Hebrews 9:15

In these verses the apostle considers the gospel under the notion of a will or testament, the new or last will and testament of Christ, and shows the necessity and efficacy of the blood of Christ to make this testament valid and effectual.

I. The gospel is here considered as a testament, the new and last will and testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is observable that the solemn transactions that pass between God and man are sometimes called a covenant, here a testament. A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties about things that are in their own power, or may be so, and this either with or without a mediator; this agreement takes effect at such time and in such manner as therein declared. A testament is a voluntary act and deed of a single person, duly executed and witnessed, bestowing legacies on such legatees as are described and characterized by the testator, and which can only take effect upon his death. Now observe, Christ is the Mediator of a New Testament (Heb 9:15); and he is so for several ends and purposes here mentioned. 1. To redeem persons from their transgressions committed against the law or first testament, which makes every transgression a forfeiture of liberty, and makes men debtors, and slaves or prisoners, who need to be redeemed. 2. To qualify all those that are effectually called to receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. These are the great legacies that Christ by his last will and testament has bequeathed to the truly characterized legatees.

II. To make this New Testament effectual, it was necessary that Christ should die; the legacies accrue by means of death. This he proves by two arguments: - 1. From the general nature of every will or testamentary disposition, Heb 9:16. Where a testament is, where it acts and operates, there must of necessity by the death of the testator; till then the property is still in the testator's hand, and he has power to revoke, cancel, or alter, his will as he pleases; so that no estate, no right, is conveyed by will, till the testator's death has made it unalterable and effectual. 2. From the particular method that was taken by Moses in the ratification of the first testament, which was not done without blood, Heb 9:18, Heb 9:19, etc. All men by sin had become guilty before God, had forfeited their inheritance, their liberties, and their very lives, into the hands of divine justice; but God, being willing to show the greatness of his mercy, proclaimed a covenant of grace, and ordered it to be typically administered under the Old Testament, but not without the blood and life of the creature; and God accepted the blood of bulls and goats, as typifying the blood of Christ; and by these means the covenant of grace was ratified under the former dispensation. The method taken by Moses, according to the direction he had received from God, is here particularly related (1.) Moses spoke every precept to all the people, according to the law, Heb 9:19. He published to them the tenour of the covenant, the duties required, the rewards promised to those who did their duty, and the punishment threatened against the transgressors, and he called for their consent to the terms of the covenant; and this in an express manner. (2.) Then he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and applied this blood by sprinkling it. This blood and water signified the blood and water that came out of our Saviour's pierced side, for justification and sanctification, and also shadowed forth the two sacraments of the New Testament, baptism and the Lord's supper, with scarlet wool, signifying the righteousness of Christ with which we must be clothed, the hyssop signifying that faith by which we must apply all. Now with these Moses sprinkled, [1.] The book of the law and covenant, to show that the covenant of grace is confirmed by the blood of Christ and made effectual to our good. [2.] The people, intimating that the shedding of the blood of Christ will be no advantage to us if it be not applied to us. And the sprinkling of both the book and the people signified the mutual consent of both parties, God and man, and their mutual engagements to each other in this covenant through Christ, Moses at the same time using these words, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. This blood, typifying the blood of Christ, is the ratification of the covenant of grace to all true believers. [3.] He sprinkled the tabernacle and all the utensils of it, intimating that all the sacrifices offered up and services performed there were accepted only through the blood of Christ, which procures the remission of that iniquity that cleaves to our holy things, which could not have been remitted but by that atoning blood.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb_9:15-28

Mediator of the new testament

The two mediators:

I.

Is WHAT RESPECTS JESUS AND MOSES ARE MEDIATORIALLY ALIKE.

1. Both of Divine appointment.

2. Both give to the world the notion of a covenant with God.

3. Both proposed a covenant that was fundamentally the same.

II. IN WHAT RESPECTS JESUS AND MOSES ARE MEDIATORIALLY DIFFERENT.

1. There is a difference of natures.

2. Jesus is a Mediator with individuals.

3. Jesus is a Mediator giving to man the fullest possible knowledge of God.

4. Jesus is a Mediator giving to man sufficiency of power. (D. Young, B. A.)

The old and the new

It was a part of the mission of the apostles not to transfer the allegiance of the Jews from one God to another, but to teach them how to serve the same God in a higher dispensation, under a noble disclosure of His character, and by new and better methods. It was to be the same heart and the same God; but there was a new and living way opened. The old was good, the new was better. The new was not an antagonism of the old, but only its outgrowth, related to it as the blossom and the fruit are to the root and the stalk. The old was local and national in its prime intents, and in its results. The new was for all ages. The old was a system of practices. It aimed at conduct--of course implying a good cause for conduct. The new is a system of principles, and yet not principles in a rigid philosphical sense, but principles that are great moral impulses or tendencies of the heart. The old built men for this world. Therefore it hardly looked beyond this world. The whole force of the new dispensation is derived from that which scarcely appeared at all in the old--its supereminent doctrine of the future. That is its very enginery. The aims of Christianity are supramundane. The motives are drawn from immortality-its joys, honours, promises, rewards. The old addressed the conscience through fear, and soon overreached its aim, losing some by under-action, and others--and the better natures--by over-action. What the law could not do, in that it was weak, it is declared, God sent His own Son to do. The new aims at the very springs of moral power in the soul, and that through love. It is a total change, it is an absolute difference, in this regard. The old was a dispensation of secular morals. It lived in the past. The new is a system of aspirations. It lives in the future. We are the children of the new testament, and not of the old. Woe be to us if, living in these later days, we find ourselves groping in the imperfections of the old testament, instead of springing up with all the vitality and supereminent manhood which belongs to the new testament. We are the children of a living Saviour. We are a brood over which He stretches His wings. We ought to have more than a creed which is only a modern representation of an old ordinance or institution. We ought to have something more than an ordinance. To be a disciple of the new testament is to have a living Head. It is to have a vital connection with that Head. It is to be conscious, while all nature speaks of God, and while all the exercises of religion assist indirectly, that the main power of a true religion in the soul is the souls connection with a living God. Ye are the children of the new and not of the old. Let your life mount up toward God. (H. W. Beecher.)

They which are called

Called

To every one of you I say, you are called. You are called because you were baptized as infants, dedicated to the service of the gospel, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are called because you have been instructed from the days of childhood to the present hour to believe in the Lord Jesus. You are called because you are in a Christian land, surrounded by those who own that the gospel is the word of God, and having also many within your sight or hearing, who live according to the will of Christ. You are called by the ordinances of the Christian Church, by the voice of the Christian ministry; by the word and sacraments of Christ, and by the preaching of those pastors who address you by His commission, and in His name. This day, this hour I call you in His behalf; therefore you are called. This is your calling. May God give you grace to hear! May God help you to believe His promise! May God make you to enjoy His glory. (C. Girdlestone, M. A.)

Effectual calling:

God draws His people, not with force, as mere machines, but with the cords of a man and with the bands of love. The subject may be best unfolded by a familiar illustration. How was it that Jacob was drawn into Egypt? He was made to feel the pressure of a grievous famine; he was informed that there was plenty of corn in Egypt, and that his dearly-beloved Joseph was the lord of all that land, and that he disposed of the good things to whomsoever he would. He was told, moreover, that Joseph had expressly invited him, and had sent waggons for the conveyance of his family, together with abundant provisions for the way; and, finally, he was assured that, at the end of this journey, all the good of the land of Egypt should be his. Did he need, after this, to have a chain fastened round him m be dragged into Egypt? No; all that he needed was faith to believe the tidings; and when once he was persuaded of the truth of these things he was willing of himself to go into that good land. Thus God draws sinners. He causes them to feel their need of mercy; He informs them that Jesus Christ has all heaven at His disposal; that He has sent to invite them, assuring them of all that is needful by the way, and all the glory of heaven at the end. Thus a thorough belief of these truths bends the most stubborn heart, and overcomes the most reluctant mind. (C. Simeon.)

A testament is of force after men are dead

Christs testament

I. CHRISTS WILL IS EMBODIED IN A WRITTEN RECORD.

1. The record gives a definite meaning and fixed character to the mind of Christ.

2. The record gives to the mind of Christ an abiding existence among us.

3. The written Word renders the will of Christ accessible to all.

II. CHRISTS WILL IS EMBODIED IN AN AUTHENTIC RECORD.

III. CHRISTS TESTAMENT IS A WRITTEN AND AUTHENTIC RECORD OF WHAT HE HAS BEQUEATHED TO MEN. There are great bequests for each of us. We are guilty--Christ has willed our forgiveness. We are enslaved--Christ has willed our freedom. We are sorrowful--Christ has willed our peace. We are dying--Christ has willed us life for ever.

IV. CHRISTS TESTAMENT HAS BEEN RATIFIED AND BROUGHT INTO FULL AND EVERLASTING OPERATION BY HIS OWN DEATH. (John Davies.)

Christs testamentary covenant:

