TEXT [Commentary]

  D.   The Blood of Two Covenants (9:11-22)

11 So Christ has now become the High Priest over all the good things that have come.[*] He has entered that greater, more perfect Tabernacle in heaven, which was not made by human hands and is not part of this created world. 12 With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever.

13 Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. 14 Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds[*] so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. 15 That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.

16 Now when someone leaves a will,[*] it is necessary to prove that the person who made it is dead.[*] 17 The will goes into effect only after the person’s death. While the person who made it is still alive, the will cannot be put into effect.

18 That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal. 19 For after Moses had read each of God’s commandments to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats,[*] along with water, and sprinkled both the book of God’s law and all the people, using hyssop branches and scarlet wool. 20 Then he said, “This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.”[*] 21 And in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the Tabernacle and on everything used for worship. 22 In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

NOTES

9:11 the good things that have come. Some ancient mss (א D2 Ivid 0278 33 M) have “the good things to come” (probably not still to come but good things that were to come from the standpoint of the old covenant, as in 10:1). The text as it stands has slightly stronger manuscript support (including 46 B D* 1739 syrh, p) and looks at the matter from the standpoint of the new covenant: The “good things” are already here because of Jesus Christ and his enthronement in heaven as High Priest. The other reading, while consistent with a strong interest in things “to come” in Hebrews (see 1:14; 2:5; 6:5; 11:8, 20; 13:14), is suspect here because the language of 10:1, “where the text is firm, seems to have influenced copyists” (Metzger 1971:668).

He has entered. The verb “entered” does not occur until the following verse (“he entered the Most Holy Place”; 9:12). More literally, “the good things that have come” are here by virtue of (dia [TG1223, ZG1328]) “that greater, more perfect Tabernacle . . . which was not made by human hands and is not part of this created world” (cf. 8:2, “built by the Lord and not by human hands”). Such a Tabernacle in heaven would be part of God’s creation but not of “this” creation, that is, not part of the created order on earth. Whether it was created at or before the creation of the world or just recently with the exaltation of Jesus and the coming of the “good things” of which the author speaks remains an open question.

9:13 the ashes of a heifer. According to Num 19, “the ashes of a red heifer” were mixed with water and sprinkled, not as part of the Day of Atonement ritual, but for the purification of those defiled by contact with a corpse (see Num 19:1-9, 17-19). Much has been made in recent years of efforts (whether by Orthodox Jews or fundamentalist Christians) to find or breed a perfect “red heifer” as a prerequisite to rebuilding the Jewish Temple, but Hebrews takes no notice of the heifer’s color nor of the biblical requirement that it be free from all physical defects (Num 19:2).

9:14 our consciences. Some important ancient mss (including א D2 0278 33 1739c it M) have the reading “your” consciences (a difference of only one letter in Greek, as in English). But “our consciences” (A D* K P 1739*) is preferable, in keeping with the author’s tendency throughout to link the experience of his audience closely to his own (as, for example, in 1:2, “He has spoken to us,” or 8:1, “We have a High Priest”).

the living God. A few ancient mss (including A P 0278) have “the living and true God,” a reading probably influenced by Paul (see 1 Thess 1:9).

by the power of the eternal Spirit. “By the power of” is simply “through” or “by means of” (dia [TG1223, ZG1328]). Some ancient mss, versions, and church fathers (א2 D* copbo Chrysostom) have “Holy Spirit” in place of “eternal Spirit,” but this is almost certainly an assimilation to the more familiar and expected term. Superior manuscripts (17vid 46 א* A B D2 0278 33 1739 M) support the reading “eternal Spirit.” The adjective “eternal” reinforces the thought that Jesus “secured our redemption forever” (lit., “an eternal redemption” in 9:12; see also “eternal inheritance” in 9:15).

9:16 a will. The word for “will” is the same Greek word (diathēkē [TG1242, ZG1347]) that the author uses all along for “covenant.” A “will” or “testament” is one specific kind of covenant or contract, whether in the ancient world or today.

it is necessary to prove that the person who made it is dead. More literally, “it is necessary that the death of the person who made it must be borne” (pherō [TG5342, ZG5770]). It is not a matter of proof but simply that someone must die.

