Hebrews 9:18

Whereupon--rather, "Whence."

dedicated--"inaugurated." The Old Testament strictly and formally began on that day of inauguration. "Where the disposition, or arrangement, is ratified by the blood of another, namely, of animals, which cannot make a covenant, much less make a testament, it is not strictly a testament, where it is ratified by the death of him that makes the arrangement, it is strictly, Greek 'diathece,' Hebrew 'berith,' taken in a wider sense, a testament" [BENGEL]; thus, in Heb 9:18, referring to the old dispensation, we may translate, "the first (covenant)": or better, retain "the first (testament)," not that the old dispensation, regarded by itself, is a testament, but it is so when regarded as the typical representative of the new, which is strictly a Testament.

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

Heb 9:18-20. Whereupon — On which principle we may observe; neither was the first — Covenant, of which we have been speaking, I mean that of Moses; dedicated without blood — Namely, that of an appointed sacrifice. “In the original, the word covenant is wanting; and our translators, by supplying the word testament, have made the Sinai covenant or law of Moses, of which the apostle is speaking, a testament, than which,” says Macknight, “nothing can be more incongruous. The word to be supplied is not testament, but covenant. For when Moses had spoken every precept — The precepts of the law which Moses read to the people on this occasion, were chiefly those contained in Exo 20:-23., as is evident from Exo 24:5. See the margin. To all the people according to the law —

The will, appointment, or express order of God; he took the blood of calves, &c., with water. The blood was mixed with water, to prevent its growing too stiff for sprinkling, perhaps also to typify the blood and water which should issue out of Christ’s side, signifying the expiating and cleansing virtue of his sufferings. And scarlet wool and hyssop — All these circumstances are not particularly mentioned in that chapter of Exodus, but are supposed to be already known from other passages of Moses; and sprinkled both the book — Which contained all he had said; and all the people — Who were near him. The book was sprinkled to show, 1st, That the law itself was not able to reconcile them to God, and give life without the blood of Christ added to it. 2d, That atonement was to be made by blood for sins committed against the law. 3d, That every thing is unclean to us that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. Saying, (Exo 24:8,) This is the blood of the covenant, &c. — This sprinkling of the blood is a ceremony instituted by God to signify the mutual consent of both parties to the terms of the covenant; or, this is the blood whereby the covenant is ratified on both sides; which God hath enjoined unto you — Hath required me to deliver unto you or, hath commanded with respect to you, as ης ενετειλατο προς υμας literally signifies, requiring you to declare your consent to the terms of it.

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

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Heb_9:18. The first covenant.—Reverting to the older and safer term. Heb_9:16-17, are a sort of aside, a sudden thought that came to the writer, somewhat in the Pauline manner. Dedicated.—Or “initiated.” There was a foreshadowing of the death of Christ in the blood-sealings of the covenant.

Heb_9:19. Spoken.—Read aloud the commandments which were the covenant requirements and conditions. Of calves and of goats.—A general expression for the “sacrificial victims.” Goats are not especially mentioned on this occasion (Exo_24:5). Scarlet wool, and hyssop.—Not mentioned in Exodus 24. “The water (itself an emblem and means of cleansing) was designed to prevent the coagulation of the blood, and to increase the quantity of the purifying fluid. The ‘scarlet wool’ may have been used to bind the hyssop to the stick of cedar-wood, which was the instrument of sprinkling” (Moulton). The book.—Not specially mentioned in Exo_24:6-8. (“This is one of several instances in which the writer shows himself learned in the Jewish legends, Hagadoth.) Book and people may be taken as representing the two parties to the covenant.

Heb_9:21. Tabernacle.—Nothing is actually said of their being so sprinkled; only of their being anointed with oil. Josephus, however, confirms the text. See Exo_11:9-10.

Heb_9:22. Almost all.—Some were cleansed by water (Lev_16:26; Lev_16:28; Num_31:22-23). The cleansing efficacy of blood is a symbol, not a fact. Is no remission.—The writer does not say “of sins,” and these words should not be added to the verse. He is stating a historical fact with regard to the old Mosaic system, and refers entirely to ceremonial offences. The Rabbins have a proverb, “No expiation except by blood.”