It seems to us that St. Paul took advantage of the double meaning of the Greek word which he uses, and illustrates his subject the more copiously by employing it in one place for a covenant, and in another for a testament; and we shall possibly, as we advance, find reason to conclude, that the full sense of the passage is only to be evolved by our attaching to the word its double signification--by bearing in mind that a covenant and testament are alike designated by the word which the apostle employs. After all, there is not the wide difference which, at the first sight, we may suppose between a covenant and a testament. If I make a will, I may, in one sense, be said to covenant and agree to give certain things to certain parties upon the condition of my death; so that a testament is virtually a species of covenant. And if, on the other hand, two parties enter into a covenant, and the terms of this covenant require that one of them should die, you all see that, without any great forcing of language, the covenant may be considered as the testament or will of the sacrificed individual. God made a covenant with the Israelites, but then this covenant was ratified by the shedding of blood; in other words, there must be death to give the covenant its validity; and the covenant which required death in order to its completeness, might, as we have shown you, without anything overstrained in language, be designated a testament. So that under these limitations, and under these conditions, we can attach the name of a testament to that covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai. The exhibition which we are called upon to survey is that of our Saviour under the character of a testator; as the maker, that is, of a will, which could only become valid by the death of the party who made it. Now you will see at once that there is a peculiarity in this exhibition which marks it off from other representations of the scheme of human salvation. If Christ Jesus is displayed as bequeathing to the world legacies, which legacies could not be paid except after His death, then it may be said that it was the fact, the simple historical fact of His death, and not any merit which there was in that death, which entailed the large blessings on the race of mankind. And if by parity of reasoning the Redeemer is to be considered as a testator, or will-maker, does not the representation take away from the meritoriousness of His death, and, at least, show that it was not because His sufferings were expiatory and precious that such and such blessings have been obtained for us? A few words will suffice for the removal of this objection. If a man is worth £1,000 he may bequeath me that £1,000; and thus his death, considered as the mere separation of his soul from his body, will make me the owner of the money. But take the following case which is perfectly supposable: a criminal is sentenced to die, but is allowed, if he can, to find a substitute. He offers £1,000 for a substitute, and an individual comes forward and agrees on these terms to die in his stead. Now certainly this substitute may will away the £1,000, and yet nothing but his death entitles him to the £1,000. He might, for example, have long striven in vain to earn a livelihood for his family; he might then, calculating that his family would be more benefited by his death than his life, determine to sacrifice himself in order to procure for them the proper remuneration; and, without question, he might make a will which would secure to his children the property to which the value o! his death would alone give him right. He would thus unite the character of a testator and of a man who purchases, by dying, the goods which he bequeathes. Now this supposed case finds its precise counterpart in the matter of our redemption. The blessings of the gospel could only be procured by the sufferings and death of the Mediator. Hence, unquestionably, the blessings which Christ bequeathed were blessings which His death, and nothing but His death, could give Him right to bestow; but, nevertheless, He might still be a testator, or still make a will. In dying He might bequeath what He was to obtain by dying; and thus real inconsistency, after all, there is none, between regarding Christ as the maker of the will, and at the same time as procuring by His death the blessings which He made over to His people. In what sense, then, did Christ make a testament or will, or what fidelity is there in such an account of the scheme of our redemption? Now we would, first of all, remark that there is nothing more frequent in Scripture than the speaking of true believers as heirs of God, or as brought into such a relationship to the Almighty that heaven becomes theirs by the rights of inheritance. Yon cannot fall immediately to observe that the correspondence is most exact between this account of the believer as an heir and the representation of Christ as a testator. In dying Christ made us heirs. But this is exactly what would have been done by a testament; and, therefore, it is not possible that the effects of Christs death should be more clearly represented than by the figure of Christ as a testator. But is there then, indeed, no registered will, no document to which we can refer as the testament of the Mediator? We shall not hesitate to say that there is not a single promise in the New Testament which ought not to be regarded as a line or codicil in the will of the Redeemer. If you ask us for a written testament we carry you along with us to the archives of the Bible, and we take cut of it declarations which ensure to the faithful the crown and the rapture, and we join them into one continuous discourse, and we say to you, Behold the last will of the Saviour. What, we further ask, is this but an exact parallel to that which would take place in the case of a testament? Suppose you were permitted to read a will made in your own favour; there might be the bequeathment of a rich and noble estate, there might be the coffers of wealth and the caskets of jewellery consigned to your possession; but you would never think that you had a right to the domain, and you would never be bold enough to put forward a claim to the gold and the pearl, unless you knew that the testator was dead, and that thereby a force had been given to the testament. So that the correspondence is most accurate between the promises of Scripture and the consignments of a will. Had Christ (if we may bring forward such an idea) while suspended on the Cross, and exhausting the wrath which had gone forth against a disloyal creation, dictated a testamentary document enumerating the blessings which He bequeathed to all who believe on His name, not until He had bowed the head, and yielded up the ghost, would this register of the legacy have lived, overpassing in its wealth all the thoughts of created intelligences, and given right to a single child of our race to look and hope for the heritage of the redeemed. A testament is but a combination of promises becoming valid by the death of the promiser, we give the truest description of the promises of the Bible when we define them as the last will and testament of Christ our Lord. Now we would refer for a moment to that connection which we show to subsist between a covenant and testament. The Father and the Son had, from all eternity, entered into a covenant; the Father engaging, on the performance of certain conditions, that blessings should be placed at the disposal of the Son for the seed of the apostate. The covenant between the persons of the Trinity engaged for the pardon and acceptance of all who, in every age, should believe on the Son. Hence, you must all perceive, that what was the covenant between the Father and Son was also a document in favour of man; but, certainly, the covenant could only become valid by death; that in the fulness of time the Son should die, being its grand and fundamental article. And if as a covenant it could only become valid by death, then as a document in favour of man it could only become valid by death; but that document in favour of a party, which only becomes valid by death, is, most strictly, a will or testament. So that by one and the same act Christ Jesus performed His covenant with the Father, and made His testament in favour of man; that, in short, which was a covenant considered relatively to God, was a testament considered relatively to man. It obtained blessings from God; it consigned blessings to man, and both equally through death. You cannot, therefore, view Christ as executing a covenant without also viewing Him as executing a testament. What tie gained as a covenanter He disposed of as a testator; and whilst we say of Him, as making an agreement with God, Where a covenant is, there must be the death of the covenanter, we say of Him, as bestowing gifts on men, where a testament is, there must be the death of the testator. (H. Melvill, B. D.)

Christs last will and testament

I. We have to inquire IN WHAT SENSE OR SENSES MAY WE SPEAK OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS A TESTATOR. What is involved in this idea? If a will is made, two things are implied--that there is something to leave: that there is some measure of interest felt in those who are mentioned as legatees.

1. Now in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, we see one who has large and royal possessions, and who has these absolutely at His own disposal. All things are described as the property of Christ. All things were made by Him and for Him. Jesus Christ has power and authority to bestow all gospel blessings and privileges upon His people. He gives them grace here; He will crown them with glory hereafter.

2. And then, in making His will, Christ has distinctly in view those who are interested in its provisions--His friends, His relations those for whom, though they had no natural claim upon Him, the Saviour has bound Himself to provide. And we have the means of determining very exactly who these are. His friends are those who love Him, and who show their love by keeping His commandments.

3. A testator, in making his last will and testament, so far as there is in it any different disposition of property, supersedes, renders null and void, any will that may have been previously made. So Jesus Christ disannulled the law of the old covenant by establishing the new. Let us see to it that we put in our claim under the last will and testament of Christ. Let us not expect to receive under the law what can only come to us as a matter of free grace, under the gospel.

4. As in the case of a merely human testator, so in the case of Jesus Christ--where a testament is, for it to have force, for it to take effect, theremust needs be the death of the testator; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. In this particular instance there was need for the death of the testator on several different accounts. Among men it is the death of the testator which renders a testament effectual. And so this testament was confirmed and ratified by the death of Jesus Christ, and but for that death it could have had no force at all. And as after death a will may not be altered or revoked by the testator, but remains the expression of his mind to be carried out as exactly as possible, so it may not be interfered with by others. You may question its meaning, you may question whether it be the will of him who is declared to have drawn it up, you may question his right to make it, or make it in that precise form, yet, admitting it as a will, though it be only a human will, no man disannulleth or addeth thereunto. How much more truly is this the case with the testament, the will of Christ! And we must bear in mind, in the case of this testament, that there was a necessity for the death of Christ, which does not exist in the case of any ordinary testament. The death of Christ not merely rendered His will irrevocable, and afforded the heirs of promise a way of entering upon the enjoyment of their inheritance, as the death of every testator does, but there was this peculiarity--the very blessings which were disposed of by the will of Christ were secured and purchased by His death. A testator appoints executors in trust, who undertake, according to their ability, to see that all the provisions of his will are faithfully carried out. The Father and the Holy Ghost engage to carry out the will of Christ, and are ever actually doing so. But there is a high and important sense in which Christ is His own executor. He ever liveth to carry out those gracious designs which find changeless expression in His last will and testament. In the record of our Saviours visible residence among men, we are told only of all that Jesus began, both to do and to teach.

II. Having considered Christ as the testator, let US NOW LOOK AT THE GOSPEL AS THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CHRIST, We are presented with the will of Christ, not as so much mere hearsay--not as a vague and floating tradition--not as the lingering echo of His much-loved voice--not as a general and unaccredited expression of His intention: we haveit in a written record, an authentic document. It is necessary that a human will should be written. And though it has been determined that an oral will, under certain circumstances (as in the case of soldiers on actual service, or mariners at sea), is valid, if properly attested, yet that even must be reduced to a written form. And so have we the will of Christ embodied in words of human speech. Nor can we be too thankful that it has been so handed down to us. It is not enough that a will and testament be written, it must be attested; it must be proved to be authentic and genuine. It must be shown to be the will of that very person whose will it purports to be. This last will and testament of Christ is proved by much concurrent testimony. The gospel of the great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God also bearing them witness, both by signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will. I feel that I am safe in affirming that the proof which sustains the testament of Christ is immeasurably stronger and more convincing than that which sustains any human and earthly will. There has been a practical proof of a twofold kind. For eighteen hundred years and more this will has been repeatedly disputed by the enemies of Christ. The wit and wisdom and science of the world have done all that they could do to invalidate it, but all these attempts have been in vain. For the same period the will has been proved by Christs friends. We might summon a great cloud of witnesses, all of whom could bear the testimony of personal experience. There is, in every testament, provision implied or expressed that it should, with all convenient speed, be published and made known. This is necessary, that the legatees may become aware of that which has been bequeathed to them, and be in a position to put in their claim. Christ has ordained and provided that His disciples should publish His will and testament to all the children of men. We are put in trust with the gospel. We are bound to publish the glad tidings in every direction. And we ought to ask ourselves how far we are discharging this obligation. This will and testament of Christ informs us of all that is provided for us. All that we enjoy, we enjoy under this will; all spiritual blessings and privileges come to us as they are bequeathed by the Lord Jesus Christ. This will of Christ is our sure and sufficient title to all that we possess as Christian believers. The provisions of a will constitute an absolute title as far as it goes. If you would invalidate my right to what is bequeathed, you must go back and question the right of him who bequeathed it. And so, does any one question us as to our right to the spiritual privileges and possessions we enjoy, we reply by pointing to the last will and testament of Christ, and any further question must be raised with Christ Himself. We must not look for our title to our own merit--to anything we are, or have done--but to the will trod testament of the Saviour. (T. M. Morris.)

CHRISTS WILL:

I. THE ESTATE WHICH HE HAS LEFT BY IT.

1. The pardon of all sin.

2. The merit of His own most glorious righteousness.

3. His own most Holy Spirit.

4. But the most glorious part of the property bequeathed by Jesus to His people is that inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, which is reserved for them in heaven.

II. THE EVENT BY WHICH IT IS MADE OF FORCE. Because He hath poured out His soul unto death, that His heirs enter into possession of the property which He hath left them. Indeed, the death of Christ has a bearing on the privileges He has bequeathed among His people beyond what can be said with reference to mans bequests. Mans death must happen before his will can fake effect because, whilst he lives, he enjoys his property himself. But Christs death is, as it were, the purchase-money of the estate which He bequeaths. His death therefore was as essential to their enjoyment of these blessings as the payment of the sum demanded is to the possession of a piece of land.

III. THE PERSONS INTERESTED IN ITS PROVISIONS.

1. Convinced of sin.

2. Men of faith.

3. Men of grace. (A. Roberts, M. A.)

The testament of Christ

I. WHO IS THE TESTATOR? Gods everlasting Son, of the same essence, perfections, and glory with the Father.

II. WHAT ARE THE LEGACIES CONVEYED BY THIS COVENANT? In their nature and number they are very great. The sum of them is expressed thus Rev_21:7). They have the noblest spring and fountain with all its refreshing streams. In few words, the particular bequests in this great will of the Divine Testator, are complete deliverance from the legal consequences of sin--redemption from the curse of the law--the regeneration of our moral nature, and adoption into the household of faith--support under the trials of life--foretastes of eternal glory--and agood hope through grace which shall issue at length in the full possession of the heavenly kingdom, where every Divine and moral excellence will be perfected in the soul, and the rejoicing spirit for ever supremely happy before the throne of God.

III. WHAT ARE THE TERMS ON WHICH THIS DIVINE TESTAMENT BESTOWS ITS BEQUESTS? In all deeds disposing of property among men, there are certain conditions to be observed, in order to establish the validity of the claim. In some cases, the estate is conveyed charged with various encumbrances; in others, the observance of sundry specified acts is necessary to the legal holding of the property. Some inherit by descent, others by favouritism of the testator. In the case before us all is of pure mercy and love. There are terms, but they are not hard. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole condition of eternal life; but that faith is productive of holiness, of love, of obedience, and of all good works.

IV. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THE VALIDITY OF THIS TESTAMENT OF LOVE? There must be attestation in every case of a human will. In the conveyance of property there must be the seal. If we were to set up a claim to the right of any possession in a court of law, the case would break down if the seal of the party from whom we plead our title was not appended to the deed of conveyance. So, likewise, a will is of no effect, till proof be given of the decease of the testator. Our blessed Lord has made His death, resurrection, and ascension to glory, the seal of His will. To conclude, Have you any part or portion in this testament? Many are anxious to know if some aged and wealthy relative has remembered them in his will. In this will all are remembered, save those who wilfully exclude themselves. (Am. Nat. Preacher.)

