14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
How much more shall the blood of Christ,
Since the blood of Jesus is infinitely more precious than the blood of an animal could possibly be. And if the blood of an animal had any effectiveness at all, even in removing ceremonial contaminations (sin), how much more is it reasonable to assume that the blood of the Son of God can remove the stain of sin from those who have faith in Him.
who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,
The writer of Hebrews affirms that the Lord made a gift of his life. He “offered Himself” - that is, as a sacrifice. He did not offer a bullock or a goat, but he offered “himself.” The sacrifice of oneself is the highest offering which He can make; in this case it was the highest which the universe had to make. It was "through His most burning love, flowing from His eternal Spirit," that He offered Himself. The voluntary nature of the offering gives it special value. His divine Spirit (Rom. 1:4), in contrast to His "flesh," (Heb. 9:3); His Godhead (1 Ti. 3:16; 1 Pe. 3:18), "His inner personality,” which gave a free consent to the act, offered Himself. The animals offered had no spirit or will to consent in the act of sacrifice; they were offered according to the law; they had a life neither enduring, nor of any inherent effectiveness. but He from eternity, with His divine and everlasting Spirit, concurred with the Father's will of redemption by Him. His offering began on the altar of the cross and was completed in His entering the holiest place with His blood. The perpetuity and infiniteness of His divine Spirit (compare Heb. 7:16) gives eternal ("eternal redemption," Heb. 9:12, also compare Heb. 9:15) and infinite merit to His offering, so that not even the infinite justice of God has any exception to take against it.
“Who through the eternal Spirit” - This expression is exceedingly difficult and has given rise to a great variety of interpretation. - Some manuscripts instead of “eternal” here, read “holy,” making it refer directly to the Holy Spirit. These various readings, however, are not regarded as of sufficient authority to lead to a change in the text and are of importance only as showing that it was an early opinion that the Holy Spirit has referred to here.
“without spot” (or “fault”) - The animal victims had to be without outward blemish; Christ on the cross was a victim inwardly and essentially stainless (sinless) (1Pe 1:19). The animal that was offered in the Jewish sacrifices was to be without blemish (Lev. 1:10; Lev. 22:17-22). It was not to be lame, or blind, or diseased. The word which is used here and rendered “without spot” refers to this fact - that there was no defect or blemish. The idea is, that the Lord Jesus, the great sacrifice, was “perfect” (Heb.7:26).
An examination of these various opinions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide what is the true meaning of the passage amidst this diversity of opinion; but there are some reasons which seem to me to make it probable that the Holy Spirit is intended, and that the idea is, that Christ made his great sacrifice under “the extraordinary influences of that Eternal Spirit.” The reasons which lead me to this opinion, are the following:
(1) it is what would occur to the great mass of the readers of the New Testament. It is presumed that the great body of sober, plain, and intelligent readers of the Bible, on perusing the passage, suppose that it refers to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. There are few better and safer rules for the interpretation of a volume designed like the Bible for the mass of mankind, than to abide by the sense in which they understand it.
(2) this interpretation is one which is most naturally conveyed by the language of the original. The phrase “the spirit” - has so far a technical and established meaning in the New Testament as to denote the Holy Spirit, unless there is something in the connection which renders such an application improper. In this case there is nothing certainly which “necessarily” forbids such an application. The high names and Classical authority of those who have held this opinion, are a sufficient guarantee of this.
(3) this interpretation accords with the fact that the Lord Jesus is represented as having been eminently endowed with the influences of the Holy Spirit; compare notes on John 3:34. Though he was divine, yet he was also a man, and as such was under influences similar to those of other pious people. The Holy Spirit is the source and sustainer of all piety in the soul, and it is not improper to suppose that the man Christ Jesus was in a remarkable manner influenced by the Holy Spirit in his readiness to obey God and to suffer according to His will.
(4) if there was ever any occasion on which we may suppose He was influenced by the Holy Spirit, that of Hs sufferings and death referred to here may be supposed to have been such an one. It was expressive of the highest state of piety - of the purest love to God and man - which has ever existed in the human bosom; it was the most trying time of His own life; it was the period when there would be the most strong temptation to abandon his work; and as the redemption of the whole world was dependent on that act, it is reasonable to suppose that the richest heavenly grace would be imparted to Him, and that he would then be eminently under the influence of that Spirit which there was granted not “by measure unto him.” (John 3:34).