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Heb_9:18-22

The Blood of the Covenant.—The word “testament” used in the previous verses is supplied in Heb_9:18, and it would have been better to have put in the old and familiar term “covenant.” This is done in the R.V. Any arrangement made between two parties for their mutual benefit, which may be ratified by some common act, is called a “covenant.” In the simple society of the ancient East, covenants could only be ratified by the taking of mutual vows and pledges, or by the sharing together in some symbolical and suggestive act. Sometimes a bargain was ratified by the two parties joining hands, before witnesses, in the gate of the city; at other times by mutually raising a heap of stones, and calling it by a particular name. There was also a custom of this kind: Wine was poured into an earthen vessel, and the contracting parties, cutting their arms with a knife, let some of the blood run into the wine, with which they stained their armour, and of which both parties drank, uttering at the same time the most dreadful curses upon the party that violated the treaty. In this passage the ratification of the Old Testament covenant with God is in part described. The great leader and lawgiver, Moses, had been in the mount with God, had received the law as from the Divine hand, and on his return to the camp he had gathered the tribes in a solemn assembly, and received from them the emphatic declaration of their resolve, “All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.” Then Moses prepared for a solemn act of ratification. He built an altar under the hill; that altar was to represent Jehovah, the one party to the covenant. He also set up twelve pillars, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. These represented the people, the other party to the covenant, the party to whom the covenant terms were offered. Then Moses slew certain animals, and divided the blood that flowed from them, sprinkling some on the altar, in token of God’s making a vow to observe and keep all that He had pledged and promised in the covenant. The other half of the blood he kept back awhile, until he had again read to the people the covenant terms and the covenant sanctions, and had again received the people’s acceptance in their united exclamation, “All that the Lord hath said unto us will we do, and be obedient.” Then he took that half of the blood, and sprinkled it on those twelve representative pillars, expressing thus the solemn vow of the people, and making the vow take this impressive form: “We pledge our very life to our obedience. If we fail to keep this covenant, let our life be forfeited, let that life be taken, as has been taken the life of these beasts.” Now in this ancient and formal Jewish covenant we are to see the model of the spiritual covenant which God makes with man in creating him, and arranging his sustenance and circumstance—the covenant which man makes with God in accepting life at His hands. Nobody is obliged to live: to choose to live is to accept God’s covenant terms. We may not, as individuals, be able to appeal to a personal scene of ratification. That was done for our humanity by our first human father, Adam—just as it was done for all the Jewish race by that one Mosaic generation. And it was broken for us by that first father, as representing us. So we all come into the world with the claims of the everlasting covenant as strong upon us as upon Adam, but with all those disturbed conditions about us which have followed upon breaking the covenant, and with our life forfeit (as part of the life of humanity), in accordance with the solemn vow and pledge of that covenant. If then we are to be restored to gracious relations with God, we need—

I. That God should be honoured by the surrender of the life that was pledged, if the covenant was broken.—The Israelites sealed their covenant with blood. They thus expressed their readiness to surrender their own blood if they broke the covenant. They did break it, and their lives we forfeited. God might have demanded the life of every Israelite, in vindication of His broken covenant. The fact that it was a covenant of mercy offered by God, and freely accepted by man, only makes the conditions more solemn. God can righteously demand one of two things—obedience to the covenant conditions, or the yielding of the forfeit. No man can save his honour, if he permits a covenant made with him to be broken, without taking any notice of the forfeit or penalty. Meeting us in our human sphere, and graciously using our human language, God shows us that He could not. The life of all Israel stood forfeited unto God. In this we have a model—a representation in material things of spiritual realities—of the great human covenant. To that also life is vowed and pledged. And that covenant too is broken. Our life, our whole life, is forfeit unto God. God cannot pass by that dishonoured covenant of His mercy. The penalty to which man pledged himself to submit must be exacted. Covenant-breakers must die,—die the death of the Divine absence from them; die the second, the spiritual death. Or else such satisfaction must be offered as shall uphold the Divine honour, declare the righteousness and worth of the Divine covenant in a most glorious manner, and so allow the penalty to be remitted. God can make no new covenant with men until, in some altogether satisfactory way, the old is honoured. And this every man feels is necessary to meet his deepest sense of right. How then has the difficulty been met? God has been pleased to permit the penalty to be exacted from one person only, a great race-head, a second Adam. Instead of demanding the forfeited life of every man, He required only the death of the representative man. And then comes in the marvel of all marvels. The God of the broken covenant was willing Himself to provide that one representative man. Here is a glimpse at least into the mystery of Christ’s death. God saw humanity in Him—God accepted Him as the yielded life that was forfeit by the terms of the broken human covenant. In that one God-man’s voluntary death the old covenant is honoured, even while it is put away for ever. We could have no sure ground of hope, if that old covenant had not been so gloriously vindicated and honoured, or if God had not released the Sin-bearer from the grave, and accepted Him as the great human representative.

