Heb 9:18-23 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 18. Whereupon . οθεν-- 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 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 by blood? No possible connexion can be seen in such reasoning. But admit that Paul had stated, , , 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 , and says that the course of thought is, "The new covenant of redemption from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore, οθεν, 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 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 . Marg. 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. (1) "dedicated" "He that made it"

Hebrews 9:18-23

Verse 18. Whereupon. οθεν--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 by blood? No possible connexion can be seen in such reasoning. But admit that Paul had stated, Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, 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 of redemption from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore, οθεν, 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. Marg. 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.

(1) "dedicated" "He that made it" Verse 19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people. When he had recited all the law, and had given all the commandments entrusted Him to deliver, Ex 24:8

He took the blood of calves and of goats. This passage has given great perplexity to commentators from the fact that Moses, in his account of the transactions connected with the ratification of the covenant with the people, Ex 24:3 mentions only a part of the circumstances here referred to. He says nothing of the blood of calves and of goats; nothing of water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop; nothing of sprinkling the book, the tabernacle, or the vessels of the ministry. It has been made a question, therefore, whence Paul obtained a knowledge of these circumstances? Since the account is not contained in the Old Testament, it must have been either by tradition or by direct inspiration. The latter supposition is hardly probable, for

(1.)the information here can hardly be regarded as of sufficient importance to have required an original revelation; for the illustration would have had sufficient force to sustain his conclusion if the literal account in Exodus only had been given, that Moses sprinkled the people; but

(2.) such an original act of inspiration here would not have been consistent with the object of the apostle. In that argument it was essential that he should state only the facts about the ancient dispensation which were admitted by the Hebrews themselves. Any statement of his own about things which they did not concede to be true, or which was not well understood as a custom, might have been called in question, and would have done much to invalidate the entire force of the argument. It is to be presumed, therefore, that the facts here referred to had been preserved by tradition; and in regard to this, and the authority due to such a tradition, we may remark,

(1.) that it was well known that the Jews had a great number of traditions which they carefully preserved;

(2.) that there is no improbability in the supposition that many events in their history would be preserved in this manner, since in the small compass of a volume like the Old Testament it cannot be presumed that all the events of their nation had been recorded;

(3.) though they had many traditions of a trifling nature, and many which were false, (comp. Mt 15:2,) yet they doubtless had many that were true;

(4.) in referring to those traditions, there is no impropriety in supposing that Paul may have been guided by the Spirit of inspiration in selecting only those which were true; and

(5.) nothing is more probable than what is here stated. If Moses sprinkled "the people;" if he read "the book of the law" then, (Ex 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, Ex 29:19-21; the blood of sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar, Lev 1:5,11, 3:2,13; and blood was sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary, Lev 4:16,17; comp. Lev 6:27, 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. B. iii. chap. viii. & 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," Heb 9:12.

With water. Agreeably to the declaration of Josephus that "spring water was used." In Lev 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 in order to prevent the blood from coagulating, or so as to: make it possible to sprinkle it.

And scarlet wool. Marg, Purple. The word here used denotes crimson, or deep scarlet. The colour 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 colours for dyeing, and was very expensive. Why the wool used by Moses was of this colour is not known unless it be because it was the most expensive of colours, and thus accorded with everything employed in the construction of the tabernacle and its utensils. Wool appears to have been used in order 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. Comp. Lev 14:51. Hyssop is a low shrub, regarded as one of the smallest of the plants, and her me put in contrast with the cedar of Lebanon. It sprung out of the rocks or walls, 1Kgs 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. The appearance of the hyssop is represented by the foregoing engraving.

And sprinkled both the book, This circumstance 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 connexion with the word λαβων -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," Ex 24:8. We are not to suppose that either Moses or Paul designs to say that the blood was actually sprinkled on each one of the three millions of 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 to sprinkle it on the people, though in fact but few might have been touched by it. The act would be equally significant whether the emblem fell on few or many.

(a) "blood" Mt 26:28 Verse 20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament. Of the covenant. Heb 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. When this was done, the covenant between God and the people was confirmed --as a covenant between man and man is when it is sealed.

Which God hath enjoined unto you. In Ex 24:8, "which God hath made with you. The language used by Paul, "which God hath enjoined" -- ενετειλατο-- commanded--shows that he did not regard this as strictly of the nature of a covenant, or compact. When a compact 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 called Berith--or διαθηκη--diatheke--the idea of a covenant or compact 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 men, and which he enjoins them to embrace; which they are not indeed at liberty to disregard, but which, when embraced, is appropriately ratified by some solemn act on their part. Compare Heb 8:6.

(a) "blood" Mt 26:28 Verse 21. He sprinkled--both the tabernacle. This circumstance is not stated by Moses. On the probability that this was done, Heb 9:19. The account of setting up the tabernacle occurs in Ex 40. In that account it is said that Moses anointed the tabernacle with the holy anointing oil, Heb 9:9-11. Josephus (Ant. B. III. ch. viii. & 6) says that he consecrated it, and the vessels thereto belonging, with the blood of bulls and of rams. This was undoubtedly the tradition in the time of Paul, and no one can prove that it is not correct.

And all the vessels of the ministry. Employed in the service of God. The altar, the laver, (Ex 40:10,11,) the censers, dishes, bowls, etc., which were used in the tabernacle.

(b) "Moreover" Ex 29:12,36 Verse 22. And almost all things. It is a general custom to purify everything by blood. This rule was not universal, for some things were purified by fire and water, (Nu 31:22,23,) and some by water only, Nu 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.

And without shedding of blood is no remission. Remission or forgiveness of sins. That is, though 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, in its primary meaning, to the Jewish rites; and the sense is, that under that dispensation it was universally true that in order to the forgiveness of sin blood must be shed. But it contains a truth of higher order and importance still. It is universally true that sin never has been, and never will be forgiven, except in connexion 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 on men. 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 Mohamadin and the heathen 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 expiation. 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 men are ever saved they must be willing to rely on the merits of that blood;

(3.) that all men are on a level in regard to 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.

(c) "blood" Lev 17:11 Verse 23. The patterns of things in the heavens. The tabernacle and its various utensils. Heb 8:5.

Be purified with these. With water and blood, and by these ceremonies.

But the heavenly things themselves. The heavenly tabernacle or sanctuary into which Christ has entered, and where he performs the functions of his ministry. The use of the word purified here applied to heaven, does not imply that heaven was before unholy, but it denotes that it is now made accessible to sinners; or that they may come and worship there in an acceptable manner. The ancient tabernacle was purified or consecrated by the blood of the victims slain, so that men might approach with acceptance and worship; the heavens by purer blood are rendered accessible to the guilty. The necessity for "better sacrifices" in regard to the latter was, that it was designed to make the conscience pure, and because the service in heaven is more holy than any rendered on earth.

With better sacrifices than these. To wit, the sacrifice made by the offering of the Lord Jesus on the cross. This infinitely surpassed in value all that had been offered under the Jewish dispensation.