(5) this representation is not inconsistent with the belief that the sufferings and death of the Redeemer were “voluntary,” and had all the merit which belongs to a voluntary transaction. Piety in the heart of a Christian now is not less voluntary because it is produced and cherished by the Holy Spirit, nor is there less excellence in it because the Holy Spirit imparts strong faith in the time of temptation and trial. It seems to me, therefore, that the meaning of this expression is, that the Lord Jesus was led by the strong influences of the Spirit of God to devote himself as a sacrifice for sin. It was not by any temporary influence; not by mere excitement; it was by the influence of the “Eternal” Spirit of God, and the sacrifice thus offered could, therefore, accomplish effects which would be eternal in their character. It was not like the offering made by the Jewish high priest which was necessarily renewed every year, but it was under the influence of one who was “eternal,” and the effects of whose influence might be everlasting. It may be added, that if this is a correct exposition, it follows that the Holy Spirit is eternal, and must, therefore, be divine.
purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
“Purge” - that is, cleanse, purify, or sanctify your conscience. The idea is, that this offering would take away whatever rendered the conscience defiled or sinful. The offerings of the Jews related in the main to external purification; and were not adapted to give peace to a troubled conscience. They could render the worshiper externally pure so that he might draw near to God and not be excluded by any ceremonial pollution or defilement; but the mind, the heart, the conscience, they could not be made pure. They could not remove what troubles a man when he recollects that he has violated a holy law and has offended God, and when he looks forward to an awful judgment-bar. The word “conscience” here is not to be understood as a distinct and independent faculty of the soul, but as the soul or mind itself reflecting and pronouncing on its own acts. The whole expression refers to a mind alarmed by the recollection of guilt - for it is only guilt that disturbs a man‘s conscience.
Guilt originates in the soul, remorse, and despair; guilt makes a man troubled when he thinks of death and the judgment; it is guilt alone which alarms a man when he thinks of a holy God; and it is nothing but guilt that makes the entrance into another world terrible and awful. If a man had no guilt he would never dread his Maker, nor would the presence of his God be ever painful to him (compare Gen. 3:6-10); if a man had no guilt he would not fear to die - for what have the innocent to fear anywhere? The universe is under the government of a God of goodness and truth, and, under such a government, how can those who have done no wrong have anything to dread? The fear of death, the apprehension of the judgment to come, and “the dread of God,” are strong and irrefutable proofs that every man is a sinner. The only thing, therefore, whichever disturbs the conscience, and makes death dreadful, and God an object of dislike, and eternity awful, is guilt. If that is removed, man is calm and peaceful; if not, he is the victim of wretchedness and despair.
From dead works - From works that are deadly in their nature, or that lead to death. Or it may mean from works that have no spirituality and no life. By “works” here the apostle does not refer to their outward religious acts particularly, but to the conduct of the life, to what people do; and the idea is, that their acts are not spiritual and saving but such as lead to death (Heb. 6:1). All works done in the natural state, which is a state of sin, are dead; for they come not from living faith in, and love to, "the living God" ( Heb. 11:6 ). As contact with a dead body defiled ceremonially (compare the allusion, "ashes of an heifer," Heb. 9:13 ), so dead works defile the inner consciousness spiritually.
To serve the living God - Not in outward form, but in sincerity and in truth; to be His true friends and worshipers. The phrase “the living God” is commonly used in the Scriptures to describe the true God as distinguished from idols, which are represented as “dead,” or without life (Ps.115:4-7). The idea in this verse is, that it is only the sacrifice made by Christ which can remove the stain of guilt from the soul. It could not be done by the blood of bulls and of goats - for that did not furnish relief to a guilty conscience, but it could be done by the blood of Christ. The sacrifice which he made for sin was so pure and of such value, that God can consistently pardon the offender and restore him to His favor. That blood too can give peace - for Christ poured it out on behalf of the guilty. It is not that he took the part of the sinner against God; it is not that he endeavors to convince him the sinner, who has a troubled conscience that he is needlessly alarmed, or that sin is not as bad as it is represented to be, or that it does not expose the soul to danger. Christ never took the part of the sinner against God; he never taught that sin was a small matter, or that it did not expose to danger. He admitted all that is said of its evil. But he provides for giving peace to the guilty conscience by shedding His blood that it may be forgiven, and by revealing a God of mercy who is willing to receive the offender into favor, and to treat him as though he had never sinned. Thus, the troubled conscience may find peace; and thus, though guilty, man may be delivered from the dread of God’s punishment.