The dying will of Jesus Christ:

Perhaps a consideration of the legal ideas of the time when the. Epistle to the Hebrews was written may help to explain this difficult passage. The idea of a will was derived by the Jews from the Romans, and they probably associated with it the various ideas which had grown up around the Roman will. Let us see what these were. The origin of the ordinary form of a Roman will, was the old testament per ms et libram, by which the father of the family (generally when on his death bed) sold his whole family and estate to some friend in whom he had confidence (called the heres), on trust to carry out his wishes (an obligation which apparently was not originally legally enforceable, though afterwards it was recognised by law). This form was still kept up, though probably at the time when the Epistle was written, the familiae emptor was not generally the same person as the heres. Still the familiae emptor represented the heres, and served to keep the theoretical nature of the transaction before all parties concerned, and the heres was looked upon not merely as a distributor of goods, but as the purchaser and master of the family. It is therefore suggested that the argument is somewhat as follows. By the first διαθήκη the Hebrews were purchased and became the bondsmen of the Law (an idea already rendered familiar to them by Exo_15:16 and Psa_74:2); but by a new διαθήκη our Lord purchased them with His blood (Act_20:28), as the heres or familiae emptor purchased the inheritance, and having thus purchased the inheritance of the Law, became the new master of the bondsmen of the Law, and the mediator, or executor, of a new dispensation. But inasmuch as the right of the heres can only come into operation after the death of the testator (the Law), it is evident that, if the new dispensation has begun, the Law is dead and is no longer their master. In fact, the line of argument seems similar to that in Rom_7:1-4. (H. S. Keating.)

The blood of the testament.

The blood of Christ is the ruby gem of the ring of love. Infinite goodness finds its crown in the gift of Jesus for sinners. All Gods mercies shine like stars, but the coming of His own Son to bleed and die for rebel men is as the sun in the heavens of Divine grace, outshining and illuminating all.

I. Of that death and of that blood we shall speak in a fourfold way; and first, we shall take the verse as it would most accurately be translated--the blood of Jesus Christ is THE BLOOD OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT. There cannot be much doubt that the word rendered testament should be translated covenant. It is the word used for covenant in other passages, and though our translators have used the word testament, many critics go the length of questioning whether the word can bear that meaning at all. I think they are too rigid in their criticism, and that it does bear that meaning in this very chapter; but, still, all must admit that the first, and most usual meaning of the word, is covenant. Therefore, we will begin with that reading, and consider the blood of Jesus as the blood of the covenant.

1. The blood proves the intense earnestness of God in entering into covenant with man in a way of grace.

2. It displayed the supreme love of God to man. Seeing that He entered into a contract of grace with man, He would let man see how His very heart went forth with every word of promise; and, therefore, He gave up that which was the centre of His heart, namely, Jesus Christ.

3. The blood of the covenant, next, speaks to us and confirms the Divine faithfulness. The main object of thus sealing the covenant with blood is to cause it to be ordered in all things and sure.

4. The blood of the everlasting covenant is a guarantee to us of its infinite provision. There can be nothing lacking for a soul redeemed by Christ between here and heaven; for He that spared not His own Son, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

5. This blood manifests the depth of the need which the covenant was meant to meet.

II. Now, I take our translators own words--THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE TESTAMENT.

1. Jesus Christ has made a will, and He has left to His people large legacies by that will. Now, wills do not need to be sprinkled with blood, but wills do need that the testator should be dead, otherwise they are not of force. And so, first of all, the blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary is the blood of the testament, because it is a proof that He is dead, and therefore the testament is in force. If Jesus did not die, then the gospel is null and void not without the sprinkled blood does the promise of salvation become yea and amen.

2. It is the blood of the testament, again, because it is the seal of His being seized and possessed of those goods which He has bequeathed to us: for, apart from His sacrifice, our Lord had no spiritual blessings to present to us. His death has filled the treasury of His grace.

3. The blood of the testament, again, is a direction as to His legatees. We see who are benefited under His will. He must have left them to the guilty because He has left a will that is signed and sealed in blood, and blood is for the remission of sin.

III. But now I must speak upon that blood from another point of view. IT WAS THE BLOOD OF CLEANSING. This blood of the covenant and of the testament is a blood of purification to us. Wherever it is accepted by faith it takes away all past guilt. And this is but the beginning of our purification, for that same blood applied by faith takes away from the pardoned sinner the impurity which had been generated in his nature by habit. He ceases to love the sin which ,once he delighted in: he begins to loathe that which was formerly his choice joy. A love of purity is born within his nature; he sighs to be perfect, and he groans to think there should be about him tendencies towards evil. Temptations which once were welcomed are now resisted; baits which were once most fascinating are an annoyance to his spirit. The precious blood when it touches the conscience removes all sense of guilt, and when it touches the heart it kills the ruling power of sin. The more fully the power of the blood is felt, the more does it kill the power of sin within the soul.

IV. And then it is THE BLOOD OF DEDICATION. On the day when Moses sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the people, and on the book, it was meant to signify that they were a chosen people set apart unto Gods service. The blood made them holiness unto the Lord. Now, unless the blood is upon you, you are not saved; but if you are saved you are by that very fact set apart to be Gods servant. Ye are not your own, ye are bought with a price. Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as with silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. A saved man is a bought man; the property of Jesus. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The blood of sprinkling:

This blood sprinkled on the people was a significant type and figure of the blood of our Saviour Christ, whereby the new testament is confirmed to us.

1. That was the blood of goats and heifers; this of Christ the immaculate Lamb of God.

2. Moses was the sprinkler of that blood: the Holy Ghost is the sprinkler of this.

3. That was sprinkled on the face or garments of the people: this on our hearts and consciences.

4. The aspertorium, the sprinkling stick, there was made of purple wool and hyssop: the aspertorium here is faith. With that doth the Spirit of God sprinkle on us the blood of Christ.

5. That sprinkling did but sanctify the outward man: this the hid man of the heart.

6. The force and power of that sprinkling lasted but a while: the efficacy of this sprinkling continueth for ever. Therefore let us all be desirous of this sprinkling. (W. Jones, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 9:15. And for this cause — Δια τουτο, on this account, that Christ’s blood is so efficacious; or for this end, that he might die and thereby procure redemption, and an eternal inheritance for us; he is the mediator — Between God and man, making peace between them; of the new testament — Or covenant rather, as the word διαθηκη is generally rendered in the New Testament, answering to the Hebrew word berith, which all the translators of the Jewish Scriptures have understood to signify a covenant. It is, however, such a covenant, as, having been procured for us, and confirmed by his death, is thereby become a testament. For through it we receive the blessings which Christ, by his will, designed for, and declared should be conferred upon believers through faith in his blood. “Thus when he said, for their sakes I sanctify myself, Joh 17:19; that is, I offer up myself as a piacular victim, that they might be sanctified, or truly purged from their sins; he adds, as his last will and testament, Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I am. So here he is become a high-priest of good things to come, purchasing eternal redemption for us by his blood: and the mediator of that new covenant, in which God promises to be merciful to our transgressions, and to remember our sins no more, Heb 8:12; procuring the remission of them by the intervention of his death, that they who believe in him might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance — Which he died to entitle them to, and confer upon them; whence it is styled the purchased possession, Eph 1:14. This therefore was his will and testament, that they, for whom he died, should live through him. And this testament could not be confirmed but by his death: he, therefore, was at once the mediator in whom the new covenant, promising to us remission of sins, was made, and the testator by whose death the testament, that they who believed in him should have eternal life, was ratified.” So Dr. Whitby, who, however, observes, that the paragraph, to the end of Heb 9:20, will admit of a fair interpretation without supposing that any thing is said in it either of a testament or testator. See on the next verse. That by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions — That is, for the redemption of transgressors from the guilt and punishment of those sins which were committed under the first covenant. In other words, He suffered for this end, that he might procure deliverance, not only from the condemnation due to the sins which have been committed since his death, but from that due to those which were committed during the former dispensation and state of the church, which could not be fully expiated by any of those sacrifices which belonged to the first covenant. They which are called — And obey the call, or are made partakers of the grace of the gospel; might receive the promise of eternal inheritance — The things promised in the new covenant, namely, not a temporary, earthly inheritance, such as the land of Canaan, promised in the first covenant, but that eternal glory which is promised in the new covenant.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

c. By the death of our High Priest, the new covenant is a last will and testament, Heb_9:15-18.

The Greek word for covenant, διαθηκη, signifies a disposition of things, a dispensation, an arrangement. Hence it includes an arrangement by agreement, that is, a covenant; or an arrangement by bequest or dying will, that is, a testament. Parenthetically, therefore, and very much as a side thought, the analogy of a testament is brought in as illustrating the death of which the ritual bloodshed was the symbol. The idea of testament, or will, was not, indeed, included in the Hebrew word for covenant; nor was a testamentary bequest one of the customs of Israel. Yet our apostle finds in the three facts of an inheritance, namely, a bestower, the death of the bestower, and the condition of the inheritance passing down to the inheritor—all the points necessary to be framed into the conception of a testament. The sense of covenant does, indeed, still remain; but the newly specified elements in the transaction entitle him to figure it a testamentary covenant.

15. Mediator—In this testament-covenant the inherited good comes from God, and Christ is the middleman, receiving from God and transmitting it to the heirs, consequently on the condition of his own death.

The new testament… first testament—As bequest, will, or covenant, the results of the death of Christ pervaded both dispensations. Hence there was a first testament and a new testament.

By means of death—His death. The condition of the divine bequest not only acts prospectively, to transmit the inheritance to all future heirs, but retrospectively, upon those under the first testament. So our Hebrews must cheerfully understand that the death of our suffering Jesus not only gives its efficacy to Christianity, but even to ancient Hebraism. Receive the fruition of the promise.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:15 the one who mediates: This term refers to an arbiter in a difficult legal dispute or political disagreement. In the old covenant, Moses and the angels were understood as mediators between God and the people (Gal 3:19-20). In the new covenant, Christ mediates the relationship between God and people by his sacrificial death (Heb 8:6; 12:24; Rom 6:23; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 Pet 3:18) and ongoing intercession (Heb 7:25).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 9:15. Διαθήκης καινῆς, of the new testament) Here the testament is rather urged, than the newness of the testament: comp. Heb 9:16.—θανάτου γενομένου, by means of death that took place) that is, at the time when the death had taken place. The moment of this (His) death properly divides the Old Testament from the New.—εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήχῃ παραβάσεων, for the redemption of the transgressions, that were under the first testament) There is a passage of Paul very like this in Rom 3:24-25. The preposition ἐπὶ, under, not merely denotes the time, but intimates that the first testament had no power of redemption, and that the people of old were more on account of it transgressors. Ἀπολύτρωσις, the compound, occurs here: λύτρωσις, the simple word, occurs, Heb 9:12.—ἐπαγγελίαν, the promise) given to Abraham.—λάβωσιν, might receive) for formerly they could not.—οἱ κεκλημένοι) those called, named heirs (ch. Heb 3:1).—κληρονομίας, of the inheritance) An apposite appellation; for there is an allegory: testament, death, inheritance.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_9:15. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν] and just for this cause is He the Mediator of a New Covenant. By means of καί, Heb_9:15 attaches itself closely to the preceding context, and διὰ τοῦτο points back to the main thought contained in Heb_9:9-14; just for this reason, that the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes that which the Levitical sacrifices are unable to accomplish; namely, that, presented by virtue of eternal spirit, brings in an eternal redemption, these, on the other hand, as ordinances of the flesh, are able to effect only purity of the flesh. Not specially to τὸ αἱμα, Heb_9:14 (Sykes, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Maier), does διὰ τοῦτο glance back. For in this case διʼ αὐτό, or rather διὰ τοῦ αἵματος, would more naturally have been written. Nor is διὰ τοῦτο to be taken together with ὅπως, as a mere preparation thereto (so Schlichting, Schulz, Böhme, Bleek, Stengel, Ebrard, and many). For thereby Heb_9:15 would be torn from its connection with that which precedes.

