from the blood of Christ alone.
2. The second assertion of the apostle is, that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Some would have these words to contain an application of what was spoken before unto the blood of Christ; but it is manifest that the apostle yet continues in his account of things under the law, and enters on the application of them not before the next verse. Wherefore these words, , according to the law, or by virtue of its institutions, are here to be repeated: By the law, without shedding of blood, that is, in sacrifice, there is no remission. Yet though that season be particularly intended, the axiom is universally true, and applicable unto the new covenant; even under it, without shedding of blood is no remission.
The curse of the law was, that he that sinned should die; but whereas there is no man that liveth and sinneth not, God had provided that there should be a testification of the remission of sins, and that the curse of the law should not be immediately executed on all that sinned. This he did by allowing the people to make atonement for their sins by blood; that is, the blood of sacrifices, Lev 17:11. For hereby God signified his will and pleasure in two things:
(1.) That by this blood there should be a political remission granted unto sinners, that they should not die under the sentence of the law as it was the rule of the government of the nation. And in this sense, for such sins as were not politically to be spared no sacrifice was allowed.
(2.) That real spiritual forgiveness, and gracious acceptance with himself, were to be obtained alone by that which was signified by this blood; which was the sacrifice of Christ himself.
And whereas the sins of the people were of various kinds, there were particular sacrifices instituted to answer that variety. This variety of sacrifices, with respect unto the various sorts or kinds of sins for which they were to make atonement, I have elsewhere discussed and explained. Their institution and order are recorded, Lev 1:7. And if any person neglected that especial sacrifice which was appointed to make atonement for his especial sin, he was left under the sentence of the law, politically and spiritually; there was no remission. Yea also, there might be, there were, sins that could not be reduced directly unto any of those for whose remission sacrifices were directed in particular. Wherefore God graciously provided against the distress or ruin of the church on either of these accounts. For whether the people had fallen under the neglect of any of those especial ways of atonement, or had contracted the guilt of such sins as they knew not how to reduce unto any sort of them that were to be expiated, he had graciously prepared the great anniversary sacrifice, wherein public atonement was made for all the sins, transgressions, and iniquities of the whole people, of what sort soever they were, Lev 16:21. But in the whole of his ordinances he established the rule, that without shedding of blood was no remission.
There seems to be an exception in the case of him who was so poor that he could not provide the meanest offering of blood for a sin-offering; for he was allowed by the law to offer the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for his sin, and it was forgiven him, Lev 5:11-13. Wherefore the word , almost, may be here again repeated, because of this single case. But the apostle hath respect unto the general rule of the law. And this exception was not an ordinary constitution, but depended on the impossibility of the thing itself, whereunto it made a gracious condescension. And this necessity ofttimes of itself, without any constitution, suspends a positive law, and gives a dispensation unto the infringers of it. So was it in the case of David when he ate of the shew- bread in his hunger; and as to works of necessity and mercy on the Sabbath-day: which instances are given by our Savior himself. Wherefore the particular exception on this consideration did rather strengthen than invalidate the general rule of the law. Besides, the nearest approach was made unto it that might be. For fine flour is the best of the bread whereby mans life is sustained; and in the offering of it the offerer testified that by his sin he had forfeited his own life and all whereby it was sustained: which was the meaning of the offering of blood.
The expositors of the Roman church do here greatly perplex themselves, to secure their sacrifice of the mass from this destroying sentence of the apostle. For a sacrifice they would have it to be, and that for the remission of the sins of the living and the dead; yet they say it is an unbloody sacrifice. For if there be any blood shed in it, it is the blood of Christ, and then he is crucified by them afresh every day; as indeed in some sense he is, though they cannot shed his blood. If it be unbloody, the rule of the apostle is, that it is no way available for the remission of sins. Those that are sober have no way to deliver themselves, but by denying the mass to be a proper sacrifice for the remission of sins: which is done expressly by Estius upon the place. But this is contrary unto the direct assertions contained in the mass itself, and raseth the very foundation of it.
Now, if God gave them so much light under the old testament, as that they should know, believe, and profess, that without shedding of blood is no remission, how great is the darkness of men under the new testament, who look, seek, or endeavor any other way after the pardon of sin, but only by the blood of Christ!
Obs. 5. This is the great demonstration of the demerit of sin, of the holiness, righteousness, and grace of God. For such was the nature and demerit of sin, such was the righteousness of God with respect unto it, that without shedding of blood it could not be pardoned. They are strangers unto the one and the other who please themselves with other imaginations. And what blood must this be? That the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin was utterly impossible, as our apostle declares. It must be the blood of the Son of God, Rom 3:24-25; Act 20:28. And herein were glorified both the love and grace of God, in that he spared not his only Son, but gave him up to be a bloody sacrifice in his death for us all.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
No Blood No Remission
God almighty will not and cannot forgive sin without blood atonement. He cannot do so because he is holy, just and true. He has sworn, The soul that sinneth, it shall die. His justice must be satisfied; and the only way Gods holy, infinite justice could ever be satisfied is by the righteous obedience and sin-atoning death of his own dear Son, the God-man, our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Remission Pictured
Under the Mosaic law virtually everything relating to the worship of God was ceremonially sanctified and purged of corruption by blood. The reason for this is clearly stated in Heb 9:22-23. Almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these.