“to serve” – (so as to serve). The ceremonially unclean could not serve God in the outward communion of His people; so, the unrenewed cannot serve God in spiritual communion. Man's works before justification, however lifelike they look, are dead, and cannot therefore be accepted before the living God. To have offered a dead animal to God would have been an insult (compare Mal 1:8); much more for a man not justified by Christ's blood to offer dead works. But those purified by Christ's blood in living faith do serve (Rom 12:1), and shall more fully serve God (Rev 22:3).
15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament,
And for this cause – that is to say, to make an effective atonement for sin, and to provide a way by which the troubled conscience may have peace. Salvation is granted free and gracious, so the enjoyment of these things is secured against contingencies, by the death of Jesus Christ the great Testator. A testament is enforced after men are dead; but of no strength at all while the testator lives.
He (the Lord Jesus Christ) is the Mediator – (see notes on Gal. 3:19-20). He is the Mediator between God and man in respect to that new covenant which he has made, or that new dispensation by which people are to be saved. He stands between God and man - the parties at variance - and undertakes the work of mediation and reconciliation.
These words represent unto us one special benefit accruing by the death of Christ, namely, the ratification of the gospel-covenant; for by this means He took upon Him the glorious office of the Mediator of the new covenant, that by the intervention of his death he might make satisfaction of the sins of believers under the Old Testament, as well as for those that live under the New; as well as those that lived before Christ's coming as since, might, by virtue of his death, obtain the promised eternal inheritance.
Of the New Testament - Not “testament” - for a “testament,” or “will,” needs no mediator; but the “new covenant,” or the new “arrangement” or “disposition” of things under which he proposes to pardon and save the guilty may need a mediator (Heb. 9:16-17).
that by means of death,
He means His own death as a sacrifice for sin. The “old” covenant or arrangement also contemplated “death” - but it was the death of an “animal.” The purposes of this were to be affected by the death of the Mediator himself; or this covenant was to be ratified in His blood.
The bottom line is this, that the death of Christ is the foundation, life, and soul of the new covenant; and that the new covenant has the nature of a testament, and the benefits promised therein: To wit, remission of sin, reconciliation with God, sanctification on earth, and glorification in heaven, are legacies freely left us by our deceased Testator, who was dead but is alive again, and lives for evermore, to execute his own will and testament, of which the Scripture is the instrument, and the sacraments the seals.
for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament,
The writer of Hebrews is referring to the covenant or arrangement under Moses. The general idea here is, that these were offences for which no penance could be made by the sacrifices under that dispensation, or from which the blood shed then could not redeem. This general idea may include two things.
(1) that they who had committed transgressions under that covenant, and who could not be fully pardoned by the imperfect sacrifices made then, would receive a full forgiveness of all their sins in the great day of accounting through the blood of Christ. Though the blood of bulls and goats could not compensate, yet they offered that blood in faith; they relied on the promised mercy of God; they looked forward to a perfect sacrifice - and now the blood of the great atonement offered as a “full” compensation for all their sins, would be the ground of their acquittal in the last day.
(2) Note lastly, How the covenant of grace is used here as a Testament, because it received its ratification and confirmation by the blood of Christ. All things required in a testament are here, namely, a deceased testator, Christ Jesus: inheritances bequeathed, found to be temporal, spiritual, and eternal blessings; representatives named, the heirs of promise; conditions required, upon which only the legacies may be obtained, faith, repentance, and sincere obedience; seals annexed, baptism, and the Lord's supper; witnesses pledging, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, that the blood of Christ would now avail for the remission of all those sins which could not be recompensed by the sacrifices offered under the Law. It not only contemplated the remission of all the offences committed by the truly pious under that Law but would now avail to put away sin entirely. No sacrifice which people could offer would avail, but the blood of Christ would remove all that guilt.
they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Might receive the promise of eternal inheritance - that is, the fulfillment of the promise; or that they might be made partakers of eternal blessings. That blood is effectual and likely to save those under the ancient covenant and the new - so that they will be saved in the same manner, and unite in the same song of redeeming love.