Upon καινῆς there does not rest an emphasis, as is supposed by Bleek and Delitzsch. For otherwise the adjectives must have been prefixed to the substantive. On the contrary, what is to be specially emphasized is διαθήκης. For just the inner nexus of the N. T. διαθήκης, with the redemptive death of Christ as its mediating cause, is to be brought out; whereas the adjective καινῆς could be presupposed as familiar from the disquisition Heb_8:8 ff., in that there the perfect covenant promised by God was sufficiently characterized as a new one.

ὅπως] in order that. False the interpretation of Heinrichs: unde sequitur. The final clause ὅπως κ.τ.λ. is not designed to develop more nearly the διὰ τοῦτο; it depends upon διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, and indicates the goal to which, in accordance with the decree of God, the διαθήκη καινή should lead, and at the same time the way and means by which the attainment of this goal should be accomplished.

θανάτου γενομένου] a death having ensued. The death of Christ is that which is meant. The author, however, expresses himself generically, because he has already in mind that which is to be observed, Heb_9:16-17.

Εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων] for redemption from the transgressions (or sins) committed under the first covenant (or at the time of the first covenant). Note of design to θανάτου γενομένου, not to λάβωσιν.

τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν] the promise, i.e. the promised blessing itself. With τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν we have to combine τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας, as a declaration wherein the promised blessing consists (genitive of apposition). By the separation of the two closely connected words, τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν is brought out more emphatically, and the discourse gains in point of rhythm. Less suitably, although free from objection on linguistic grounds, did the Peshito, Faber Stapulensis, Braun, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Stein, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 594), Moll, Ewald, and others take τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας with οἱ κεκλημένοι: those who are called to the eternal inheritance.

οἱ κεκλημένοι] Comp. κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι, Heb_3:1. The expression is here used absolutely, and is not to be referred exclusively to the Christians. For, according to Heb_9:26; Heb_11:39-40, the power of the redemptive death of Christ extends retroactively likewise to the generations of the past. And just for this reason the participle perfect is written, and not the participle aorist. For not to the historic act of the temporal vocation, but to the being called, as a fact in the decree of God already completed and extending into the present, is attention to be drawn.

Heb_9:15-28. In order, however, that Christ might become the mediator of the New Covenant, it was matter of necessity that He should suffer death. This follows from the very notion of a διαθήκη, since the same is only ratified after the death of the διαθέμενος has been proved; as accordingly the first or O. T. διαθήκη was not inaugurated without blood. For the inauguration of the earthly sanctuary the blood of slain animals sufficed; for the consecration of the heavenly sanctuary, on the other hand, there was need of a more excellent sacrifice. This Christ has presented once for all in the end of the world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 9:15 . καὶ διὰ τοῦτο , “And on this account,” that is to say, because, as stated in Heb 9:14 , Christ’s blood cleanses the conscience from dead works and thus fits men to draw near to God, διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν , “He is mediator of a new covenant”. The old covenant with sacrifices which could only cleanse the flesh allowed sins to accumulate. But Christ, as above stated, obtained cleansing from sins, and so laid the essential foundation of a new covenant, Heb 8:12 . ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου … “that a death having taken place for deliverance from the transgressions [committed] under the first covenant, those who have been called might receive the promised eternal inheritance”. Even under the old covenant this inheritance had been promised. A gospel had been preached to them, and they had been invited, Heb 4:2 . God being during that period the covenant God of the people, this involved eternal good. But until their transgressions were atoned for they could not receive the inheritance. The sacrifices under the old covenant could not atone for sin, therefore a new covenant with a death which could atone was necessary; in order that such a death having taken place and their sins being removed they might receive fulfilment of the promise. The retrospective reference of the death of Christ is here affirmed; as in Heb 11:40 it is stated that without us, i.e. , without the Christian dispensation, the O.T. believers could not be perfected, The words οἱ κεκλημένοι , therefore, include not only the Hebrews addressed but all who had lived under the O.T. dispensation. ἀπολύτρωοιν … παραβάσεων , the genitive is of the object from which redemption is achieved, and ἐπὶ is scarcely “against” as in Vaughan, but rather “in the time of,” as in Heb 9:26 , Phi 1:3 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The conclusion of the former argument: therefore seeing the blood of beasts did not purge sins, the new Testament which was before time promised, whereunto those outward things had respect, is now indeed established, by the virtue whereof all transgressions might be taken away, and heaven indeed opened unto us: whereof it followeth that Christ shed his blood also for the Fathers: For he was shadowed by those old ceremonies, otherwise, unless they had served to represent him, they had been nothing at all profitable. Therefore this Testament is called the latter, not concerning the virtue of it, (that is to say, remission of sins) but in respect of that time, wherein the thing itself was finished, that is to say, wherein Christ was indeed exhibited to the world, and fulfilled all things which were necessary to our salvation.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

for this cause--Because of the all-cleansing power of His blood, this fits Him to be Mediator (Heb 8:6, ensuring to both parties, God and us, the ratification) of the new covenant, which secures both forgiveness for the sins not covered by the former imperfect covenant or testament, and also an eternal inheritance to the called.

by means of death--rather, as Greek, "death having taken place." At the moment that His death took place, the necessary effect is, "the called receive the (fulfilment of the) promise" (so Luk 24:49 uses "promise"; Heb 6:15; Act 1:4); that moment divides the Old from the New Testament. The "called" are the elect "heirs," "partakers of the heavenly calling" (Heb 3:1).

redemption of . . . transgressions . . . under . . . first testament--the transgressions of all men from Adam to Christ, first against the primitive revelation, then against the revelations to the patriarchs, then against the law given to Israel, the representative people of the world. The "first testament" thus includes the whole period from Adam to Christ, and not merely that of the covenant with Israel, which was a concentrated representation of the covenant made with (or the first testament given to) mankind by sacrifice, down from the fall to redemption. Before the inheritance by the New Testament (for here the idea of the "INHERITANCE," following as the result of Christ's "death," being introduced, requires the Greek to be translated "testament," as it was before covenant) could come in, there must be redemption of (that is, deliverance from the penalties incurred by) the transgressions committed under the first testament, for the propitiatory sacrifices under the first testament reached only as far as removing outward ceremonial defilement. But in order to obtain the inheritance which is a reality, there must be a real propitiation, since God could not enter into covenant relation with us so long as past sins were unexpiated; Rom 3:24-25, "a propitiation . . . His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past."

might--Greek, "may receive," which previously they could not (Heb 11:39-40).

the promise--to Abraham.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 15. And for this cause] Some translate διατουτο, on account of this (blood.) Perhaps it means no more than a mere inference, such as therefore, or wherefore.

He is the Mediator of the new testament] There was no proper reason why our translators should render διαθηκη by testament here, when in almost every other case they render it covenant, which is its proper ecclesiastical meaning, as answering to the Hebrew ברית berith, which see largely explained, Ge 15:10, and in other places of the Pentateuch.

Very few persons are satisfied with the translation of the following verses to the 20th, particularly the 16th and 17th; at all events the word covenant must be retained. He - Jesus Christ, is Mediator; the μεσιτης, or mediator, was the person who witnessed the contract made between the two contracting parties, slew the victim, and sprinkled each with its blood.

Of the new testament] The new contract betwixt God and the whole human race, by Christ Jesus the Mediator, distinguished here from the old covenant between God and the Israelites, in which Moses was the mediator.

That by means of death] His own death upon the cross.

For the redemption of the transgressions] To make atonement for the transgressions which were committed under the old covenant, which the blood of bulls and calves could not do; so the death of Jesus had respect to all the time antecedent to it, as well as to all the time afterward till the conclusion of the world.

They which are called] The GENTILES, might receive the promise-might, by being brought into a covenant with God, have an equal right with the Jews, not merely to an inheritance such as the promised land, but to an eternal inheritance, and consequently infinitely superior to that of the Jews, inasmuch as the new covenant is superior in every point of view to the old.

How frequently the Gentiles are termed οικλητοι and οι κεκλημενοι, the called, all St. Paul's writings show. And they were thus termed because they were called and elected in the place of the Jews, the ancient called and elect, who were now divorced and reprobated because of their disobedience.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. And for this cause he is Mediator of the New Testament, etc. He concludes that there is no more need of another priest, for Christ fulfills the office under the New Testament; for he claims not for Christ the honor of a Mediator, so that others may at the same time remain as such with him; but he maintains that all others were repudiated when Christ undertook the office. But that he might more fully confirm this fact, he mentions how he commenced to discharge his office of a Mediator; even through death intervening. Since this is found alone in Christ, being wanting in all others, it follows that he alone can be justly deemed a Mediator.

He further records the virtue and efficacy of his death by saying that he paid the price for sins under the first covenant or testament, which could not be blotted out by the blood of beasts; by which words he was seeking draw away the Jews from the Law to Christ. For, if the Law was so weak that all the remedies it applied for expiating sins did by no means accomplish what they represented, who could rest in it as in a safe harbor? This one thing, then, ought to have been enough to stimulate them to seek for something better than the law; for they could not but be in perpetual anxiety. On the other hand, when we come to Christ, as we obtain in him a full redemption, there is nothing which can any more distress us. Then, in these words he shows that the Law is weak, that the Jews might no longer recumb on it; and he teaches them to rely on Christ, for in him is found whatever can be desired for pacifying consciences.

Now, if any one asks, whether sins under the Law where remitted to the fathers, we must bear in mind the solution already stated, — that they were remitted, but remitted through Christ. Then notwithstanding their external expiations, they were always held guilty. For this reason Paul says, that the Law was a handwriting against us. (Colossians 2:14.) For when the sinner came forward and openly confessed that he was guilty before God, and acknowledged by sacrificing an innocent animal that he was worthy of eternal death, what did he obtain by his victim, except that he sealed his own death as it were by this handwriting? In short, even then they only reposed in the remission of sins, when they looked to Christ. But if only a regard to Christ took away sins, they could never have been freed from them, had they continued to rest in the Law. David indeed declares, that blessed is the man to whom sins are not imputed, (Psalm 32:2;) but that he might be a partaker of this blessedness, it was necessary for him to leave the Law, and to have his eyes fixed on Christ; for if he rested in the Law, he could never have been freed from guilt.

They who are called, etc. The object of the divine covenant is, that having been adopted as children, we may at length be made heirs of eternal life. The Apostle teaches us that we obtain this by Christ. It is hence evident, that in him is the fulfillment of the covenant. But the promise of the inheritance is to be taken for the promised inheritance, as though he had said, “The promise of eternal life is not otherwise made to us to be enjoined, than through the death of Christ.” Life, indeed, was formerly promised to the fathers, and the same has been the inheritance of God’s children from the beginning, but we do not otherwise enter into the possession of it, than through the blood of Christ previously shed.

But he speaks of the called, that he might the more influence the Jews who were made partakers of this calling; for it is a singular favor, when we have the gift of the knowledge of Christ bestowed on us. We ought then to take the more heed, lest we neglect so valuable a treasure, and our thoughts should wander elsewhere. Some regard the called to be the elect, but incorrectly in my judgment; for the Apostle teaches here the same thing as we find in Romans 3:25, that righteousness and salvation have been procured by the blood of Christ, but that we become partakers of them by faith.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(15) And for this cause.—Or, And because of this. This verse looks back to the great truth of Heb_9:11-12, which the last two verses have served to confirm and place in bolder relief. “Christ through His own blood entered once for all into the Holy Place, having won eternal redemption; and by reason of this He is the Mediator of a covenant, a new covenant, in order that they who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” For “the new testament” we must certainly read a new covenant: whatever may be thought of the following group of verses, the rendering testament has no place here. The leading thought of Hebrews 8 is the establishment of a new covenant, and the former covenant has been referred to three times in this very chapter (Heb_9:1; Heb_9:4).