Heb 9:18-23 — “Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 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, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 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.”
When Moses gave the pattern for the tabernacle and its services, he took the blood and water[2] and sprinkled the book, people, the tabernacle and all the vessels used in the worship of God. Almost all things were purified by means of blood (Lev 17:11). Other things were ceremonially purified by water and fire; but without the shedding of blood there was no forgiveness of sin! There is no example of pardon and forgiveness without blood. The Old Testament sacrifices and ceremonies as well as the very fact that Christs blood has been shed makes it foolish to suppose that pardon might be had without it (1Co 5:7; Gal 2:19-21).
[2] The blood and water typified the blood and water which flowed from our Lords pierced side, and our justification and sanctification by his blood.
Fulfilling the type and patterns of heavenly things given in those Old Testament symbols (Heb 8:5; Heb 9:23), the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, entered into heaven before the holy Lord God as the Representative and Mediator of Gods elect, the true, spiritual Israel, the Israel of God. Having fully satisfied the law; he atoned for our sins with his blood. He makes intercession for us in the holy place, in heaven itself, presenting the infinite merits of his blood and righteousness perpetually (1Jn 2:1-2).
Remission Performed
Remission was only pictured in those Old Testament ceremonies. It was actually, once and forever performed and accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.
Heb 9:24-28 — “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
The Lord Jesus Christ, our great God-man Mediator and High Priest, did not enter into an earthly, material holy place, but into heaven itself. Yonder, seated upon the throne of God is a Man, the God-man, Christ Jesus. He perpetually appears in the presence of God on our behalf, — interceding for us, — representing us, — possessing all things as our Forerunner.
His one great, infinitely meritorious sacrifice for our sins was and is enough (Heb 10:11-14). Because his blood is of infinite merit, it is infinitely effectual. By his one sacrifice for all the sins of all his people, he put them away forever (Isa 53:4-6; Heb 10:17-18).
Be sure you understand the doctrine of Holy Scripture. The Son of God did not die merely to make it possible for sins to be put away. He did not merely provide a way for sins to be put away. He has, by the sacrifice of himself, put away all the sins of Gods elect which were imputed to him. He has put our sins away fully and forever (Rom 4:8).
Blessed Hope
As men die just once and face judgment but once, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, to bear the sins of Gods elect. They are now fully paid for and forever put away. It is not possible for the sins he put away to be imputed to his people again. Justice will not allow it.
Let every ransomed sinner rejoice in this fact: Christ has put away our sins. We met God in judgment at Calvary in the person of our Substitute. God punished us in him for all our sins to the full satisfaction of his holy justice. Now, we have every reason to look forward to Christs coming. Unto all them who believe on him and look for him, he will appear without sin unto eternal glory (Rom 8:1-4; Rom 8:33-39). This is blessed hope, indeed!
Either God rules, or he is ruled. — Either he is in control, or he is controlled. — Either he is absolutely and universally over all things and at all times, or there is something, somewhere that is sovereign over him.
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
the first: Heb 8:7-9, Exo 12:22, Exo 24:3-8
dedicated: or, purified, Heb 9:14, Heb 9:22
Reciprocal: Exo 24:6 – the blood he Exo 24:7 – the book Exo 24:8 – sprinkled Lev 8:15 – Moses Jer 31:32 – Not Joh 17:19 – I sanctify Eph 2:13 – are Heb 8:9 – the covenant Heb 13:12 – sanctify
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 9:18. Death is the central idea in this part of Paul’s argument, hence he states that the first testament was dedicated. (consecrated) with blood. Since the shedding of blood requires the death of the creature furnishing it, the circumstance makes the type and antitype complete. The animals died in order to dedicate (or put into force) the Old Testament or covenant, and Christ died and gave his blond to dedicate and render forceful His New Testament. (See Mat 26:28). Therefore the animals slain In sacrifice under the law constituted the testator of that system.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 9:18. Whence neither hath the first covenant been inaugurated (or ratified) without blood. Those verses are specially difficult. The logic of the passage seems to require the rendering now given. It does not follow that because a testator must die before his will can take effect, therefore the first covenant was inaugurated with blood. , moreover, is everywhere else in Scripture covenant, as it is in the immediate context, and it seems better to keep to that meaning throughout: all the more as the notion of a will, though familiar to Western civilisation, was not familiar in countries where each childs portion was settled by law. There are difficulties, however, on the other side. Covenanting [victim] is not a known meaning of the word here used. It means generally a covenanting person or a testator. Over the dead is commonly used also only of dead men. Both difficulties are lessened, however, by the peculiar facts of the case. All solemn covenants under the Law were made valid by the death of a victim which represented the covenanting persons, and pledged them on peril of their lives to faithfulness; and so the covenanting victim is spoken of under the same name as the covenanting personthe one representing the other. If the rendering testament is preferred, and testator, it is best to regard Heb 9:16-17 as an illustrative argument, a parallel case, suggested partly by the mention of an inheritance and partly by the double meaning of the Greek word (covenant or testament), which is applied to any arrangement or distribution by will, or in any other way.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our apostle heving entered upon a comparison between the first and second covenant in the former verses, he goes on to prosecute it in these; showing that both of them were dedicated, that is, confirmed by blood.