That they which are called – called alike under the old covenant and the new. Note here, that God designed an eternal inheritance unto some persons; that the persons designed are them that are called; that the way and manner of conveying a right and title to his inheritance enjoyed, God made a new covenant, which had a Mediator, who atoned for sin by the sacrifice of His death.
Learn this dear reader, there is an irrevocable grant of the whole inheritance of grace and glory made unto believers in the new covenant.
16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
“For where a testament is,” indicates forgiveness, of the reason for the Mediator’s death, even for putting the called into possession of the bequeathed inheritance, which demonstrated by a common, natural law in all nations of the testament’s effect on the testator’s death; a testament being a disposition by will, oral or written, of either goods or lands, which are the person’s own, to be in the possession of others after his death, whom he specifies in it: in proportion to the new covenant, where God gives freely of all good spiritual things with the heavenly inheritance, as inheritances to all his called ones in Christ, by this last and best will and testament of his, transcribed in his Scripture, witnessed by the prophets and apostles, sealed by the two sacraments, especially the Lord’s supper (Luke 22:20 [1]).
“There must also of necessity be the death of the testator;” he who writes a testament by the law of nature, and of nations, must die before the beneficiaries have any profit from the will; the son and heir receives nothing from the father’s death; then is the testament firm and valid, the time having come for the heir’s inheriting, and for the will’s execution; it being now unalterable; the necessity of which is clear, Hebrews 9:17. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Thus, Matthew 26:28 [2], "blood of the covenant (the will]:" does not require blood shedding (compare Ex. 24:8[4]). The covenant which Christ quotes, though probably He included "testament" also under covenant, as this designation strictly applies to the new dispensation, and is applicable to the old also, not in itself, but when viewed as typifying the new. Moses speaks of the same thing that Paul does. Moses, by "covenant," means one giving the heavenly inheritance (characterized by Canaan) after the testator's death, which he represented by the sprinkling of blood. Paul, by "testament," means one having conditions, and so being a covenant, the conditions are fulfilled by Christ, not by us; we must truly believe; but even this God works in His people. The covenanting parties used to pass between the divided parts of the sacrificed animal; but, without reference to this, the need of a sacrifice for establishing a covenant suffices. Others consider that the death of the victim represented the death of both parties as unalterably bound to the covenant. So, in the redemption covenant, Jesus' death symbolized the death of God in the person of the mediating victim, and the death of man. But it is not, 'there must be the death of both parties making the covenant,' but singular, 'of Him who made [aorist: not "of Him making"] the testament.' Also, it is "death," not 'sacrifice' or 'slaying'. The death is supposedly past: the fact of the death is brought forward to give conclusion to the will. These requisites of a testament concur:
(1) A testator.
(2) Heir.
(3) Goods.
(4) The testator's death.
(5) The fact of the death brought forward.
In Matthew 26:28, two other requisites appear: witnesses, the disciples; a seal, the sacrament of the Lord's supper, the sign of His blood wherewith the testament is sealed. The heir is ordinarily the successor of him who dies, and so ceases to have possession. But Christ comes to life again and is Himself (including all that He had), in the power of His now endless life.,
17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
For a testament is of force after men are dead:
The necessity of Christ's death is urged here, for the nature and force of a testament or will, among men, cannot take place, and cannot be executed, till a man is dead. The testator is relieved of his goods and lands by death, but the inheritors have the right to challenge the will though none has the right to add to it, alter, or annul it.,
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
No claim can be made, against the will by the inheritors for the part they have in it, nor can any disposition be made by the executor of it. The testator has need of his things for as long as he lives. That does not suggested, that the testament or will of God was uncertain and precarious till the death of Christ, and subject to change and alteration as men's wills are till they die; nor that the inheritance could not be enjoyed by the Old Testament saints; for it is certain, it was entered upon by them before the death of Christ; but the sense is, that there was a necessity of it, that the saints right unto it, upon the foot of justice, might be evident by it.