II. We need that the covenant should be newly made and newly ratified.—And that also is done for us in Christ. He who bears for us the forfeit of the old is the gracious Mediator of the new. And the new covenant is a better covenant,—a covenant not of formal terms, but of gracious promises; not of particular deeds, but of the inner heart, and of the whole life. And this second, or new, covenant was also ratified by blood-shedding. It was taken under the same tremendous vows as the old; it was sealed by an infinitely more worthy sacrifice. “The patterns of things in the heavenlies were purified with blood of bulls and goats, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Yielding His life, as at once the forfeit of the old covenant and the solemn vow of the new, behold God and man are now one again, in Christ. “Ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”

III. The new covenant must be definitely accepted by each individual.—We must personally and voluntarily enter into covenant. Its reconciliation, its access, its privileges, its status, cannot be ours until we willingly and lovingly accept the covenant made for us, and sealed for us, by the Lord Jesus Christ. He stands for men; by his own act of surrender each man must ensure that He stands for him, and is his Representative, his Mediator, and his Lord. But each must enter into the covenant for himself. No man can do it for him. No covenant of any fellow-creature will stand for him. Those who are within the privileges and responsibilities of the new covenant are counted one by one.

The Blood is the Life.—The warm blood of men, and of quadrupeds and birds, seemed to contain the very soul or life of the living earthly creature—to be almost identical with his soul. Now when the life and the soul were held to be something sacred, and the more tender feelings of certain nations took this view very early, it would follow that the blood too must be considered a sacred thing, and be regarded quite differently from the rest of the body. The sight of that which was held to be the soul itself carried the mind immediately to thoughts of God, placed directly before it something full of mystery, and filled it with profound awe.—Ewald.

Death for Remission.—How can the death of Christ be a condition of the remission of sins? This the crux of the whole subject.

1. The writer never suggests that Christ liberates us from liability to punishment by being Himself punished in our stead. It is true he said that Christ “was offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb_9:28), but he does not say that this was to bear the punishment of sins; on the contrary, he carries our thoughts away to ideas of sacrifices in his use of the word “offered.”

2. Neither does the writer teach that the value of the Atonement was derived from the amount of pain endured by our Lord. As we have seen, he attaches great importance to the sufferings of Christ, but this is in regard to His priesthood, not His sacrifice. He became a perfect priest, fully able to sympathise with His people, by means of the things which He suffered. Certainly the spirit of surrender requisite where much suffering has to be faced is proportionately greater than where the sacrifice is easily made. Thus suffering comes to enhance the value of sacrifice. But it does this indirectly, and it is not the suffering itself, but the refusal to shrink from it, which is valued. In the Hebrew ritual the death of the victims was as painless as possible; there is not a hint that their sufferings entered into the consideration of the worshippers. The real sacrifice was made by the offerer in the surrender of his property. The case of our Lord is entirely different—for one thing, because He appears in the two functions of sacrificing priest and sacrificial victim. It is in regard to the former of these functions, as the priest making the offering, that His sufferings come to be considered with supreme interest.

3. Where, then, is the specific value of His sacrifice? The author emphatically contrasts the tabernacle sacrifices with the sacrifice of our Lord, affirming that the former could only have a subjective influence on the worshippers as reminders of sin, not any objective efficacy in expiration thereof, because “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Heb_10:4). That is to say, he saw quite clearly that no animal sacrifice could constitute a real atonement. Coming to the very different sacrifice of Christ, he quotes from Psalms 40, “Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me” (Heb_10:5). The first step, then, is the Incarnation. Christ comes in a human body. The following words in the quotation from the psalm are cited to indicate the purpose of the Incarnation in this connection: “Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God” (Heb_10:7). Christ was incarnate in order that, among other things, He might be subject to obedience. We are reminded of St. Paul’s thought that He took on Him the “form of a servant” when He was “found in fashion as a man” in order that He might become “obedient even unto death” (Php_2:7-8). Further on the author tells us distinctly that our sanctification—and the whole course of the argument shows that by this he means our consecration to God in the cleansing of our consciences, i.e. the effecting of the Atonement—is accomplished by our Lord doing the will of God: “By the which will we have been sanctified” (chap.Heb_10:10). The whole of our Lord’s life was a course of perfect obedience to the will of God; that obedience was most severely tested, and, standing the test triumphantly, reached its crown and climax at the cross. We need not search through regions of theological speculation; the truth is writ large upon the plain facts of our Lord’s history. He would have been false to His mission if He had turned aside at the last, and fled into some safe retreat out of the reach of His enemies to end His days in obscurity. He was a martyr to His mission. His death was more than martyrdom, because He was more than man, and so through martyrdom could effect what no merely human martyr ever accomplished. His obedience was a superhuman obedience in a human life. Hence its supreme value. Can we not understand how God would accept this as the most precious of all offerings? Primitive man presents fruits from his farm and animals from his flock. These are simple, childlike gifts. Christ offers the one real sacrifice God cares for. God has no delight in blood. Mere death cannot be any satisfaction to Him. But He rejoices in obedience to His will; and when that obedience climbs to its highest pinnacle in an unflinching submission to death, He has the greatest offering that can be made. It is in response to such an offering, the obedience unto death of His own Son, that God grants remission of sins. This seems to be the idea of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, and I venture to say it is a nearer approach to a theory of the Atonement than is to be found anywhere else in the New Testament.—Prof. W. F. Adeney, M.A.