The first covenant which God made with Israel in Horeb, had not its sanction without typical blood and life for the observation of them. Now that the covenant between God and Israel was thus solemnized, and received its confirmation by blood, the apostle makes appear from the history of Moses, Exodus 24 unto which he appeals; where we find the sprinkler to be Moses, the sprinkling to be blood the things sprinkled were the book wherein the covenant was written, and the people who engaged themselves in the covenant.
Now the use and end of this sprinkling upon of it upon the altar was the confirmation of God’s part. And the words added to the action were, this is the blood of the covenant; that is, this is the blood by which the covenant is confirmed, and made inviolable betwixt God and you: He calls is the blood of the covenant, because it was a sign of it, and a seal confiming it.
In like manner, the new covenant was confirmed by blood, ever by the blood of Christ, as is evident from his own words. Luk 22:20. “This cup is the new testament in my blood for remission of sins.”
Remission of sin is one principal blessing promised in the new covenant; but this promise had been in vain, if Christ’s blood made it remissible: So that the blood of Christ is the firm and immoveable basis and foundation upon which the new covenant was fixed. This is the first part of our apostle’s design in these words: Namely, to prove the necessity of Christ’s blood for confirmation of the new covenant.
Next, he proves the efficacy of that blood for taking away of sin; telling us, that the tabernacle, the vessels, and all the utensils thereunto belonging, yea, all the things which were purified, were ceremonially purified by blood; and that as without shedding of blood then there could be no remission, so no acceptance with God now without the shedding of the blood of Christ.
Learn hence, That in all things wherein we have to do with God, and whereby we approach unto him, it is the blood of Christ, and the application of it to our consciences, that gives a gracious acceptance with God; without this all is unclean and defiled now, as without shedding of blood there was no purification then.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Heb 9:18-20. Whereupon On which principle we may observe; neither was the first Covenant, of which we have been speaking, I mean that of Moses; dedicated without blood Namely, that of an appointed sacrifice. In the original, the word covenant is wanting; and our translators, by supplying the word testament, have made the Sinai covenant or law of Moses, of which the apostle is speaking, a testament, than which, says Macknight, nothing can be more incongruous. The word to be supplied is not testament, but covenant. For when Moses had spoken every precept The precepts of the law which Moses read to the people on this occasion, were chiefly those contained in Exo 20:-23., as is evident from Exo 24:5. See the margin. To all the people according to the law
The will, appointment, or express order of God; he took the blood of calves, &c., with water. The blood was mixed with water, to prevent its growing too stiff for sprinkling, perhaps also to typify the blood and water which should issue out of Christs side, signifying the expiating and cleansing virtue of his sufferings. And scarlet wool and hyssop All these circumstances are not particularly mentioned in that chapter of Exodus, but are supposed to be already known from other passages of Moses; and sprinkled both the book Which contained all he had said; and all the people Who were near him. The book was sprinkled to show, 1st, That the law itself was not able to reconcile them to God, and give life without the blood of Christ added to it. 2d, That atonement was to be made by blood for sins committed against the law. 3d, That every thing is unclean to us that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. Saying, (Exo 24:8,) This is the blood of the covenant, &c. This sprinkling of the blood is a ceremony instituted by God to signify the mutual consent of both parties to the terms of the covenant; or, this is the blood whereby the covenant is ratified on both sides; which God hath enjoined unto you Hath required me to deliver unto you or, hath commanded with respect to you, as literally signifies, requiring you to declare your consent to the terms of it.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 18
Whereupon, &c.; in a somewhat similar manner the first testament or covenant was ratified with blood.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:18 {12} Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.
(12) There must be a proportion between those things which purify and those which are purified: Under the law all those figures were earthly, the tabernacle, the book, the vessels, the sacrifices, although they were the signs of heavenly things. Therefore it was required that all those should be purified with some matter and ceremony of the same nature, that is, with the blood of beasts, with water, wool, hyssop. But under Christ all things are heavenly, a heavenly tabernacle, heavenly sacrifice, heavenly people, heavenly doctrine, and heaven itself is set open before us for an eternal home. Therefore all these things are sanctified in a similar way, that is, with the everlasting offering of the quickening blood of Christ.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Old Covenant went into effect when the Levitical priests shed the blood of animal substitutes and applied that blood to the covenant beneficiaries. The beneficiaries were the Israelites (Exo 24:6-8) and the tabernacle (cf. Exo 40:9-15). The New Covenant went into effect when Jesus Christ shed His blood and God applied it to its beneficiaries spiritually (cf. Mat 26:28).
"The central thrust of the argument is that there is an intimate relationship between covenant and sacrificial blood." [Note: Lane, Hebrews 9-13, p. 244.]