They can alter and change it, and by the will itself it is declared none shall have any right to the things bequeathed in it till the testator is dead. The consequence of all this is, that the Testator of the new testament must put it in force by death; and his death is of greater force to confirm his testament than that of men, because his will can never be violated, because it has a Divine constitution, but the human testament may. Christ, God-man, after he dies, as Testator, and puts the testament in force; and by breaking the bonds of death, doth gloriously effect that the survivors perform the conditions required in the will, to fit them for receiving their inheritances; and they must faithfully distribute them to them by his grand executor the Holy Spirit, who applies the virtue of it to the successors under the Old Testament, as well as those under the New; Jesus being the Testator, as well as the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world.
18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
It appears that the fact stated here 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 the language in which he wrote, as though one, while speaking of God’s covenant, which is often called in Greek, a testimony, were to recommend it among other things under that title. And doubtless that is a testimony, to which angels from heaven have 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 at last the Son of God Himself became a guarantee. No one in such a discourse would consider any such thing as unreasonable. And yet the Hebrew word, used here 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 thus concludes that men were even then reminded, that it could not be valid and effective except death intervened. For though the blood of beasts was then shed, yet, he denies that it helped to limit 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 it, 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 it contains, 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.
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 effective for our benefit, unless it is dedicated by blood, as is plainly set forth in this verse.
I know that others give a different interpretation than I do; 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.
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 Exodus 40:17. In the previous verses, Exodus 40:9, there are directions given to anoint the tabernacle, and all its vessels, and also to consecrate 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 Exodus 29:21. We hence perceive how well acquainted the writer must have been with the Jewish rituals. — Ed.
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,
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law,
When he had recited all the Law and had given all the commandments entrusted to him to deliver (Exodus 24:3).
he took the blood of calves and of goats
This passage has caused great perplexity for commentators from the fact that Moses in his account of the dealings (Matt. 15:2) with the people, pertaining to the ratification of the covenant, gave a false report yet they doubtless had many that were true. But in referring to tradition, there is no impropriety in supposing that Paul may have been guided by the Spirit of inspiration in selecting only those which were true.
Nothing is more probable than what is stated here. If Moses sprinkled “the people;” if he read “the book of the law,” and then Exodus 24:7, and if this was regarded as a solemn act of ratifying a covenant with God, nothing would be more natural than that he should sprinkle the book of the covenant, and even the tabernacle and its various sacred utensils.
We are to remember also, that it was common among the Hebrews to sprinkle blood for the purpose of consecrating, or as an emblem of purifying. Thus, Aaron and his sons and their garments were sprinkled with blood when they were consecrated to the office of priests, Exodus 29:19-21; the blood of sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar, Leviticus 1:5, Leviticus 1:11; Leviticus 3:2, Leviticus 3:13; and blood was sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary, Leviticus 4:10, Leviticus 4:17; compare Leviticus 6:27; Leviticus 7:14. So Josephus speaks of the garments of Aaron and of his sons being sprinkled with “the blood of the slain beasts, and with spring water.” “Having consecrated them and their garments,” he says, “for seven days together, he did the same to the tabernacle, and the vessels thereto belonging, both with oil and with the blood of bulls and of rams.” Ant. book iii, chapter 8, section 6. These circumstances show the strong “probability” of the truth of what is here affirmed by Paul, while it is impossible to prove that Moses did not sprinkle the book and the tabernacle in the manner stated. The mere omission by Moses cannot demonstrate that it was not done. On the phrase “the blood of calves and of goats,” see Hebrews 9:12.
with water,
It agrees with the declaration of Josephus that “spring water was used.” In Leviticus 14:49-51, it is expressly mentioned that the blood of the bird that was killed to cleanse a house from the plague of leprosy should be shed over running water, and that the blood and the water should be sprinkled on the walls. It has been suggested also (see Bloomfield) that the use of water was necessary to prevent the blood from coagulating, or to make it possible to sprinkle it.
and scarlet wool,
And scarlet wool - Margin, “Purple.” The word used here denotes crimson, or deep scarlet. The color was obtained from a small insect which was found adhering to the shoots of a species of oak in Spain and in Western Asia, of about the size of a pea. It was regarded as the most valuable of the colors for dyeing and was awfully expensive. Why the wool used by Moses was of this color is not known, unless it be because it was the most expensive of colors, and thus accorded with everything employed in the construction of the tabernacle and its utensils. Wool appears to have been used to absorb and retain the blood.