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Heb_9:22. No Remission save by Blood-shedding.—Heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the sacrifice of Christ is not than what it is.—Jowett.

Repentance insufficient.—By the general prevalence of propitiatory sacrifices over the heathen world, the notion of repentance alone being sufficient to expiate guilt appears to be contrary to the general sense of mankind.—Bishop Butler.

Taking the Blood.—The death of the victim, instead of being a vicarious punishment, was no essential part of the transaction, but merely incidental as a means of affording the blood. The essence of the whole sacrificial service was the sprinkling of the blood, as the bearer of the life, upon God’s altar, thus symbolising the giving away of the offerer’s life to God; in other words, his returning back again to God, by repentance and faith and self-dedication, after being separated from Him by sin.—Bähr.

The Blood as a Type.—Nearly all things were purged with blood; certainly without blood was no remission—that peculiar thing “remission” was inseparable from blood. Sin-offerings were not merely tokens of the restoration of friendship between God and the offender; but the blood was the type of the great propitiation, and an acknowledgment, on the part of the offerer, that he had himself deserved death. It showed also that the death and suffering, not of the offender, but of one perfectly guiltless and incapable of sin, alone could procure remission.—Webster and Wilkinson.

Sin and Trespass were atoned for, in a civil and ecclesiastical point of view, by appropriate sacrifices which bore the like names. But in this case the remission was only from a temporal penalty or calamity. It was not possible that such sacrifices could atone for sin, as viewed by the righteous governor of the world. God, as the head and king of the Jewish nation, granted remission of the penalty which Jewish law inflicted in many cases, on certain conditions. But this had respect merely to this present world, and not to the accountability of transgressors before the tribunal of the universe, in the world above. Even temporal forgiveness could not be obtained without shedding of blood—so the necessity of atoning blood which possessed a higher virtue than that of beasts, in order to remove the penalty against sin, that was threatened in respect of a future world.—Moses Stuart.

Remission and Blood-shedding.—In these words, “apart from shedding of blood is no remission,” we may find a fact stated and a fact suggested. The fact stated is that, under the Old Testament dispensation, the particular thing called “remission” was always attended with “blood-shedding.” The fact suggested is that, under the New Testament dispensation, Jesus Christ did actually shed His blood for the remission of sins. It is possible to sweep away all the deeper meanings of the Jewish sacrifices by regarding them only as expressions of dependence and trust. We have to ask, not what is sacrifice to a man, but what to a sinful man, one who carries the burden of conscious transgression, and the fear of just penalty. In the Jewish sacrifices the sin of the individual or the nation was symbolically transferred, by confession, to the victim that was sacrificed. The Jewish view of sacrifice is thus stated by Abrabanel: “The blood of the offerer deserved to be shed, and his body to be burned, for his sin; only the mercy of the Divine Name accepted this offering from him as a substitute and propitiation, whose blood should be instead of his blood, and its life instead of his life.” In the New Testament is given the historical fact that Jesus did die; or, to use the familiar figure, did “shed His blood.” These two facts, the blood-shedding of Judaism and the blood-shedding of Jesus, answer to each other, as do type and antitype. “The patterns of things in the heavens (spiritual things) were purified with these (the blood of animals); but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these”—even with the life, the will, the surrender, the sacrifice, of a spiritual being. The reality was not found in the Jewish sacrifices. They were but pictures of the reality. They bore relation to ceremonial offences, not to sin, in a spiritual sense. In the Old Testament economy there was a figure and an underlying reality. And in the New Testament sacrifice there is a corresponding outward figure and underlying spiritual reality. The Jewish system required of its worshipper a sacrifice which could have a twofold relation:

(1) Could die as the bearer of his penalty, and

(2) in its spotlessness could be accepted in his stead. That was the figure; but the man who rightly apprehended that ceremonial penalty and pollution saw it to represent the moral penalty under which his sin had brought him, and the moral pollution with which his sin had defiled him. A spiritually minded Jew must have said, “Restored to the tabernacle service, I am not restored to God: looked upon as clean by the priests, I am not looked upon as clean before God. No blood of beasts can touch moral pollution: no death of bulls or goats can carry away moral penalty.” And so in the infinite sacrifice and meritorious blood-shedding of the Son of God there is a figure and an answering reality. If the sacrifice of Jesus had been only a spiritual sacrifice, if it had found no expression in bodily sufferings and bodily death, we men, so imprisoned in the senses, could never have realised it, could never have reached the blessing of it. Christ’s bodily sufferings and blood-shedding are not, in themselves, His great sacrifice. They are the form it took for bodily eyes to see, the body it wore for this mortal sphere, the temple within which the real sacrifice of an obedient will was offered. And as the Jewish worshipper looked past the blood of bulls and of goats, and rested in the spiritual sacrifice, which was to be made in the person of Messiah, so the Christian worshipper now goes in behind the bodily sufferings and human death of our Divine Lord, which are to him somewhat as the outward ceremonies were to the Jew, and discerns the inner, spiritual, infinitely satisfying sacrifice presented by Him when He made “His soul an offering for sin.” Sin is a spiritual thing. It may express itself in deeds done in the body; but, in its essence, it is a thing of the spirit and the will. The sin is a soul-sin. The penalty is a soul-death. The remission can only come by a soul-sacrifice. When we say that Christ, as our sacrifice, bore the penalty for us, we mean the spiritual penalty. It found fitting outward expression in the agonies of an ignominious and violent death, but the infinite depth of suffering lay hidden—in behind—in the Redeemer’s soul. Finding only once what seemed a suitable utterance in human language, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” The chief objection against the truth of our Lord’s substitutionary sacrifice is, that it represents the innocent as suffering for the guilty, which is supposed to override our natural sense of justice. But higher laws do affect lower ones. Abraham in loyal obedience to God put aside parental justice, and assayed to offer his son. Are there no cases in which our sense of justice permits the innocent to suffer for the guilty? Is there any law, in heaven or earth, that prevents an innocent man from voluntarily taking the place of the guilty? Is our sense of justice wronged when a man knowingly and willingly marries an almost bankrupt woman, and makes himself legally responsible for all her debts? And may not the Lord Jesus, knowingly, and willingly, and lovingly, marry this poor bankrupt bride of Humanity, and, with His eternal riches, bear all the burden of her debt? May not the Lord Jesus sustain such a relation to us, of His own free, generous, pitying sympathy, that, most righteously, our penalty should be transferred to Him? In the voluntary sacrifice of Christ; in that yielding of His soul, through the body, to the sinner’s spiritual death, all men may see God’s authority vindicated, God’s honour established, sin exhibited in its hatefulness, sin smitten and broken in its power, and men deterred from loving and seeking it. And since it is God Himself who provided the sacrifice—nay, God Himself who is in the sacrifice—the revelations of the Divine glory and justice do not affright us; the disclosures of the infinite hatefulness of sin do not overwhelm us. The sacrifice of Jesus brings us full remission—holiness and mercy hand in hand: in it “righteousness and peace have kissed each other.”

Christ’s Voluntary Sin-bearing.—When we see the offended God, the injured Sovereign, holy, just, and good—when we see Him at such a cost Himself provide the expiation which the dignity of His own law demands, and actually send His Son to die in our room, it is then that we begin to see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the beauty and majesty of the Divine character, and the generous tears which suffuse our eyes are the first tears of true repentance which we have ever shed. That cross of Christ, with its great atoning sacrifice, lets me see God to be so great, and man so little—the Sovereign to be so good, and the rebel to be so bad: it shows on the one side such holiness and such love, whilst it shows on the other guilt so heinous, wickedness so inexcusable, and ruin so complete, that we need not wonder though we find man’s pride reject the humbling truth. Orthodox people are charged with teaching that the philosophy of sacrifice consists in the necessity of punishing—that it is justice to let the blow fall somewhere, no matter where; blood must flow. But we never affirm that God visited our sins on the head of one who had no connection with these sins at all. God visited the sin on the head of One who, though personally innocent of it, did nevertheless put Himself voluntarily into such a relationship to the sinners as involved Him in the fullest legal responsibility for the sin. A man is beheaded for crimes that his hands have committed—the body is a whole. So Christ and His Church are one body; He is the Head. When God the Father exacted the penalty of His people’s sins from Jesus, He did so from One who, as the Head of the body, was as righteously responsible for them as if He had committed them all.—Article, “Family Treasury,” August 1868.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 9