That by means of death.—Rather, that, death having taken place for redemption from the transgressions, &c. The first covenant had been broken by “transgressions:” unless there be redemption from these—that is, from the bondage of penalty which has resulted from these—there can be no promise and no new covenant. In respect of this bondage, this penalty, the death of Christ was a ransom—an offering to God looked at in the light of a payment in the place of debt, service, or penalty due. When debt and payment are changed into the corresponding ideas of sin and punishment, the ransom gives place to the sin-offering, of which the principle was the acknowledgment of death deserved, and the vicarious suffering of death. So far our thought has rested on the removal of the results of the past. The covenant and the promise relate to the establishment of the better future. Death was necessary alike for both. The offering of Christ’s life (Mat_20:28) was a ransom or an offering for sin; it was also a sacrifice inaugurating a new covenant, which contained the promise of the eternal inheritance. See Heb_9:16-18; also Gal_3:13-14, where the thought is very similar.

They which are called.—More clearly, they that have been called. (See Act_2:39; Rom_1:6-7; 2Th_2:13-14.) In Heb_3:1 we have a similar expression, “partakers of a heavenly calling:” there also the idea of sonship (Heb_2:10), with its right of “inheritance,” is certainly present.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15–28. The indispensableness and efficacy of the death of Christ

15. for this cause] i.e. on account of the grandeur of His offering.

the mediator of the new testament] Rather, “a mediator of a New Covenant.” Moses had been called by Philo “the Mediator” of the Old Covenant, i.e. he who came between God and Israel as the messenger of it. But Christ’s intervention—His coming as One who revealed God to man—was accompanied with a sacrifice so infinitely more efficacious that it involved a New Covenant altogether.

by means of death] This version renders the passage entirely unintelligible. The true rendering and explanation seem to be as follows: “And on this account He is a Mediator of a New Covenant, that—since death” [namely the death of sacrificial victims] “occurred for the redemption of the transgressions which took place under the first covenant—those who have been called [whether Christians, or faithful believers under the Old Dispensation] may [by virtue of Christ’s death, which the death of those victims typified] receive [i.e. actually enjoy the fruition of, Heb_6:12; Heb_6:17, Heb_10:36, Heb_11:13] the promise of the Eternal Inheritance.” Volumes of various explanations have been written on this verse, but the explanation given above is very simple. The verse is a sort of reason why Christ’s death was necessary. The ultimate, a priori, reason he does not attempt to explain, because it transcends all understanding; but he merely says that since under the Old Covenant death was necessary, and victims had to be slain in order that by their blood men might be purified, and the High Priest might enter the Holiest Place, so, under the New Covenant, a better and more efficacious death was necessary, both to give to those old sacrifices the only real validity which they possessed, and to secure for all of God’s elect an eternal heritage.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament,.... See Gill on Heb 7:22, See Gill on Heb 8:6, See Gill on Heb 8:8. This may refer both to what goes before, and what follows after; for Christ, that he might offer himself to God, and by his blood purge the consciences of his people from dead works, that so they might serve the living God, became the Mediator of the New Testament, or covenant; and also he took upon him this character and office,

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; Christ became the Mediator of the New Testament, and assumed human nature that he might die, and by dying might obtain redemption for his people; not only for those that were then in the world, or should be in it, but also for all those that had been in it. "The first testament" is the first dispensation of the covenant of grace, reaching from the first promulgation of it to Adam after the fall, to the death of Christ; "the transgressions" that were under it are the sins of the saints who lived under that dispensation, froth Adam to Moses, and from Moses to Christ, and takes in all their iniquities of every kind: and the "redemption" of these, or from these, by Christ, at and through his death, does not suppose that there was no remission of sins, or justification from them, under that dispensation; or that the Old Testament saints did not go to heaven, but were detained in a prison, till redeemed by the death of Christ; or that their sins were only redeemed, not their persons; for transgressions may stand for transgressors; and so the Syriac version renders it, "that by his death he might be a redemption for them who transgressed the first testament"; so the Jews say, that the Messiah must die "to redeem the fathers" (b): but the sense is, that though legal sacrifices could not atone for sin, nor ceremonial ablutions cleanse from them; yet the sins of Old Testament saints were expiated, their iniquities pardoned, and they justified and saved, through the blood of Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; whose death is a redemption from transgressions past, present, and to come; whose blood is the ransom price for them, and was shed for the remission of them, even of sins that are past through the forbearance of God; who took the surety's word for the performance of all this, which in the fulness of time he strictly fulfilled, to the satisfaction of law and justice; see Rom 3:25 and the ultimate end of Christ's being a Mediator, and dying for such purposes, was, that called ones might receive the promised inheritance: by the "eternal inheritance", is meant heaven, which is by gift and bequest, belongs to children only, and comes through the death of Christ; and is a very substantial, plentiful, and glorious one; it is incorruptible and undefiled, and that fades not away, and as here, "eternal"; it was prepared from the foundation of the world, and will continue for ever; and it may be so called, to distinguish it from the inheritance of the land of Canaan, or any temporal one: "the promise" of this was made before the world began, and was put into the hands of Christ, the surety of the better testament, by whose death the heirs of it come to enjoy both the promise, and the thing promised; and they are such who are "called", not merely externally, but internally and effectually; by whom were meant, not Abraham and his natural seed, nor the Old Testament saints only, but all that are called with an holy calling, whether Jews or Gentiles, and who will enjoy both the promise of the inheritance, and that itself, in a way of "receiving": every word shows this affair to be all of grace; it is an "inheritance", and therefore the Father's gift; it is by "promise", and so of grace; and it is "received", and so freely given, and not merited; and only such who are "called" by grace possess it; and yet it is through the death of Christ, that so it might be received in a way consistent with the justice of God.

(b) R. Moses Haddarsan apud Galatin. l. 8. c. 20.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Ver. 15. For the redemption] Here he showeth the reasons why it was needful that Christ should enter by his own blood, Heb 9:2, sc. to expiate our sins, and to possess us of heaven.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And for this cause - With this view; that is, to make an effectual atonement for sin, and to provide a way by which the troubled conscience may have peace.

He 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.

Of the New Testament - Not “testament” - for a “testament,” or “will,” needs no mediator; but of the “new covenant,” or the new “arrangement” or “disposition” of things under which he proposes to pardon and save the guilty; see notes on Heb 9:16-17.

That by means of death - 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 effected by the death of the Mediator himself; or this covenant was to be ratified in his blood.

For the redemption of the transgression that were “under the first testament - The covenant or arrangement under Moses. The general idea here is, that these were offences for which no expiation could be made by the sacrifices under that dispensation, or from which the blood then shed could not redeem. This general idea may include two particulars.

(1) That they who had committed transgressions under that covenant, and who could not be fully pardoned by the imperfect sacrifices then made, would receive a full forgiveness of all their sins in the great day of account through the blood of Christ. Though the blood of bulls and goats could not expiate, 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” expiation for all their sins, would be the ground of their acquittal in the last day.

(2) That the blood of Christ would now avail for the remission of all those sins which could not be expiated 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.

That they which are called - Alike under the old covenant and the new.

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 alike 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament.[4] The mediator, so as to be our Redeemer, which applies only to our Saviour, Christ. Moses is called a mediator betwixt God and his people. See Galatians iii. 19. and 1 Timothy ii. 5. &c. The saints in heaven, and men on earth, may be called mediators in an inferior and different sense: but Christ alone is the mediator who reconciled God to men, by satisfying for their sins, and by a redemption from the slavery of sin. This sense, in which Christ is the mediator of the New Testament is expressed in these following words: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance; that is, Christ by his death, redeemed all men. He names in particular the sins of those under the former testament, to shew them that the sacrifices of the Mosaical law could not of themselves obtain a remission of sins, so that all saved from Adam, or that shall be saved to the end of the world, have their sins forgiven, and obtain salvation by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. He paid the ransom of their sins, and is the Redeemer of all. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Novi Testamenti, Greek: diathekes kaines. The Protestant translators here found it necessary to put, not covenant, as in other places, but testament, even when the apostle speaks of the first, or old Greek: diatheke, (Ver. 18. and 20.) might they not then as well have translated Testament in the last chapter, especially when mention was there made of the New Testament in the prophecy of Jeremias? might they not as well have translated, (Galatians iv. 24.) for these are two testaments, as these are two covenants? and so in other places, where there is the same Greek word Greek: diatheke. Mr. N. has followed the Protestant translation. The Septuagint put Greek: diatheke for the Hebrew word Berith, which indeed is expounded to signify fœdus or pactum; that is, any agreement, alliance, or covenant, which in the Greek is rather Greek: sutheke than Greek: diatheke. See Scapula. We may, I believe, safely say that Berith also signifies testament, or a last will and testament, till they who are translating it by covenant, can show us some other Hebrew word for testamentum, which I think they have not hitherto done. I find that Mr. Legh, in his Crit. Sac. on the primitive Hebrew words, writes thus: Berith signifieth both Greek: suntheken, a compact or covenant between parties, as Aquila translateth; and Greek: diatheke, a testament or disposition of one’s last will, as the Septuagint translate. He cites in the Margin Drusius and Mercerus.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament: as Christ’s priesthood and service, his sacrifice and purifying, so the testamental covenant, and his administration of it, did incomparably exceed all those of Aaron’s; so that for what was spoken, Heb 9:14, even the effects of his sacrifice, the justification and sanctification of sinners, is he the great gospel High Priest, the mediating person between God and sinners, confirming and making effectual by his death God’s testamental covenant to them, which is for the administration of it the very best and last, in which God bequeatheth pardon, reconciliation, righteousness, holiness, adoption, and heirship to an eternal inheritance to penitent, believing sinners.

That by means of death; the death of Christ himself, God-man, the most excellent sacrifice, without which there could be no remission, Heb 9:22, nor the testament of God about it put in force; for which cause he was the Mediator of it, that they should value him so much the more for his death, fulfilling therein all his types, and reach that which was unattainable by these, both for their fathers and themselves.

For the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament; for the satisfying the justice of God for the wrong their sins had done it, paying that price without which they could not be expiated, by which they were remissible, and to the duty qualified, actually forgiven, even the sins of those who were under the Mosaical administration of the covenant. Aaron, Samuel, David, and the saints, believers in that time, had their transgressions pardoned by virtue of the death of Christ to come, shadowed by these sacrifices typifying him and his death in their own times. What the death of beasts or birds could do for them, his did, delivering them from the guilt and punishment of their transgressions, under which otherwise they must have perished for ever: this Peter publisheth, Act 15:11. This virtue of Christ’s death is not mentioned exclusive of New Testament sins being remitted by it; but if it did expiate those old ones, reaching so much backward, even to Aaron, it will much more expiate those under the New Testament to penitent, believing, praying sinners for it, as those Old Testament transgressors were.