and hyssop,
That is, a bunch of hyssop intermingled with the wool, or so connected with it as to constitute a convenient instrument for sprinkling; (compare Leviticus 14:51). Hyssop is a low shrub, regarded as one of the smallest of the plants, and hence, put in contrast with the cedar of Lebanon. It sprung out of the rocks or walls (1 Kings 4:33) and was used for purposes of purification. The term seems to have comprised not only the common hyssop, but also lavender and other aromatic plants. Its fragrance, as well as its size, may have suggested the idea of using it in the sacred services of the tabernacle.
and sprinkled both the book,
This occurrence is not mentioned by Moses, but it has been shown above not to be improbable. Some expositors, however, in order to avoid the difficulty in the passage, have taken this in connection with the word rendered “he took” - meaning “taking the blood, and the book itself;” but the more natural and proper construction is, that the book was sprinkled with the blood.
and all the people,
Moses says, “and sprinkled it on the people” (Exodus 24:8). We are not to suppose that either Moses or Paul plans to say that the blood was actually sprinkled on each one of the three million people in the wilderness, but the meaning doubtless is that the blood was sprinkled over the people, though in fact it might have fallen on a few. So a man now standing on an elevated place, and surrounded by a large assembly, if he should sprinkle water over them from the place where he stood, might be said that he sprinkled it on the people, though in fact, only a few might have been touched by it. The act would be equally significant whether the emblem fell on few or many.
20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Saying, This is the blood of the testament - Of the covenant (see Hebrews 9:16-17). That is, this is the blood by which the covenant is ratified. It was the means used to confirm it; the sacred and solemn form by which it was made sure (Ex. 24:8). When this was done, the covenant between God and the people was confirmed - it is sealed as a covenant between man and man.
“Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words.” The change is made here to agree with Christ‘s inauguration of the new testament, or covenant, as recorded in Luke 22:20, “This cup (is) the new Testament in My blood, which is shed for you”: the only Gospel in which the “is” has to be supplied. Luke was Paul‘s companion, which accounts for the correspondence, and here too “is” has to be supplied.
testament — (See on Hebrews 9:16-17). The Greek word “diatheses” means both “testament” and “covenant”: the term “covenant” better suits the old dispensation, though the idea of testament is included, for the old was one in its typical relation to the new dispensation, to which the term “testament” is better suited. Christ has sealed the testament with His blood, of which the Lord‘s Supper is the sacramental sign. The testator was represented by the animals slain in the old dispensation. In both dispensations the inheritance was bequeathed: in the new by One who has come in person and died; in the old by the same one, only typically and ceremonially present.
Which God hath enjoined (directed) unto you - In Exodus 24:8, it reads, “which God hath made with you.” The language used by Paul, “which God hath enjoined” - (“commanded”) shows that he did not regard this as strictly the nature of a “covenant,” or compact.” When a covenant is made between parties, one does not “enjoin” or “command” the other, but it is a mutual “agreement.” In the transactions between God and man, though the idea is called a “covenant” or “compact,” it is so far excluded that God never loses his right to “command” or “enjoin.” It is not a transaction between equals, or an “agreement;” it is a solemn “arrangement” on the part of God which he proposes to mankind, and which he instructs them to embrace; which they are not at liberty to disregard, but which when embraced is appropriately ratified by some solemn act on their part (compare Hebrews 8:6).
“enjoined unto you” — that is, God commissioned me to ratify the covenant in relation to you. In the old dispensation the condition to be fulfilled on the people‘s part is implied in the words of Exodus 24:8, “(Lord made with you) concerning all these words.” But here Paul omits this clause, as he includes the fulfillment of this condition of obedience to “all these words” in the new covenant, as part of God‘s promise, in Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 8:12, whereby Christ fulfills all for our justification, and will enable us by putting His Spirit in us to fulfil all in our now progressive, and finally complete, sanctification.
21. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
He did not sprinkle the tabernacle and the vessels of ministry at the same time that he sprinkled the book and the people, for there was no tabernacle at that time; but afterwards, at the time that it was erected, it was anointed with oil (Exodus 40:9) and though, at that time, no mention is made of blood, yet Josephus, who is in agreement with the apostle, asserts that the tabernacle, and its vessels, were not only anointed with oil, but sprinkled with the blood of bulls and goats, as well as the garments of Aaron, and his sons. The tabernacle was a type of the church, in which God dwells, being purified and cleansed by the blood of Christ; and this shows, that there is no coming into the presence of God, the place where he dwells, without blood.
And not only was blood applied in the covenant ceremony, but later everything connected with the covenant, the Tabernacle and all the vessels of ministry, were sprinkled in the same way with sacrificial blood. This initial sprinkling of blood is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, but it was recognized as being a fact by Josephus, and thus clearly a traditional idea among the Jews. This is entering more deeply into the significance of the shedding of blood. The shedding of blood was essential for the purifying of all that was to be involved in the relationship between God and His people. It was a cleansing necessary because of their sinfulness, for all was contaminated by man and his world. Thus, the blood not only sealed and sanctified, it also indicated cleansing and purifying.
In Exodus 40:9 it says that Moses sprinkled the tabernacle with oil. It had not been erected at the time of Exodus 24:5. Josephus (Ant. III. 8, 6) sites a tradition that blood was used also at this dedication. Blood was used annually in the cleansing rites on the day of atonement.
He sprinkled with blood—Rather, he sprinkled in the same way he would sprinkle with blood. It is remarkable that the word rendered “in like manner” should have been overlooked in the King James version. The incident mentioned here belongs, of course, to a later date. It is not expressly recorded in Scripture but is related by Josephus (Ant. iii. 8, § 6).
In Exodus 40:9-15 we read of the divine injunction that Moses should put the anointing oil not only upon Aaron and his sons, their garments, and the altar, but also upon the Tabernacle and its vessels. In Leviticus 8:10-12 is recorded the fulfilment of this command; but in the later verses of the same chapter we read that the altar was sprinkled with the blood of the sin-offering (Hebrews 9:15), and that Moses sprinkled Aaron and his sons and their garments with “the anointing oil and the blood which was upon the altar.” Manifestly we may infer that the Tabernacle and its vessels were included in the latter ceremony. Whatever was connected with the covenant which God made with His people must be sprinkled with the blood, which typified purification (Hebrews 9:14, 24) and ratified the covenant (Hebrews 9:15, 17).
And all the vessels of the ministry; which were used in the service of the tabernacle may denote the vessels of grace and mercy, the elect of God, whose hearts are sprinkled by the blood of Christ from an evil conscience, and whose garments are washed in it, and made white by it.
Hebrews 9:21 adds to that mentioned Hebrews 9:19-20, not a simultaneous fact, but only something occurring later. For when the law was proclaimed by Moses, and the people promised to observe the same, the tabernacle was not yet in existence. Exodus 40, where we have the account of the erection and inauguration of the tabernacle, only an anointing of the tabernacle and its vessels with oil is ordered, not a sprinkling with blood (Exodus 9:9). Similarly in Leviticus, a sprinkling with blood (Lev. 8:15, 19, 24) is supposed in regard to the altar; in regard to the tabernacle and its furniture, on the other hand, only an anointing (Lev. 8:10). It is possible, however, that Jewish tradition preserved more precise details. At least mention is made by Josephus also (Antiq. iii. 8. 6) of a denunciation of the tabernacle and its furniture, on the part of Moses, with blood.
Moses did not only sprinkle the book of the covenant with blood, but the tabernacle itself, yearly, on the atonement day, as is charged (Lev. 16:14,16,17). For as the altar and persons were to be atoned for, so was the tabernacle itself (Heb. 9:18,20. First they were sprinkled, and then anointed (Lev. 8:10 ,11), as was the gospel tabernacle (1 Cor. 6:11). All the garments and vessels of that priesthood were thus to be purified, typifying how unclean all the persons ministering with them, and atoned for in and by them, were; and how polluting all things, and polluted by them, till they were purified by the blood of Christ.
22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood;
The apostle says almost, because in some cases certain vessels were purified by water, some by fire (Num. 31:23), and some with the ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19:2-10), but it was always understood that everything was at first consecrated by the blood of the victim.
