Redemption through far Better Blood and Sacrifice
16Now when someone leaves a will, it is necessary to prove that the person who made it is dead. 17The 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. 18That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal. 19For 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. 20Then he said, “THIS BLOOD CONFIRMS THE COVENANT GOD HAS MADE WITH YOU.” 21And in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the Tabernacle and on everything used for worship. 22In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness. 23That is why the Tabernacle and everything in it, which were copies of things in heaven, had to be purified by the blood of animals. But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals.
Hebrews 9:16-23
I left you with these questions in the previous Gem:
One person has written and told me they find the section related to the covenant and the will hard to understand. (9:16-20) You are in good company with the commentators who say such things as:
- “As it stands in my version it appears to me altogether inexplicable”.
- “The writer in commenting on the sense of testament and will passes over the declaration of verse 18 without so much as noticing the logical inaccuracy which presents itself”.
- Why does the author say Moses sprinkled both the book of God’s law and all the people when Exodus 24 doesn’t include anything about the book being sprinkled?
- Why does the writer say the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices (9:19) – that seems to suggest heaven needed purifying?
You can see, before I pull it apart, why this next segment is difficult. Hence the reason why I gave you time out for you to ponder these difficult things for yourself before we head into the following difficult passage – Hebrews 9:16-23. If you look to the previous segment you will see the last verse shows the connection to this current passage, all of which I placed under the heading Redemption through far Better Blood and Sacrifice.
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.
Hebrews 9:15
I hinted in Gem 2116 that the Levitical System was indeed obsolete. The writer to the Hebrew Christians made that point clear. The way of dealing with sin under the Law was ineffective and was waiting for the moment when sin would be dealt with once and for all. Why then does he move on to this next passage about covenants and wills that confuse so many?
The difficulty is found in the Greek word [διαθηκη] (diathēkē) which has multiple meanings:- ‘covenant’, ‘will’ or ‘testament’, as in a last will or testament. But in Hebrew the word [berith] does not have the same multiple meanings and does not include the sense of ‘a will’. In Greek the word [diathēkē] works well for the above meanings. The writer has just referred to the eternal inheritance in the previous verse so he makes the play on words between ‘the covenant’ and ‘the will’. That word play switch doesn’t work in Hebrew but in Greek it is appropriate for him to make this connection. After all that is what a covenant ultimately brings forth, an end result which we would call an inheritance or an ensuing benefit.
There is much debate among the commentators about this use of the word [diathēkē]. The word has been used up to this point in Greek to mean ‘covenant’, but suddenly here it is switched and given the meaning ‘will’. Numbers of commentators suggest that “the argument of verse 18 is destroyed if we understand Hebrews 9:16-17 to mean wills” as for example Marcus Dods has written in the Expositor’s Greek Text (EGT) Commentary on Hebrews. I don’t think it does. I think the writer of Hebrews is skilfully using the word [diathēkē] to make a deeper point on the basis of his reference in verse 15 to receiving the eternal inheritance. He then uses this Greek word in a way to emphasize both Greek meanings.
Let’s look at the deeper meaning of what is being said here when using [diathēkē] to mean ‘covenant’. The concept of the Old and New Covenants is foundational to understanding what is going on here. The Old Covenant was an agreement signed in blood so to speak. A strange practice is described in Genesis 15, when Abraham drew attention to the fact that he didn’t have a son and heir, God promised him a son and land to possess. Abraham asked how he could be sure he would possess it (Gen 15: 8). Following which we have this strange description of a ritual practice. Abraham took a heifer, goat, ram, turtledove and a young pigeon, divided the carcasses in half with the purpose of walking between the halves. Why? The words spoken at a ritual like this were “This do to me and more so if I don’t fulfil this covenant.” This made it a blood covenant with the idea “take my life if I don’t fulfil my side of the agreement”.