They which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance: such as on God’s call repent and believe on the Lord Jesus, that Angel of the covenant then revealed to them, and enter into covenant with him, Exo 23:20-23; compare 1Co 10:3,4,9; Joh 5:45-47; such as by it have sins expiated, consciences purged, so as to have a title to and fitness by the work of the Spirit for the heavenly Canaan, Rom 4:16,24,25; may be put into the possession of that eternal inheritance made over to them by promise, and which the Spirit gave them an earnest of here, Heb 12:10,14,16; compare Eph 1:13,14; 1Pe 1:3,4. All this is confirmed to these by Christ’s death.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 15-17. And for this cause he is the Mediator of a new testament, that by means of death (literally, death having taken place), for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Here the view of the gospel as a new diayhkh (introduced first in Heb_7:22, and enlarged on in Heb_8:6-13) is again brought in. For the word is still diayhkh , though here, for reasons that will appear, rendered "testament" in the A.V The connecting thought here is It is because of Christ"s sacrifice having been such as has been described, that he is the Mediator of that new and better covenant; it qualified him for being so. A sacrifice, a death, was required for giving it validity (vers. 16-23), and the character of his sacrifice implies a better covenant than the old, even such a one as Jeremiah foretold. Further, the purpose of his death is said to be "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant." For in the passage of Jeremiah the defect of the first covenant was based on the transgression of its conditions by man, while under the new one, such transgressions were to be no more remembered. But this could not be without atonement for them; the whole ceremonial of the Law signified this; and also that such atonement could not be except by death. The death of Christ satisfied this requirement; and so the new covenant could come in. So far the course of thought is clear. Nor is there difficulty in understanding the purport of ver. 18, etc., taken by itself, where the "blood-shedding" that inaugurated the first covenant is regarded as typical of that of Christ in the inauguration of the new one. But there is a difficulty about the intervening verses (16, 17), arising from the apparent use of the word diayhkh in a new sense, not otherwise suggested that of testament rather than covenant. The verses are, as given in the A.V, For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be (feresyai a word of which the exact meaning is not clear; some interpret "be brought in, or proved," some "be understood, implied ") the death of the testator (tou diayemenou , equivalent to "him that made it"). For a testament is of force after men are dead (epi nekroiv): otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (or, for doth it ever avail while he theft made it liveth? epei mhpote : cf. Rom_3:6 1Co_14:16 Joh_7:26 Luk_3:15). Now, the word diayhkh itself undoubtedly may bear the sense of "testament." Its general meaning is " disposition," or "settlement;" and it may denote either compact between living persons, or a will to take effect after the testator"s death. In the verses before us it appears to be used specifically in the latter sense. For they express general propositions, which are not true of all covenants, but are true (according to their most obvious sense) of all testaments. Further, this sense is distinctly applicable to the new diayhkh , regarded as the dying Christ"s bequest to his Church. Hence, but for the context, we should naturally so understand it in these verses. The difficulties attending this sense are:

(1) The word is not used in this specific sense before or afterwards in this Epistle or in Jeremiah 31., which is the basis of the whole argument, or elsewhere, apparently, either in the Old Testament or the New.

(2) The sense does not suit the case of the old diayhkh , which was a covenant between the living God and his people; and there is no intimation of two senses being intended in the two cases: indeed, in the passage before us, the same sense seems to be distinctly implied, since the bloodshedding which inaugurated the old is at once (in ver. 17) spoken of as answering to the death which inaugurated the new, as though death inaugurated both in the same sense.

(3) The word, in the sense of covenant (equivalent to the Hebrew berith), is common in the LXX, expressing an idea familiar to Jews and Jewish Christians, while testamentary dispositions were, as far as we know, unfamiliar to the Hebrews; and, though the Roman testamentary law may have come into use when the Epistle was written, it is thought unlikely that the writer, addressing Hebrews, would have referred to it in illustration of a Divine dispensation, or, if he had, have used a word so well known to them in its traditional sense.

(4) Christ is called (here as well as in Heb_12:24 and Heb_13:20) the Mediator (mesithv) of the new diayhkh : but a testament does not require a Mediator, nor, if it has one, can the same person be both mediator and testator. If, however, the sense of testament should seem inevitable here, we may explain as follows. Though the word has been used so far in a general sense, yet the writer, on the suggestion of yanatou genomenou in ver. 15, passes in thought at ver. 16 to the specific sense of testament, as suiting the case of Christ, the language he uses being sufficient for carrying his readers with him in the transition. Further, though the old diayhkh was not in itself a testament, yet it was typical of that which was; its whole ceremonial foreshadowed the future Testator"s death, and so, in a typical sense, it might also itself be called one. Consequently, in ver. 18, the inaugurating sacrifices of the old dispensation are regarded as representing the death of the testator; for they prefigured Christ, through whose death the "eternal inheritance" is bequeathed to man. (In accordance with this view, the Vulgate renders diayhkh testamentum throughout the Epistle, even when the old dispensation is referred to.) As to o diayemenov (translated "the testator"), it is, according to this view, ultimately God the Father in the new diayhkh , as well as in the old, though, of course, the Godhead could not die. But the Father having placed the whole inheritance destined for mankind in the hands of Christ as Mediator, in his human death the testator died. And thus one of the difficulties above mentioned may be met, viz. that of Christ being regarded both as Testator and Mediator. Christ was, in fact, both Testator, in that, being one with God, he bequeathed through his death the kingdom appointed unto hint by the Father; Mediator, in that it was through his incarnation only that the "eternal inheritance" willed to us by the Father could be transmitted in the way of testament. So in effect Chrysostom explains. Apposite to this view of the subject are his own words, (Luk_22:29) "And I appoint (diatiyemai) unto you a kingdom, as my Father appointed (dieyeto) unto me." Here we have the same verb ( diatiyemai) as is used in the Epistle. And though, in the passage from St. Luke, the idea of a testamentary appointment is not necessarily implied, yet it is naturally suggested where Christ is speaking on the eve of, and with reference to, his death. There is, however, another view taken (decidedly by Whitby, Ebrard, and in the recent "Speaker"s Commentary"), according to which the idea of a testament does not come in at all, the word diayhkh retaining here, as elsewhere, its usual sense of covenant. The position is that, though the propositions of vers. 16, 17 are not true of all covenants, yet there is a sense in which they are true of any covenant between God and man; which is the only kind of covenant that the writer has in view, or that his readers would be led to think of by the previous reference to Jer 31, or by the associations of the word diayhkh as used in the Old Testament. The sense in which the propositions are true of such a covenant is thus expressed by Ebrard: "Whenever sinful man will enter into a covenant with the holy God, the man must first die must first atone for his guilt by death (or must put in a substitute for himself)." This principle is expressed (it is alleged), not only by the sacrifices that inaugurated this covenant of the Law, but also wherever a covenant between God and man is spoken of in the Old Testament; e.g. in the covenant with Abraham. (Gen_15:8, etc., and Ge 22) In the case of covenants between man and man (as between Abraham and Abimelech, and between Jacob and Laban) there was no need of slain victims, whoso life had to be given for that of one of the contracting parties; but there is always expressed such need in the case of a covenant between God and man. Further, the expression, diayhkh epi nekroiv bebaia , is, according to this view, illustrated by Psa_50:5, where the LXX has tounouv thkhn autou epi yusiaiv (in the Vulgate, qui ordinant testamentum ejus super sacrificiis). The same preposition epi is used in both passages, and epi yosiaiv is supposed to express the same idea as epi nekroiv . This passage from the psalm is certainly much to the point in support of the view before us, serving moreover to meet in some degree one principal objection to it, viz. that it requires oo diayemenov to be understood of the human party to the covenant, and not of its Divine Author. Such is not the most obvious application of the word, nor the one sanctioned by the quotation from Jeremiah, or by other references to the Divine covenant. (see supra, Heb_8:10, and also Gen_15:18 Deu_5:2, 3 Luk_12:29 Act_3:25; as well as Exo_24:8, quoted below (ver. 20), where dieyeto , not eneteilato , is the word in the LXX) But such is the application in Psa_50:5, and may be considered, therefore, not untenable. The writer may, indeed, have had the expression in the psalm in his mind when he wrote the verses before us. It appears from what has been said that difficulties attend both the views that have been above explained. It is not here attempted to decide between them.

Vers. 15-22. Ratification by blood.

Here the writer pauses in his argument regarding the superiority of Christ"s sacrifice to the sacrifices of the Law, and directs attention to an important point of similarity between the old covenant and the new. This passage is a serious crux. It has perplexed the most eminent commentators. The great question is, whether diayhkh should be translated "covenant" or "testament:" in vers. 16 and 17. For ourselves, we have come to the conclusion that as this Greek word does not bear the meaning of "testament" or "will" in any other part of Scripture, and as it is unquestionably used in the sense of "covenant" in the immediate context, (Heb_8:6-13) as well as in vers. 15, 18-20 of this very passage, we are compelled, in spite of opposing considerations, to attach to the word the sense of "covenant" in vers. 16 and 17 also. Moses did not make a will at Mount Sinai, the provisions of which could only be carried into effect after his death. Neither did Christ speak of a will when he instituted the Lord"s Supper in the upper room using the words of Moses. The one reference throughout the paragraph before us is to a covenant, or rather to the two covenants which are being compared and contrasted in this section of the treatise. It is most unfortunate that the two great parts into which Holy Scripture is divided should be designated among the English-speaking nations by the word "testaments," which is confessedly a mistranslation. Rather, the Hebrew oracles ought to have been called "The Book of the Old Covenant;" and the Christian Scriptures "The Book of the New Covenant.

I IN OLDEN TIMES COVENANTS WERE SEALED BY THE DEATH OF VICTIMS. "For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the ratifying victim. For a covenant is of force where there hath been death; for doth it ever avail while the ratifying victim liveth?" (vers. 16, 17). The Hebrew word for a covenant means primarily "a cutting;" the reference being to a common custom among the ancients of dividing into two the animals slain for the purpose of ratification, that the contracting parties might pass between the pieces. (Gen_15:9, 10 Jer_34:18, Jer_34:19) It is certain that in the oldest times of Scripture history, covenants were sealed by means of sacrifice. God"s covenant with Noah, (Gen_8:20-22; Gen_9:1-17) and his covenant with Abraham, (Gen_15:9-21) were thus ratified. And it is probable that the prevalent custom among both Jews and Gentiles of confirming contracts in this manner originated in the Divine appointment of animal sacrifice as a type of the atonement of Christ.

II THE "FIRST" OR MOSAIC COVENANT WAS THUS SEALED. (Vers. 18-22) This old covenant, made at Mount Sinai, comprised the Ten Commandments and the body of laws contained in Ex 21-23. These laws were called "The Book of the Covenant." They were the first rough outline of the Mosaic code which Jehovah gave to his people. In Exo_24:3-8 there is a description of the ceremonial which is here referred to. The awe-stricken people were gathered before an altar erected at the foot of the mountain. The book of the covenant was read over to them. Twelve young men, acting as priests, shed the blood of certain propitiatory victims. Then Moses sprinkled half of the blood upon the altar and upon the book of the covenant, and the other half upon the assembled multitude. Some of the circumstances of the ceremonial which are alluded to in ver. 19 are not mentioned in the narrative of Exodus; but the writer of our Epistle refers to them as matter of well-known and thoroughly authenticated Hebrew tradition. This solemn ratification of the Sinaitic Law shows that God and the sinner can only be made "at one" through a covenant of blood; and thus, the words spoken by Moses when he sprinkled the blood (ver. 20) were adopted by the Savior in instituting the Lord"s Supper, (Mat_26:28) to signify the confirmation of the "new" and "eternal covenant" through the shedding of his own blood. But, besides this, the tabernacle and its furniture were dedicated with the sprinkling of blood; and blood continued to be used in connection with nearly all the rites of which the tabernacle was the center (vers. 21, 22). The ceremonial Law was, in fact, one vast system of blood-symbols. The crimson streams never ceased to flow upon the brazen altar; blood was put upon the altar of incense; the holy of holies itself was sprinkled with it. There was blood everywhere; no access to God except by blood. The Jews were thus taught, with solemn and continual iteration, that the forgiveness of sins can only be obtained by means of a substitutionary atonement.