Heb_9:22. Propitiation by Sacrifice.—It has often been remarked that the idea of propitiation by sacrifice is to be found in connection with all the sacrifices of heathen nations. This is strikingly illustrated by the following account of one of the festivals of the North American Indians:—Dr. Edward Walsh describes a village, the houses of which surrounded a large green or common, in the centre of which the council-house or temple was erected. “It was lighted,” he says, “by a few small, square apertures, close to the eaves, which also let out the smoke; consequently, it was somewhat dark. The door facing the west had a rude but spacious portico. The roof, which had a high pitch, was propped up within by four strong posts, between which was the hearth, with a large kettle over it. There was a seat all round, and the walls, which were formed of split plank, were half-way up covered with mats. Here we found a great number of Indians assembled. The women were ranged outside the wall, and the men surrounded the fire inside, at the head of whom was the high priest in his pontificals. His face was painted like the quarterings of a coat of arms, and he was furnished with a beard: he wore on his head a high tiara of beaver fur, stuck round with dyed porcupine quills: he had over his chest a kind of stomacher, worked in figures, and ornamented with wampum, which was supposed to represent the Jewish Urim and Thummim; in this, the Indians imagine some little spirit resides, which they talk to and consult in dubious events. Whilst the usual dance or chorus was performing, a dog which had been previously selected and fattened was boiling in the kettle: when cooked, the flesh was cut off, and the bones scraped clean and wrapped up in its skin. The flesh was then divided into small bits, and handed round on a wooden platter, to all those that surrounded the fire: at the same time, the high priest dipped a branch of hemlock pine in the broth, and sprinkled it everywhere, as well on the people as on the walls. The ceremony concluded with the circular dance and chant, in which the women joined. This chant, or hymn, is sung by all the Indian nations in North America, however they may differ in custom and language. Humboldt even heard it in Mexico, and it is supposed to be synonymous with the hallelujah of the Psalms. It was pricked down for me by a gentleman who understood musical composition. To my ears it sounds like the lullaby of the nursery:—

‘Tam le yah al lah le lu lah tam ye lah yo ha wah ha ha hah!’

It must be admitted that this ceremony bears some rude resemblance to the feast of the Passover, substituting a dog for a lamb, of which they have none; but dogs are sacrificed on all solemn occasions.”

Eastern Covenant Customs.—While in Abyssinia, Bruce the traveller wished to go from one place to another, and the sheikh had assured him that the journey might be undertaken with safety. “But,” said Bruce, “suppose your people meet us in the desert, how shall we fare in that case? Should we fight?” “I have told you, sheikh, already,” said he, “cursed be the man that lifts his hand against you, or even does not defend and befriend you to his own loss, even were it Ibrahim, my own son.” Then after some conversation, the old man muttered something to his sons in a dialect Bruce did not understand, and in a little time the whole hut was filled with people, the priests and monks of their religion, and the heads of families. “The great people joined hands, and uttered a kind of prayer—really the oath—about two minutes long, by which they declared themselves and their children accursed if ever they lifted their hands against me in the field, in the desert, or on the river; or, in case that I or mine should fly to them for refuge, if they did not protect us at the risk of their lives, their families, and their fortunes, or as they emphatically expressed it, ‘to the death of the last male child among them’ Medicines and advice were given on my part, faith and promises pledged on theirs; then two bushels of wheat and seven sheep were carried down to my boat.”

Classical Covenant Customs.—An ancient writer relates that Agamemnon, the leader of the Greeks at the siege of Troy, “to confirm his faith sworn to Achilles, ordered victims to be brought. He took one, and with his sword divided it in the midst, placed the pieces opposite to each other, and holding his sword, reeking with blood, passed between the separated pieces.” Livy, the Roman historian, relates that in the time of Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great, it was the custom, at the lustration or purification of the armies, to cut off the head of a dog, and then make the whole army file between the head and the trunk. Compare Jer_34:18.