9:17 after the person’s death. More literally, “on those who are dead” (pl.: epi nekrois; see commentary below).

9:22 nearly everything. The author stopped short of saying “everything” without qualification, perhaps because of the passing mention of two other purifying agents, “the ashes of a heifer” (9:13) and “water” (9:19).

COMMENTARY [Text]

Having taken us through Moses’s ancient Tabernacle on earth with its two rooms, the author returns to “the present time” (9:9) and “all the good things that have come” (9:11) now that Christ is enthroned as High Priest (see 8:1). Both comparisons and contrasts are in order. Like the Jewish high priests of old, Christ has “entered the Most Holy Place” (9:12), not on earth or in “this created world” (9:11; see note), but in heaven. The way into that heavenly Tabernacle was blocked before (see 9:8), but through Christ our High Priest it is now open. Like the Jewish high priests before him, he offered blood, but “not the blood of goats and calves” (9:12) or of “bulls” (9:13). The blood he offered was “his own” (as in 7:27, “he offered himself”). But why mention “the ashes of a heifer” (9:13)—not exactly a blood sacrifice and not part of the Day of Atonement ritual (see note on 9:13)? Was it simply a reminder that fire as well as blood played a role in the Jewish sacrificial system? Was it that ashes, no less than blood, testified to a death (see 9:16-17)? Or was it because the heifer was “taken outside the camp” to be slaughtered and burned (Num 19:2-3), just as Jesus “suffered and died outside the city gates” (see 13:11-13)?

Possibly all of these factors were at work. If goats and calves and bulls became acceptable sacrifices through blood, as Jesus did, the red heifer became a purification for uncleanness through fire, just as Jesus offered himself “by the power of the eternal Spirit” (9:14). John Chrysostom (whose text had the reading “Holy Spirit” rather than “eternal Spirit”; see note on 9:14) interpreted “Holy Spirit” to mean “not through fire, nor through any other things” (Homilies on Hebrews 15.5; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, 14.440); this distinction is somewhat strange, given that Spirit and fire are kindred images throughout the New Testament, from John the Baptist (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16) to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:3-4) and beyond (Rev 4:5). Near the end of his argument, the author of Hebrews will remind the audience that “our God is a devouring fire,” hinting perhaps at God’s “appetite” (if we may use that word) for the sacrifices his people offer “by worshiping him with holy fear and awe” (12:28-29). Yet fire, implied by “the ashes of a heifer,” is only a minor aspect of the present passage. The emphasis is on blood, and the primary contrast here is between the animal blood of the Jewish sacrificial system on earth and Christ’s offering of his own blood in heaven. The author hints at yet another difference with the notice that Christ’s sacrificial offering was “once for all time” (one word in Greek, ephapax [TG2178, ZG2384]; 9:12; see note on 7:27), implying that this was not true of the sacrifices offered under the old covenant. He will make that point explicitly later on (see 9:25-28; 10:10-12), but for the moment he focuses on an argument from the lesser to the greater. Both covenants promise cleansing, or purification, but if the ancient sacrifices of blood and fire “could cleanse people’s bodies,” then “how much more” will Christ’s blood “purify our consciences” (9:13-14, my italics).