III THE NEW COVENANT HAS BEEN SEALED BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. (Ver. 15.) This death was at once a sacrifice for sin and a covenant offering. The blood of Jesus has done for the new covenant, in sealing it, what the blood of the Mosaic sacrifices did for the old. His death as the ratifying Victim took place "of necessity." It was necessary, not certainly because of the ancient custom of sealing covenants by sacrifice; rather, God had appointed sacrifice, and employed it in his gracious communications with his ancient people, in order to prefigure thereby the true meaning and purpose of the death of Christ. The necessity of the atonement was neither hypothetical, nor governmental, nor a necessity of expediency. It arose out of the nature of God, as infinitely holy, just, and righteous. "For this cause" that by his death he has paid a full ransom for human sin, "he is the Mediator of a new covenant of that better economy promised long before by Jeremiah. (Heb_8:8-13) The sacrifice of Christ is of such transcendent efficacy that it has availed to wash away the guilt of all God"s people who lived under the former imperfect covenant; as well as to secure for all saints, whether Jewish or Christian, the inestimable gift of eternal life.

LESSONS.

1. We should avail ourselves of the benefits of the new covenant.

2. Have confidence that all its promises will be fulfilled.

3. Cherish grateful love to the Lord Jesus, who has sealed the covenant with his blood.

4. Celebrate the Lord"s Supper with intelligence and joy.

5. Consecrate our lives to the service of our Redeemer.

Vers. 15-22. "The Mediator of the new testament.

The ideas contained in this section are

I THE TWOFOLD EFFECT OF THE DEATH OF OUR LORD. The free surrender of his life was the means of removing, in the case of believers, the burden of those sins which the Mosaic Law could not take away. The sins committed under the first covenant were not forgiven by acts of sacrifice and the aid of priestly service, which, though ordained by Jehovah, were unequal to produce peace and purity of conscience. It may be that there is a retrospective effect of the death of Christ which furnished the ground of the dispensation of mercy before the mystery of his atonement was revealed. Considering the stress which is laid upon the value of forgiveness in the Scripture, the glory of Jesus Christ shines in the fact that he is the cause, by his death and mediatorial office, of its safe and secure enjoyment. The next effect is to be traced in the vocation of believers to an eternal inheritance, which is to stand in sublime contrast to Canaan, respecting which the Jews say, (Isa_63:18) "The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while." That inheritance was defiled by idolatry, desolated by heathen invaders, and ruled over by the pagan power of Rome; but that to which our Lord calls his followers is an "inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and fadeth net away." There is a sublime harmony here between the death and mediation of our Lord, and the everlasting effects which they produce and secure.

II THE VITAL FORCE OF THE COVENANT ARISES FROM THE DEATH OF CHRIST. Here the writer passes over to the idea of a testament or will which is of force when the testator dies. The covenant is a Divine arrangement which includes two parties, for a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is One, and his people are those who, through his condescending mercy, stand on the other side as those who accept and rejoice in the arrangement. The mention of the inheritance suggests the thought of a testament, by which, as soon as the testator dies, the heir enters upon the enjoyment of the inheritance. This is an auxiliary illustration which aids us to understand the mighty love of the Son of God, who was ready to endure the woe and agony of the cross, to bequeath to us the blessing of forgiveness now, and the enjoyment of the imperishable inheritance of heaven in the future life.

III THE CONFIRMATION OF THE NEW COVENANT ILLUSTRATED BY HISTORICAL FACTS. The allusion in vers. 18-22 is to the original establishment of the covenant with Israel at Sinai. There are several deviations from the Mosaic narrative in this section. In the account in Exodus there is no mention of goats, hyssop, scarlet wool, the book, the tabernacle and its vessels, and therefore there may be here a traditional account; or the writer combined several subsequent acts of Levitical services which had the same signification and object. The essential truth contained in this solemn transaction was the application of blood to ratify the covenant which was made between God and his people at Sinai. It was the Divine will that such should be the method, according to which the old tabernacle, the chosen nation, and the first covenant should be consecrated, and should foretell and typify future events of the highest importance for the world. "Without shedding of blood there was no remission." This voice was heard century after century in the services of the Jewish Law; and now that Christ has become "the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world," the truth has received a more solemn confirmation. If he is rejected, "there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins." If he is received and trusted in, there is peace with God, and hope of eternal life. The phrase which Moses used, "This is the blood of the covenant," recalls the sacred words of Jesus, who said when he took the cup at the Passover feast, and looked forward to the covenant of grace, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto the remission of sins. B.

The eternal inheritance.

I CONSIDER THE TEMPORAL INHERITANCE. The land of Canaan, which was connected with the old covenant. This land could only be called an inheritance in a typical sense, for the satisfactions which Israel was taught to expect did not come in reality. For as the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, so neither could any mere terrestrial possession ever satisfy a human spirit. This land was but the standing-ground for a time, the place of discipline and revelation. It is always necessary to show by a sufficient experience and consideration the inadequacy of earthly things for those whose proper kinship is with heaven; and the more clearly this inadequacy appears, the more clearly will it appear that somewhere there must be something entirely satisfying. The earthly inheritance proved to Israel a constant scene of struggle, temptation, and loss; and if, by some happy period of lull, an Israelite had something that might not untruly be called satisfaction out of his inheritance, yet the day came when he had to leave it. The inheritance was a more abiding thing than the possessor. Thus, in any message of comfort from God to his people, it could not fail to be pointed out that the best of earthly possessions fall far short of what a loving God intends for his separated and obedient people.

II THE ATTAINMENT OF THE ETERNAL INHERITANCE, This inheritance may well be considered in a twofold aspect. It may be considered as something within us, and also as something without. The Israelite possession of the land of Canaan would have deserved something nearer the name of reality if only the Israelite had been first of all in possession of himself. But he was at the mercy of his lusts and selfish inclinations. Real self-possession means heart-submission to God. If we would enter on the real and satisfying inheritance, God must first of all enter upon his proper inheritance in us. Self-control, which suggests something like the caging of a wild beast, must be exchanged for self-surrender. And all this is to come through the searching redemption and cleansing effected by Christ. Then are we ready for that eternal inheritance, which is also external. Christ only can redeem us from present limitations and corruptions, and how great those limitations and corruptions are we have as yet no sufficient perception. It is noteworthy how the lutrwsiv of ver. 12 is strengthened into the apolutrwsiv of ver. 15. We shall enter on an eternal inheritance, suited to the spirit of man an infinite, inexhaustible possession; where every one will have exceeding abundance, from which he can never be parted, and of which he will never grow tired. In comparison with that reality, the most real things of this world will thin away into dreams. In comparison with its everlastingness, the everlasting hills will be as dissolving clouds. Y.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And for this end he is the Mediator of a new covenant, that they who are called - To the engagements and benefits thereof. Might receive the eternal inheritance promised to Abraham: not by means of legal sacrifices, but of his meritorious death. For the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant - That is, for the redemption of transgressors from the guilt and punishment of those sins which were committed in the time of the old covenant. The article of his death properly divides the old covenant from the new.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

redemption (See Scofield "Rom 3:24").

transgressions Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The necessity of Christ’s death:

v. 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.

v. 16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

v. 17. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Having shown that the high-priestly office of Christ was in every respect more excellent than that of the Old Testament high priests, the author in the second part of the chapter furnishes proof of the fact that Christ is also the Mediator of a better covenant than that of the Old Testament. In demonstrating the necessity of Christ’s death, he refers, first of all, to the effect and purpose of the great sacrifice on Calvary: And for that reason He is the Mediator of a new testament that, a death having taken place for deliverance from the transgressions under the first covenant, those that have been called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For this reason, because Christ entered into the Most Holy Place of the heavens through His own blood, and because His blood cleanses the conscience from dead works to serve the living God, He is the Mediator of the new covenant. Through the annual atonement made by the high priests of the Old Testament the covenant of God with His chosen people was always renewed and Israel continually reinstated in its rights as the people of the covenant. But Christ, through His blood, through His salvation, has established a new covenant, one by which we are God’s children, God’s people, by which we are assured of the mercy of God and have fellowship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, not only for one year or for a few years, but for all eternity. All this has been made possible through the death of Christ, which took place for the deliverance from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For unless these transgressions, of which all men were guilty, were atoned for, no man could receive the eternal inheritance. The sacrifices of the Old Testament not being able to atone for sin, a new covenant was necessary with a death which could accomplish this necessary object. Christ’s vicarious death being a historical fact, it follows that the promise can now be carried into effect. We, whom He has called by the Gospel, can now freely rely upon the promise of the eternal inheritance in heaven, where we shall enjoy the true, lasting gifts and blessings.

The covenant of God, assured to us through His promise, is at the same time the testament, the last mill, of our Savior Jesus Christ. And from this fact the sacred writer argues: For where there is a testament; it is necessary that the death of him who made the testament be set forth; for a testament is in force with regard to dead people, since it is never in force while the testator is living. The illustration is taken from the general custom or law with regard to wills, for a man’s last will and testament is never valid while the testator is still alive. If the real or alleged heirs want the benefit of the inheritance, proofs of the death of the testator must first be adduced. Only when this fact is established beyond a reasonable doubt, when the man who has formally put his last will to paper is no longer among the living, then the provisions of the testament are in force. Thus also the death of Christ was necessary in order that Christ might really be the Mediator of a new and better covenant.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 to be 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; and that as well those that lived before Christ’s coming in the flesh as since, might, by virtue of his death, obtain the promised eternal inheritance.

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 expiated sin by the sacrifice of his death.

Note farther, That the efficacy and merit of Christ’s death and mediation extends itself to all that are effectually called, as well those that lived before his coming in the flesh, as to those that lived since.

Note lastly, How the covenant of grace is here called a Testament, because it received its ratification and confirmation by the blood of Christ. All things required in a testament are here found, namely, a testator deceased, Christ Jesus: Legacies bequeathed, temporal, spiritual, and eternal blessings; legates 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 subscribing, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

The sum is this, That the death of Christ is the foundation, life, and soul of the new covenant; and that the new covenant is of 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.

Learn from the whole, 1. That there is an irrevocable grant of the whole inheritance of grace and glory made unto believers in the new covenant.

2. That as the grant of these things is free and gracious, so the enjoyment of them is secured against contingencies, by the death of Jesus Christ the great Testator. A testament is of force after men are dead; but of no strength at all whilst the testator liveth.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. For this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant. Covenant here rather than testament. Diatheekee means both “covenant” and “testament,” but here “mediator” shows that covenant is referred to. That by means of death. His own death. Transgressions that were under the first covenant. None under the old covenant could have complete redemption except by the death of Christ. Those who served God under it offered sacrifices which were types of Christ's sacrifices, but they could not be made efficacious without Christ. It is by his death that they which are called, of every dispensation, have the promise of eternal inheritance.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

15–28. THE INDISPENSABLENESS AND EFFICACY OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST

15. διὰ τοῦτο, i.e. on account of the grandeur of His offering.

διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης. “A mediator of a NEW Covenant.” Moses had been called by Philo “the Mediator” of the Old Covenant, i.e. he who came between God and Israel as the messenger of it. But Christ’s intervention—His coming as One who revealed God to man—was accompanied with a sacrifice so infinitely more efficacious that it involved a NEW Covenant altogether.

θανάτου γενομένου. The rendering of the A.V. makes the passage entirely unintelligible. The true rendering and explanation of this highly condensed and elliptical clause seem to be as follows: “And on this account He is a Mediator of a New Covenant, that—since death” [namely the death of sacrificial victims] “occurred for the redemption of the transgressions which took place under the first covenant—those who have been called [whether Christians, or faithful believers under the Old Dispensation] may [by virtue of Christ’s death, which the death of those victims typified] receive [i.e. actually enjoy the fruition of, Heb 6:12; Heb 6:17, Heb 10:36, Heb 11:13] the promise of the Eternal Inheritance.” Volumes of various explanations have been written on this verse, but the explanation given above is very simple. The verse is a sort of reason why Christ’s death was necessary. The ultimate, a priori, reason he does not attempt to explain, because it transcends all understanding; but he merely says that since under the Old Covenant death was necessary, and victims had to be slain in order that by their blood men might be purified, and the High Priest might enter the Holiest Place, so, under the New Covenant, a better and more efficacious death was necessary, both to give to those old sacrifices the only real validity which they possessed, and to secure for all of God’s elect an eternal heritage.