The Scottish League and Covenant.—The most remarkable modern reproduction of the ancient covenant may be found in Scottish history. It was a confession of faith made in the year 557, A.D., and a mutual agreement to maintain that confession even at peril of death. “As the hour drew near people from all quarters flocked to the spot, and before the commissioners appeared the Greyfriars Church and Churchyard, Edinburgh, were densely filled with the gravest, the wisest, and the best of Scotland’s pious sons and daughters. The long roll of parchment was brought, the meaning and purpose of the covenant explained. Then a deep and solemn pause ensued; not the pause of irresolution, but of modest diffidence, each thinking every other more worthy than himself to place the first name upon this sacred bond. An aged nobleman, the venerable Earl of Sutherland, at last stepped slowly and reverentially forward, and with throbbing heart and trembling hand subscribed Scotland’s covenant with God. All hesitation in a moment disappeared. Name followed name in quick succession, till all within the Church had given their signatures. It was then removed into the churchyard, and spread out on a level gravestone. Here the scene became still more impressive. The intense emotions of many became irrepressible. Some wept aloud; some burst into a shout of exultation; some after their names added the words ‘till death’; and some, opening a vein, subscribed with their own warm blood. And when every particle of space was filled, there was another solemn pause. The nation had framed a covenant in former days, and had violated its engagements; if they, too, should break this sacred bond, how deep would be their guilt! Such seems to have been their thought; for, as if moved by one spirit—the one eternal Spirit—with low, heart-wrung groans, and faces bathed in tears, they lifted, with one consent, their right hands to heaven, avowing by this sublime appeal that they had now joined themselves unto the Lord in an everlasting covenant, which should not be forgotten.”—T. Guthrie.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:18-19 was put into effect: Exod 24:3-8 records Moses’ inauguration of the old covenant with the blood of the sacrifice. • Hebrews alone among ancient sources states that Moses sprinkled the book of God’s law (cp. Exod 24:6-8). • Hyssop branches have blue flowers and strongly aromatic leaves; they were used with sacrifices for cleansing (Exod 12:22; Lev 14:4; Num 19:6, 18).

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

Heb 9:18. Ὅθεν, whence) The two words ברית and διαθήκη differ; but yet they signify the same thing, in so far as both denote an agreement or an arrangement of that sort, which is ratified by blood. Where the agreement is ratified by the blood of another, viz. of animals, which cannot make a covenant, much less testify or make a testament, it is not properly διαθήκη, a testament; but yet ברית, a covenant, is not very much different from the character (nature) of a testament, on account of the victims slain. Where the arrangement is ratified by the blood of him that makes the arrangement, i.e. by his death, it is properly διαθήκη, testament, which is also expressed by the Hebrew word ברית, having (taken in) a wider signification. The particle ὅθεν, whence, ought not to be pressed too far, as if the Old Testament were also consecrated by the blood or death of the testator: but still it has its own proper force, in so far as it is intimated, that the New Testament, and therefore also the Old, needed to be dedicated with blood.—ἐγκεκαίνισται, was dedicated or initiated) So the LXX. express the Hebrew word חנך. On the very day of initiation or dedication, the Old Testament most properly began, and it continued till the night and day when the Lord was betrayed and died.

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

Heb_9:18. Ὅθεν] wherefore, sc. because, according to Heb_9:16-17, a διαθήκη becomes valid only through the intervention of death. To enclose Heb_9:16-17 within a parenthesis, and refer back ὅθεν to Heb_9:15 (Zachariae, Morus, Storr, Heinrichs, Conybeare, Bisping), is arbitrary.

οὐδέ] the augmenting: not even.

ἡ πρώτη] the first, or Old Testament, sc. διαθήκη. Erroneously do Wetstein and Koppe (in Heinrichs) supplement σκηνή.

ἐγκεκαίνισται] was inaugurated, i.e. introduced in a valid manner. The verb occurs in the N. T. only here and Heb_10:20.

Heb_9:18-22. The first διαθήκη also was not inaugurated without blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission under the Mosaic law.

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.

There must be a proportion between those things which purify, and those which are purified: Under the Law all those figures were earthly, the Tabernacle, the book, the vessels, the sacrifices, although they were the figures of heavenly things. Therefore it was requisite that all those should be purified with some matter and ceremony of the same nature, to wit, with the blood of beasts, with water, wool, hyssop. But under Christ all things are heavenly, an heavenly tabernacle, an heavenly sacrifice, an heavenly people, an heavenly doctrine, and heaven itself is set open before us for an eternal habitation. Therefore all these things are sanctified in like sort, to wit, with the everlasting offering of the quickening blood of Christ.

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

Verse 18. Whereupon] οθεν. Wherefore, as a victim was required for the ratification of every covenant, the first covenant made between God and the Hebrews, by the mediation of Moses, was not dedicated, εγκεκαινισται, renewed or solemnized, without blood-without the death of a victim, and the aspersion of its blood.