The contrast is not simply between “physical” and “spiritual” cleansing (whatever those terms might mean). This author knew full well that ritual cleansing under the old covenant was more than personal hygiene. It took away “ceremonial impurity” (9:13), and that was no small thing. Still, it could not cleanse the “conscience” (see 9:9)—that is, it could not take away the “feelings of guilt” (see 10:2, 22), or for that matter the guilt itself, which necessitated the sacrifices in the first place. Christ’s sacrifice, on the other hand, brings about a transformation by cleansing the conscience “from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God” (9:14). “Sinful deeds” are literally “dead works” (also in 6:1; see note). The author’s use of such language could imply the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism or Christianity or both (see “Audience” in the Introduction), a conversion from “dead works”—sometimes specified as “idols” or “these worthless things”—to “the living God” (see Acts 14:15; 17:25, 30; 1 Thess 1:9). But by referring to “our” consciences (9:14; see note), he made the point that all Christian believers—author and audience alike, Jewish and gentile readers alike—are converts. By Christ’s blood they have all been cleansed in conscience from their “dead works”—whatever these may have been in each person’s case—to “worship the living God.” His blood effects a transition from death to life. We have heard before that he “guarantees” (7:22), or “mediates” (8:6), a new and better “covenant with God,” but now we are told explicitly that he does so in no other way than by the shedding of his blood (9:14-15).

The connection between “covenant” and “blood” was a familiar one, both to Jews (see Exod 24:8) and to early Christians familiar with Jesus’ statement, “This is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice for many” (Mark 14:24; see also Matt 26:28), or “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood” (1 Cor 11:25; see also Luke 22:20). Instead of drawing immediately on such traditions, the author speaks at first more generally of Christ’s death and what it accomplished. His death purchased redemption from sins “committed under that first covenant” (9:15), a phrase noteworthy for what it does not say. It leaves unanswered the question, “What about sins committed under the new covenant—that is, sins after conversion and baptism?” That question has haunted the church for centuries, and the author will return to it a chapter later (see 10:26-31); but for the moment he is preoccupied with the contrast between the two covenants and with the point that Christ’s blood does what the blood of sacrificial animals could never do. Still, the beneficiaries of his sacrifice, those who “receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them,” are not limited to those who lived under the first covenant but include all those who are “called” (9:15), most specifically and immediately the readers themselves (see 6:12, “You will follow the example of those who are going to inherit God’s promises”; also 11:39-40, “For God had something better in mind for us, so that they would not reach perfection without us”).

An “inheritance” (see 1:14; 6:12) brings to mind a will or testament, allowing the author to approach the idea of “covenant” from a slightly different angle. The NLT, taking advantage of the fact that “covenant” and “testament,” or “will,” are the same word in Greek (diathēkē [TG1242, ZG1347]; see note on 9:16), changes the translation to “will” at this point. A will takes effect only at death: “While the person who made it is still alive, the will cannot be put into effect” (9:17). In that sense, it is unlike many human “covenants,” which become null and void on the death of either party (for example, marriage; see Rom 7:2-3). The argument sounds strange because it presupposes the death of a responsible human person, the person who made the will (ho diathemenos [TG1303, ZG1415], “the testator” or “covenant maker”; 9:16-17). Yet the author’s inference is that this explains why the first covenant involved blood, which the NLT (rightly) understands as “the blood of an animal” (9:18). There is a logical gap in the argument because animals obviously do not draw up a last will and testament before being sacrificed. The NLT implies that the author is now thinking of Jesus first and his sacrifice on the cross and only secondarily of the Jewish sacrificial system. Jesus, according to Luke, after speaking of “God’s new covenant” (diathēkē [TG1242, ZG1347]) sealed with his own blood (Luke 22:20), told his disciples, “And just as my Father has granted me (dietheto [TG1303, ZG1415]) a Kingdom, I now grant (diatithemai [TG1303, ZG1415], “I covenant” or “I bequeath”) to you the right to eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom” (Luke 22:29-30; see note on 8:10). There, as here, Jesus was no passive victim like the sacrificial animals offered on Jewish altars but an active redeemer, a “testator” or “covenant maker” acting on God’s behalf.

Because it seems troubling to abruptly shift the English translation of diathēkē from “covenant” (9:15) to “will” (9:16), some interpreters maintain the translation “covenant” throughout. Scott Hahn (2004:431-436), for example, argues that when the “first covenant” (9:15) was broken, the curse of death rested not on one person who made a “will” but on all the covenant breakers. To make the case he appeals to the literal translation, “on those who are dead” (9:17), arguing that “Christ takes that curse on himself on their behalf . . . thus freeing those under the first covenant from the curse of death” (2004:435).

