§19 Christ’s Sacrifice: The Foundation of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15–22)
The author now turns to the relationship between the sacrificial death of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant. The existence of the latter, and the experience of it by Christians, depends squarely upon the former. The shedding of blood is thus essential to both old and new covenants.
9:15 / For this reason—that is, because of his death—Christ (lit., “he”) is the mediator of a new covenant. It is clear that the author has in mind the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah (cf. the quotation in 8:8–12 and 10:16–17). The result of the inauguration of the new covenant is that those who are called receive the promised eternal inheritance. The author has already spoken of a special calling received by Christians through the preaching of the gospel in 3:1. It is significant that he uses particularly Jewish concepts of “promise” and “inheritance” here (cf. 6:17). This strengthens the motif of the fulfillment of the OT promises in the church (cf. 13:20). The basis of this new covenant and its reception by the called is now set forth. (In the original text, the basis is explicated before the result, whereas NIV places the basis last, introducing it with the words now that.) The basis of the new situation is that he has died, which has as its result that it sets people free (cf. the reference to “an eternal redemption” in v. 12). It redeems them from the sins (lit., “transgressions”) committed under the first covenant. The real answer to sins against the commandments of the Mosaic law is found not in the sacrifice of animals, but in the sacrifice of Christ. The new covenant thus contains within it the answer to the failure to abide by the requirements of the old covenant (cf. 8:12; 10:17–18). And, forgiveness experienced during the OT period depended finally—although this was hardly understood at the time—upon an event that was to take place in the future. The sacrifice of Christ is the answer to sin in every era, past and present, since it alone is the means of forgiveness.
9:16–18 / At this point the author takes advantage of the dual meaning of the Greek word diathēkē. Having understood it as “covenant,” he now shifts to the meaning will. This is the same thing that Paul does in Galatians 3:15–17, where, however, the argument is a little different. NIV reexpresses the terse language of the original with effective clarity. The argument is transparent: a person’s will is not valid until his or her death has occurred. But just as the death of a testator is necessary for a will to become effective, so in the case of a “covenant” a death is also necessary for it to become valid. Thus even the first (NIV rightly adds the word covenant) was inaugurated with the blood of a sacrificial victim. The next three verses demonstrate this point in some detail.
9:19–21 / Our author first shows the close connection between the giving of the law by Moses and the actual sealing of the covenant through the sprinkling of blood. The ceremony described by the author is apparently that mentioned in Exodus 24:3–8, although several items in our passage are not found there, namely, the water, scarlet wool, and hyssop (NIV adds branches of). Further differences between our passage and Exodus 24 include the lack of any mention of sprinkling the scroll or of any reference to the blood of calves. If the author is not using a special source no longer available to us, then he must be bringing together material from different parts of the OT (e.g., Num. 19:18–19; Exod. 12:22; Lev. 8:15, 19; 14:4). An argument in favor of the latter suggestion is the association of Exodus 24 and Leviticus 19 in the synagogue lectionary. In Numbers 19:18, we also find reference to sprinkling the tent and its furnishings; just as in our passage, it is on the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies that the blood is sprinkled. But in Numbers 19:18, although hyssop is used, water rather than blood is sprinkled.
In any event, the point of all this is clear: the sacrifice of animals and the ritualistic sprinkling of special objects with blood were important in the establishment of the covenant between God and Israel. This is made explicit through the citation of Exodus 24:8 in verse 20. The blood of the covenant (cf. Matt. 26:28) indeed serves a ratifying function whereby both parties obligate themselves to be faithful (hence NIV’s added words to keep) to the stipulations of the covenant. Any unfaithful party was subject to the fate of the sacrificial animal. Thus the blood of the covenant confirmed the reality of the covenant and emphasized the importance of faithfulness to it.
9:22 / Although it is generally true that the shedding of blood is required for ceremonial cleansing in the OT, some exceptions were allowed, and it is apparently these that our author has in mind. Thus, for example, for those unable to afford animal sacrifices, or even turtledoves or pigeons, the offering of fine flour was permitted (Lev. 5:11–13). The central importance of blood to the forgiveness of sins, however, is stressed in Leviticus 17:11, “The life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” It is probably this perspective that enables the author to write that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Blood is necessary for the ratification of a covenant, and particularly in the case of the new covenant with its promise of a definitive forgiveness of sins (cf. 9:15, 26; 10:18).