τῶν … παραβάσεων. The gen. of the object, sin-redemption, i.e. redemption from sins. Winer, p. 231.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15.] See summary above at ver. 13. This pre-eminent spiritual virtue of His redeeming blood constitutes his fitness to be Mediator of the new covenant, the main blessing of which, forgiveness, extends even back over the insufficient former one, and ensures the inheritance to the called. And on this account (διὰ τοῦτο is not to be taken as Schlichting, Böhme, and Bleek, prospectively, responded to by the ὅπως below: for in this case we should have an entire break between the last verse and this. It is true, as Del. observes, that a new side of Christ’s work is here introduced: but it is one which stands in the closest relation to that which has preceded. Rather should we refer διὰ τοῦτο backwards, and understand it, on account of this virtue of His blood: or if it seem better, extend its reference further back still, over vv. 11-14, on account of the great work which He hath accomplished by his death: = ‘because these things are so’) is He mediator of a new covenant (see ch. 8:6 and note. There is a stress on καινῆς, but not so strong an one as Bl. and Del. suppose: Del. would explain,—therefore is the covenant, of which He is the mediator, a new one. But surely this predicate does not carry the logical weight of the sentence, but rather both the words, διαθήκης καινῆς, the latter of which is taken up and responded to by πρώτῃ below, and the former by ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη in the next verse. For its meaning here, see below), in order that,—death having taken place, for the propitiation of the transgressions under the first covenant,—they who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (first, the object of the new covenant is an eternal inheritance,—cf. τὰ μέλλοντα ἀγαθά, ver. 11, ἡ οἰκουμένη ἡ μέλλουσα, ch. 2:5: and therefore the idea of inheritance having once come in, gives to διαθήκη that shade of meaning which is deepened and insisted on below, viz. that of a testamentary covenant or arrangement. Then, going backwards from κληρονομίαν,—ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν, an expression (see reff.) used also by St. Luke, is to be taken in the sense of receiving the fulfilment of a promise, not merely of having the promise granted. Then, the κεκλημένοι are the κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι of ch. 3:1: cf. also ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις of Php 3:14: and reff. here. Calvin well remarks, “Loquitur de vocatis, ut Judæos, qui hujus vocationis erant participes, magis officiat.” This end, of the called being put in possession of the promise of the eternal inheritance, is to be attained, θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων. Without this death, it could not be attained. The full reason of this, that death must take place first, is presently gone into: it is with the concluding words of this clause that we are at present concerned. These transgressions under the first covenant are in fact those of all mankind. Israel was a pattern of God’s dealings with all: and His revelation of His will to Israel extended categorically to all mankind. Against this will, primævally revealed, revealed to the patriarchs, revealed in the law, our parents and the antediluvian earth, the sons of Noah and the postdiluvian earth, Israel itself as a people, had deeply and repeatedly transgressed: and before a new inheritance by testament could come in, there must be a propitiation of all these former transgressions. All the propitiatory sacrifices, so called, of the former covenant, were but imperfect and typical: but as this is to be a real inheritance, so there must be real and actual propitiation. Cf. the remarkable parallel, Act 13:39, ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν νόμῳ Μωυσέως δικαιωθῆναι, ἐν τούτῳ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων δικαιοῦται. See more below. This is fully and strikingly treated by Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 300: see also Delitzsch’s note here.

It is right to mention that some versions and expositors take κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας together. Thus Syr., Faber Stap., Chr. F. Schmid, al., and recently, Tholuck and Ebrard (this latter, apparently, missing the sense of ἐπαγγελίαν λαβεῖν): which arrangement would perhaps be grammatically justifiable, but according neither to our Writer’s usage, nor to the requirements of the sentence. The severing, of a genitive in government from its governing noun is not uncommon in our Epistle, and frequently found in other governments also, in St. Luke: and, the stress being here on inheritance, as presently taken up in the next verse, it is not probable that it would be introduced merely in the most insignificant place possible, as a mere adjunct to the description of the subject of the sentence. So that on all grounds the other and more usually accepted construction is to be preferred. The ἐπί with dat. τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ, in the sense of ‘under,’ ‘during the time of,’ the first διαθ., easily gets its meaning from the primitive sense of close superposition. The things happening ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ, had it for their substratum, were superimposed on it, as it were. See ch. 10:28; and Winer, edn. 6, § 48. c).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The efficacy of Christ 's sacrifice is bound up with a covenant. His priesthood involves a new and a better covenant. See ch. Heb 8:6 - 13. That covenant involves his death.

For this cause [δια τουτο] . Indicating the close relation between the cleansing power of Christ 's blood and the new covenant.

Mediator of the new testament [διαθηκης καινης μεσιτης] . For the new testament rend. a new covenant. See on next verse. For mesithv mediator, see on Gal 3:19, 20.

By means of death [θανατου γενομενου] . Rend. a death having taken place.

For the redemption of the transgressions [εις απολυτρωσιν των παραβασεων] . The phrase redemption of transgressions (that is, from transgressions) only here. jApolutrwsiv in N. T. mostly absolutely : the redemption, or your redemption, or simply redemption. Twice with genitive of that which is redeemed, Rom 8:23; Eph 1:14. Only once in LXX, Dan 4:32. For parabasiv transgression, see on Rom 2:23.

Under the first testament [επι] . On the basis of : estimated according to the standard of the provisions of the first covenant, and to be atoned for in the way which it prescribed. By this expression he emphasizes the insufficiency of every other atoning provision, selecting the system which represented the most elaborate and complete atonement for sin prior to Christ. The intimation is in the same direction with that of the phrase through an eternal spirit - that the ideal redemption must be eternal. They which are called [οι κεκλημενοι] . Without regard to nationality. The scope of the new covenant was wider than that of the old. Comp. Act 2:39. In ch. 3 1, the readers are addressed as "partakers of a heavenly calling," which corresponds with "eternal inheritance" here. Those who obtain this inheritance are designated as "called." See Eph 1:18; 1Th 2:12; 1Th 5:24; 1Pe 3:9.

Of eternal inheritance [της αιωνιου κληρονομιας] . Rend. "the eternal inheritance" : something recognized as a fact. For klhronomia inheritance, see on 1Pe 1:4, and comp. Eph 1:14. The whole statement implies that the provisions of the Levitical system were inadequate to procure and insure full salvation.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. καὶ διὰ τ΄. μεσ. 4) And for this reason, even that the Blood of Christ purifies the soul with a view to a divino service, He ta mediator

of a new covenant... Vulg. Et ideo novi testlamenti mediator (O. L. arbiter) est. The transition from the thought of the one all-efficacious atonement to that of the corrosponding covenant is natural. The new internal and spiritual relation of man to God ostablishod by Christ involved of neceesity » New Covenant. The Blood —the Life—of Christ, which was the source and support of the life, was the seal of the Covenant.

The words διαθήκης μεσίτης go back to the prophetic promise c. viii. 8, which found its fulfilment in Christ. The emphasis lies on the phrase neto covenant and specially upon the word covenant. It is of interest to notice the variation of emphasis in 2 Cor. iti, 6 διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης and here διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης. For viii. 6 note; xii. 24; Gal. fil. 19 f; 1 Tim. if. 5.

ὅπως θαν. γεν... τὴν dwayy. AGB....] that a death having taken place for redemption from the tranegressions that were under the Arst covenant they that have been called may receive... Vulg. μὲ morte intercedente in redemptionem earum pravaricationum qua erant... The Old Covenant had been proved incapable of bringing men to perfection. God therefore provided them with fresh and more powerful help. At the same time He opened to them a nobler view of their end. In place of a material inheritance He shewed them an eternal inheritance. And the aim of the New Covenant was the attainment of the spiritual realities shadowed

forth in the temporal blessings of Israel.

- But the establishment of a New Covenant, a new and permanent relation between God and man, required as its preliminary condition the discharge of man’s existing obligations. Tho sins which the Law had set in a clear light could not be ignored. Tho atonements provided for sin under the Law could not but be felt to be inadequate, They were limited in their application and so to speak arbitrary. Christ at last offered tho sacrifice, perfect in efficacy and moral value, to which they pointed. This sacrifice was the characteristic basis of the New Covenant (c. viii. 12).

Thus the death of Christ appears under a twofold aspect. His Blood is the means of atonement and the ratification of the Covenant which followed upon it.

For γενέσθαι εἷς compare Mk. xiv. 4 εἰς rl...yéyovey; and with different shades of meaning Lk. xiii. 19; Matt. xxi. 42(Lxx.); Rom. xi. 9 (Lxx.); 1 Cor. xv. 45 (LXx.); Apoc. viii. 11; xvi. 19; Acts v. 36; 1 Thess. iii. 5; i.5; 2 Cor. vili. 14; Gal iii. 14; Eph. iv. 32. De». πρός occurs 1 Pot, iv. 12.

The phrase els ἀπολ. τῶν... παραβάfrom the tranegressions...from their consequences and thoir powor. Tho gonitive expresses in a wide sense the object on which the redemption isoxercised (‘redemption in the matter of the transgressions,’ ‘transgressionredemption’). So it is that elsewhere the genitive is used for that which is τρωσιν τοῦ σώματος. Eph. i. 14 els ἀπολ. τῆς περιποιήσεως.

The transgressions are spoken of as ‘tho transgressions that were undor tho first covenant.’ The phrase is general in its application. It includes all tranagressions committed on the basis of Law, all transgressions against the revealed will of God made known as Law. Ἐπί expresses the condi-

36; xi. 13, 39; Gal. iii 14.

The blessing is no longer limited to a particular people. It is for all to whom the invitation has beon sent (Acts fi. 39; comp. iii. 1).

The phrase οἱ κεκλημένοι, which occurs nowhere else in the epistles, is an echo of the Parables: Matt. xxii. 3, 4,8; Luke xiv. 17, 24; comp. Apoc. xix.9. The word κλητοί, though not very common, has a wide range (Rom., 1 Cor., Jude, Apoc.).

τὴν ἐπαγγ... τῆς ul. cAnp.] Tho position of the gen. dopondent on τὴν ἐπ. is due to the fact that it is addod as a further definition of the promise (comp. xii. 11 note). The sentence stands essentially complete without it: that they that have been called may receive the promise (comp.c, vi. 15). But the explanation is naturally suggested by the thought of the contrast of the Old and the New. Moses secured to the people an ‘inheritance,’ which was however only a figuro of that which was propared (comp. Ex. xxxii. 13).

16, 17. The mention of a ‘new covenant’ and of ‘death’ in close connexion suggests a fresh thought. The Death of Christ fulfilled two distinct purposes. It provided an

atonement for past sins; and, besides this, it provided an absolute ratification of the Covenant with which it was connected.

The Death set man free: the Covenant gave him the support which he required. Tho Death romovod tho burden of the past: the Covenant

provided for the sorvice of the future. ἢ

In any caso ἢ covenant js ratified by the death of a representative victim. But here Christ died in His own Person; and by thus dying He gave absolute validity to the covonant which He modiatod: the proceding

thought of the atonement shews how

ench a covonant wns possiblo.

The Death of Christ was a chief difficulty of the Hebrews, and therefore the writer presents it under different aspects in order to shew its fall significance in the Christian dispensation.

For a justification of the interpretation of the following verses sce the

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.