It is a general custom to purify everything by blood. This rule was not universal, for some things were purified by fire and water (Num. 31:22-23), and some by water only (Num. 31:24; Lev. 16:26, 28). But the exceptions to the general rule were few. Almost everything in the tabernacle and temple service, was consecrated or purified by blood. ‘I may almost say.’ Other things were in fact also connected with cleansing such as fire and water for purifying captured wealth (Num. 31:22-24). See also Numbers 16:46, where instant atonement is made for the rebellious people by the use of the fires from the altar borne in a censer, which however connects with the shedding of blood (compare Isa. 6:5); Num. 31:50 where atonement had to be made for not giving the Lord His portion of what was won as spoil in battle, by remedying the failure and doing exactly that; and Leviticus 5:11-13 where the very poor could offer fine flour as a sin offering. But these were very secondary and peripheral. It was the shedding of blood that was ever the most prominent.
and without shedding of blood is no remission.
The apostle shows here what is one of his great objects in this epistle, which is, that there is no salvation but through the sacrificial death of Christ, and to suggest that this law would not grant any remission of sin without the blood of a victim. This is a maxim even among the Jews themselves – “there is no penance except by blood." Every sinner has forfeited his life by his transgressions, and the law of God requires his death; the blood of the victim, which is its life, is shed as a substitute for the life of the sinner. By these victims, the sacrifice of Christ was characterized. He gave His life for the life of the world; human life for human life, but a life infinitely dignified by its union with God.
Although some things were purified by fire and water, yet when the matter pertained to the forgiveness of sins, it was “universally” true that no sins were pardoned except by the shedding of blood. Some impurities might be removed by water and fire, but the stain of “sin” could be removed only by blood. This declaration referred primarily to the Jewish rites, and the sense is, that under that dispensation it was universally true that to receive forgiveness of sin blood must be shed. But it contains a truth of higher order and importance. “It is universally true that sin never has been, and never will be forgiven except in connection with, and in virtue of the shedding of blood.” It is on this principle that the plan of salvation by the atonement is based, and on this that God in fact bestows pardon upon people. There is not the slightest evidence that any man has ever been pardoned except through the blood shed for the remission of sins. The infidel who rejects the atonement has no evidence that his sins are pardoned; the man who lives in the neglect of the gospel, though he has abundant evidence that he is a sinner, furnishes none that his sins are forgiven; and the Mussulman and the pagan can point to no proof that their sins are blotted out. It remains to be demonstrated that one single member of the human family has ever had the slightest evidence of pardoned sin, except through the blood of penitence. In the divine arrangement there is no principle better established than this, that all sin which is forgiven is remitted through the blood of the atonement; a principle which has never been departed from hitherto, and which never will be. It follows, therefore:
(1) that no sinner can hope for forgiveness except through the blood of Christ
(2) that if people are ever saved, they must be willing to rely on the merits of that blood.
(3) that all people are on the same level regarding salvation, since all are to be saved in the same way; and,
(4) that there will be one and the same song in heaven - the song of redeeming love.
It is a common saying with the Jews, and often to be met with in their writings, "there is no atonement but by blood”, by the shedding of blood.
‘And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission’; not by the shedding of it, as it flows out of the body of the sacrifice, but as it is poured out on the altar; for the pouring of the blood at the four corners, and at the bottom of the altar, were the chief rites required in sacrifices; nor did they reckon penitence to be penance, unless the altar was moistened by the blood of the sacrifice. Indeed the Law made it quite clear, that ‘apart from the shedding of blood’ there is no cleansing, there ‘is no remission (of sin)’. It tells us that all in the world is seen as tainted by sin, and that this taint of sin can only be dealt with by death, by the shedding of blood. By this, sin is seen as having affected everything that is. It is seen as rampant and the world as therefore cut off from God. And to remedy that requires death, a special death. For the wages of sin is death.
General Notes:
[1] “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).
[2] “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28).
[3] “The sense of Testament here does not exclude other secondary senses of covenant in the New Testament:
(1) A covenant between two parties.
(2) An arrangement made by God alone in relation to us.
[4] “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words” (Matt. 24:28).