In any event, whether or not the author of Hebrews looks momentarily at contemporary customs relating to wills or testaments, he could easily have reached the same conclusion without it—that the “first covenant” was a covenant of blood (9:18). Now finally he introduces the text he could have introduced right from the start—Exodus 24:8, where Moses announced to the people, “This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you” (9:20). Hebrews puts the pronouncement in its proper narrative context and gives considerable detail: First, Moses gave the commandments of the law; then he “took the blood of calves and goats” and with water and hyssop and scarlet wool “sprinkled both the book of God’s law and all the people” (9:19; see Exod 24:3, 5, 8). Then, after quoting what Moses said, the author adds that “in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the Tabernacle and on everything used for worship” (9:21). While the latter is not explicitly stated in the biblical text, it sets the stage for the author’s generalization that “according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood” and his consequent conclusion that “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness” (9:22).

The parallels are striking between this and the “new covenant” that Jesus instituted with his disciples at the Last Supper. Quite possibly the author of Hebrews has in mind Exodus 24 and the Gospel tradition simultaneously. Moses said (according to 9:20), “This blood confirms the covenant the LORD has made with you” (lit., “this is the blood of the covenant that the LORD commanded you”; Exod 24:8), and Jesus said, “This is my blood, which confirms the covenant . . . poured out as a sacrifice for many” (lit., “this is my blood of the covenant poured out for many”; Mark 14:24). In Matthew’s Gospel he adds, “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28) in agreement with Hebrews, which says that without blood, “there is no forgiveness” (9:22). But in Hebrews the mention of “forgiveness” is not so much an echo of either Gospel or Pauline traditions (see Eph 1:7; Col 1:14) as it is simply a reminder of the passage in Jeremiah 31, with which the whole discussion of the “new covenant” began (8:8-12)—more specifically its ending: “And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins” (8:12). Later, when the author returns to that quotation (10:16-17), he will highlight those words, adding that “when sins have been forgiven, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices” (10:18). For the moment, he is merely signaling that he has not forgotten Jeremiah 31 and that the key to the realization of those glorious promises is “the shedding of blood” (9:22).

Here if anywhere is the opportunity for the author to incorporate into his argument a reference to the Christian Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, but he does not do so. When Jesus said, “This is my blood . . . poured out . . . for many” (Mark 14:24), or “This cup is the new covenant,” he also commanded his disciples to eat and drink “in remembrance of me” (see 1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:19). But the writer of Hebrews says nothing of any ritual meals, nor does he, in the manner of John’s Gospel (John 6:52-58), adopt the metaphor of eating and drinking to describe the experience of believing in Jesus or of following in his footsteps as disciples. On the contrary, he explicitly relegates “food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies” to an older system “in effect only until a better system could be established” (see 9:10). If he knows of the Lord’s Supper at all, he plays it down in favor of what it represents: that is, the blood of Jesus poured out on the cross “to forgive the sins of many” (Matt 26:28).

This is not as strange as it might seem, given that the only explicit references to the Lord’s Supper outside of the Gospels occur only because of abuses in one early Christian congregation (see 1 Cor 10:21; 11:23-29). Quite possibly the Eucharist, particularly the formula of institution, was kept secret in early Christian literature (see, for example, the second-century Didache 9-10, where the words of institution might have been expected but do not occur). In any event, Hebrews avoids the subject and contents itself with the universal principle, as true under the old covenant as under the new, that “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness” (9:22). It is a principle alien to modernity and postmodernity alike. What passes for forgiveness in our day is often nothing more than tolerance, or even acceptance, of inappropriate behavior. It costs nothing and requires little more than a warm heart at best or an inability to make moral judgments at worst. But biblical forgiveness, whether in the first covenant or the second, is costly, made possible only by death and bloodshed, whether the blood of animals (9:12-13, 19), or “the blood of Christ” by which he “offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins” (9:14).