9:15 / For new covenant, see note on 8:8. The same expression, mediator of a new covenant, occurs again in 12:24 (where, however, the word “new” is neos rather than kainos). The word mediator has already been used in 8:6 (“mediator of a superior covenant”). Elsewhere in the NT the word describes Christ only in 1 Tim. 2:5, where there is no mention of the new covenant: “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” On the atoning significance of Christ’s death, see also 2:9, 14–15. Sets people free is a translation of the Greek word apolytrōsis. This is the only occurrence of the word in referring to redemption from sin in Hebrews (for parallels to this usage, see Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), but the related word lytrōsis occurs in 9:12 (see note there). The word translated sins (parabasis) is found in only one other place in Hebrews (2:2), where it refers to the sins committed under the Mosaic dispensation, for which due punishment was received. Only in Hebrews is the Mosaic covenant referred to as the first covenant (see note on 8:7). Surprisingly, the first covenant is never called the “old covenant” as it is in 2 Cor. 3:14, although this of course is implied by the reference to the “new covenant” (but cf. 8:13). The retroactive effect of Christ’s death, whereby those in the earlier dispensation are ultimately redeemed, may also be alluded to in Rom. 3:25 (see RSV). Those who are called refers to Christians who have heard the call and have responded in faith and obedience (see note on 3:1). The words the promised eternal inheritance are reminiscent of Paul’s Christian application of the concept of the inheritance in Rom. 8:17: “Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ.” For the importance of what God has promised in Hebrews, see note on 6:12. The word inheritance (klēronomia) occurs only here and in 11:8 in Hebrews. The word “heir,” however, and the verb “to inherit” are also found several times (1:14; 6:17). See note on 1:14.
9:16–18 / A few commentators, notably Westcott and Nairne, have argued that the word diathēkē is to be understood throughout the epistle as meaning “covenant,” including the present passage. See also J. J. Hughes, “Hebrews ix 15ff. and Galatians iii 15ff. A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure,” NovT 21 (1979), pp. 27–96. This view understands the death referred to in v. 16 to be that of a sacrificial animal rather than that of the covenant-maker. The latter is thus understood “to die” only in a symbolic way, and this is the “establishment” or “proof” upon which the covenant becomes effective. But since the natural reading of v. 17 requires the death (apparently literal, not symbolic) of the one who makes the diathēkē, and since diathēkē can mean “will,” it makes better sense to allow for a shift in the meaning of the word in vv. 16–17. Supportive of this conclusion is that the language of v. 16 is careful and accurate legal language used in certifying the death of a testator. Thus, behind NIV’s to prove is the Greek word pherō, lit., “to be brought,” in the technical sense of being “registered.” See K. Weiss, TDNT, vol. 9, p. 58; and the note of Hughes, Hebrews, pp. 371–73. We are still left in the present passage, however, with the unusual circumstance that the testator, upon whose death the will takes effect, is also the executor of the will—that is, “the mediator of a new covenant.” The uniqueness of Christ and his work is such that while it is expressed in the categories of both covenant and will, it transcends the ordinary stipulations of both. The word diatithēmi, which underlies NIV’s the one who made it, is used both of making wills, as in vv. 16 and 17, and of covenants, as in the quotation from Jer. 31:33 in 8:10 and 10:16. On this see J. Behm, TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 104–6; for the view that “covenant” and “testament” are not to be distinguished in the present passage, see K. M. Campbell, “Covenant or Testament? Heb. 9:16, 17 Reconsidered,” EQ (1972), pp. 107–11; G. D. Kilpatrick, “Diathēkē in Hebrews,” ZNW (1977), pp. 263–65. NIV’s was put into effect (v. 18) translates the Greek verb enkainizō, a verb found only here and in 10:20 in the NT. In the present passage the word is to be understood as “to inaugurate” or “to dedicate” in the sense of a consecration. See J. Behm, TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 453f.
9:19–21 / Many Greek manuscripts include the words “and goats” after calves. It is difficult to decide whether these words were at some time omitted by a copyist (either accidentally or, perhaps, intentionally in order to harmonize the text with Exod. 24:5) or whether they were added, perhaps in imitation of v. 12. Probably the words are original, but the possibility remains that the shorter reading was later expanded by a copyist. Because of the uncertainty the United Bible Societies put the words in brackets. See Metzger, TCGNT, pp. 668f. Water was probably added to the blood to increase the quantity and to prevent coagulation, but the water in view may be that mixed with the ashes of a heifer and used for purification according to Num. 19:17–18. The scarlet wool was apparently used to fasten the hyssop sprig to a stick of cedar wood, thus making a utensil for ritual cleansing (cf. Lev. 14:4–7; Num. 19:6). In the citation of Exod. 24:8 (v. 20) the writer departs only slightly from the LXX (which agrees exactly with the Hebrew text), substituting this for “behold,” God for “the Lord,” and employing a different main verb, commanded, for LXX’s “made with you.” In the NT the shed blood of Jesus is explicitly associated with the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; cf. Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24). Even the ritual of the sprinkling of blood can be alluded to in reference to Christ’s blood in 1 Pet. 1:2—but this, of course, is to be understood in a figurative rather than a literal sense. Like our author, Josephus (Ant. 3.206) refers to the sprinkling of the tent and its vessels. Everything used in its ceremonies may be more literally translated “the vessels of the sacrificial ritual.” Again the word leitourgia is used (see note on 8:6).
9:22 / Also among possible exceptions in our author’s mind may be cleansing by water, incense, and fire, instances of which can be found in the OT. But these exceptions only prove the rule stressed in this verse. The saying without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness may have been a proverbial saying and appears to have been a perspective shared by the rabbis. Behind the shedding of blood lies a Greek noun (haimatekchysia) that does not occur in the LXX and that is found in the NT only here. It is possible, as many commentators contend, but not necessary, that our author coined the word.