For example, there was God’s promise to Abraham. Since there was no one greater to swear by, God took an oath in his own name, saying: “I will certainly bless you, and I will multiply your descendants beyond number.”
Hebrews 6:13-14
Christ’s blood is that which ratifies or seals the promises of God to His people. Look at this verse coming up:
For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.
Hebrews 10:10
Is it beginning to dawn on you now, that God Himself made the oath to Abraham concerning the land, the descendants and the removal of sin? Jesus’ blood was that which confirmed the Old Testament Covenant that sin would be removed not just covered. Yom Kippur was symbolic of the covering of sin (Propitiation). [Kapar] the root of [Kippur] is the verb ‘to cover’. The sins of the people were covered by the blood of animals but they were not completely removed. Only Jesus’ blood, the blood of the sinless Son of God, was sufficient to remove the sin (Expiation). Our sin was to be removed for all time only by the blood of Jesus! The fact that the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur] had to be re-enacted year by year demonstrates the fact that the blood of animals was not sufficient to remove the sin only to cover it.
In the Genesis 15 event Abraham didn’t walk between the pieces, God did. Abraham was put into a deep sleep while God walked between divided pieces. That is the reason why Abraham saw the smoke and the fire passing between the pieces (Gen 15:17-18); the smoke and fire symbolic of the Presence of God. It was God who ratified the Old Testament by the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant. But that Old Covenant would be superseded by the New Covenant. A Covenant which on the basis of Christ’s blood would remove the sin forever, not just cover it. An interesting word is used in Hebrews 9:26 which was also used in one other place in Scripture and that’s Hebrews 7:18. The word is [ἀθέτησις] (athetēsis) which means to remove or annul. Interesting isn’t it that the writer to the Hebrew Christians talks of the removal of the Law (7:18) and removal of sin (9:26) in the same letter.
. . . the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless.
Hebrews 7:18
If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice.
Hebrews 9:26
Jesus, the High Priest, has both offered his own body and blood as the supreme sacrifice to remove sin once and for all. Do you see now why His blood and sacrifice is far better than anything used before? The comment earlier in Hebrews 9:13-14, referring to the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer as compared with Christ’s blood is a classic Hebrew kal ve chomer (lesser to greater) illustration. All those earlier elements could do was deal with ceremonial cleansing, leaving Christ to appear at the right time to deal with sin once and for all. That is why Jesus is far greater in all the other ways the writer has told us of so far but now we are gaining a sharper perspective as to how much greater He is as the Great High Priest of a far better Heavenly Tabernacle offering a blood sacrifice of God’s own Son. He is High Priest and the Sacrifice with Divine blood. Talk about lesser to Greater.
I am convinced the writer was making a deeper point by combining the two meanings of diathēkē in the same passage. Not only does Jesus confirm the New Covenant with His blood but His blood also ensures the receipt of the eternal inheritance for the heirs as promised. Because the death of testator released the inheritance in accord with the covenant. I think the wording is correct as it is. There is no problem with this passage, much less it being altogether inexplicable or logically inaccurate. It seems perfectly clear to me and believe me there is much more good stuff to come which will clarify this pericope even more.
You will notice that I have not yet dealt with the other two relevant questions:-
- Why does the author say Moses sprinkled both the book of God’s law and all the people when Exodus 24 doesn’t include anything about the book being sprinkled?
- Why does the writer say the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices (9:19) – that seems to suggest heaven needed purifying?
I haven’t addressed these two matters yet because this Gem has already grown too long. Stay tuned.
Jesus doesn’t need you to add your works to His sacrifice. Don’t try to pay for something that He already paid for.
Joyce Meyer
If Jesus Christ be God and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him.
C.T. Studd
The Lord delights in you as you give yourself as a living sacrifice to Him to use, in response to all He has done for you.
Ian
The greatest love that had ever been shown in all of history was shown by the greatest person ever through the greatest sacrifice ever as the greatest gift to the least deserving.
John Piper