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

18. Whereupon neither the first, etc. It hence appears that the fact is what is mainly urged, and that it is not a question about the word, though the Apostle turned to his own purpose a word presented to his attention in that language in which he wrote, as though one, while speaking of God’s covenant, which is often called in Greek μαρτυρία, a testimony, were to recommend it among other things under that title. And doubtless that is a testimony, μαρτυρία, to which angels from heaven has borne witness, and of which there have been so many illustrious witnesses on earth, even all the holy Prophets, Apostles, and a vast number of martyrs, and of which at last the Son of God himself became a surety. No one in such a discourse would deem any such thing as unreasonable. And yet the Hebrew word, תעודה will admit of no such meaning as a covenant; but as nothing is advanced but what is consistent with the thing itself, no scrupulous regard is to be paid to the meaning of a word.

The Apostle then says, that the old testament or covenant was dedicated with blood. He hence concludes, that men were even then reminded, that it could not be valid and efficacious except death intervened. For though the blood of beasts was then shed, yet, he denies that it availed to confine an everlasting covenant. That this may appear more clearly, we must notice the custom of sprinkling which he quotes from Moses. He first teaches us that the covenant was dedicated or consecrated, not that it had in itself anything profane; but as there is nothing so holy that men by their uncleanness will not defile, except God prevents it by making a renewal of all things, therefore the dedication was made on account of men, who alone wanted it.

He afterwards adds, that the tabernacle and all the vessels, and also the very book of the law, were sprinkled; by which rite the people were then taught, that God could not be sought or looked to for salvation, nor rightly worshipped, except faith in every case looked to an intervening blood. For the majesty of God is justly to be dreaded by us, and the way to his presence is nothing to us but a dangerous labyrinth, until we know that he is pacified towards us through the blood of Christ, and that this blood affords to us a free access. All kinds of worship are then faulty and impure until Christ cleanses them by the sprinkling of his blood.

For the tabernacle was a sort of visible image of God; and as the vessels for ministering were destined for his service, so they were symbols of true worship. But since none of these were for salvation to the people, we hence reasonably conclude, that where Christ does not appear with his blood, we have nothing to do with God. So doctrine itself, however unchangeable may be the will of God, cannot be efficacious for our benefit, unless it be dedicated by blood, as is plainly set forth in this verse.

I know that others give a different interpretation; for they consider the tabernacle to be the body of the Church, and vessels the faithful, whose ministry God employs; but what I have stated is much more appropriate. For whenever God was to be called upon, they turned themselves to the sanctuary; and it was a common way of speaking to say that they stood before the Lord when they appeared in the temple.

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.

(18) Whereupon.—Better, Wherefore not even has the first (covenant) been dedicated (or, inaugurated) without blood. (See Exo_24:6-8.)

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

18. Whereupon] Rather, “Wherefore;” because both “a covenant” and “a testament” involve the idea of death.

neither] “not even.”

was dedicated] Lit. “has been handselled” or “inaugurated.” The word is from the same root as “Encaenia,” the name given to the re-dedication of the Temple by the Maccabees (Joh_10:22. Comp. Deu_20:5; 1Ki_8:63; LXX.). The perfect is used by the author, as in so many other instances.

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.

Whereupon neither the first testament,.... Or the first administration of the covenant of grace under the law:

was dedicated without blood; or "confirmed" without it, that dispensation being a typical one; and that blood was typical of the blood of Christ, by which the new covenant or testament is ratified; see Exo 24:7.

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

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Ver. 18. Was dedicated] Or initiated to holy use, Lev 16:15-16, εγκεκαινισται.

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.

Whereupon - Ὅθεν Hothen - “Whence.” Or since this is a settled principle, or an indisputable fact, it occurred in accordance with this, that the first covenant was confirmed by the shedding of blood. The admitted principle which the apostle had stated, that the death of the victim was necessary to confirm the covenant, was the “reason” why the first covenant was ratified with blood. If there were any doubt about the correctness of the interpretation given above, that Heb 9:16-17, refer to a “covenant,” and not a “will,” this verse would seem to be enough to remove it. For how could the fact that a will is not binding until he who makes it is dead, be a reason why a “covenant” should be confirmed by blood? What bearing would such a fact have on the question whether it ought or ought not to be confirmed in this manner? Or how could that fact, though it is universal, be given as a “reason” to account for the fact that the covenant made by the instrumentality of Moses was ratified with blood?

No possible connection can be seen in such reasoning. But admit that Paul had stated in Heb 9:16-17, a general principle that in all covenant transactions with God, the death of a victim was necessary, and everything is plain. We then see why he offered the sacrifice and sprinkled the blood. It was not on the basis of such reasoning as this: “The death of a man who makes a will is indispensable before the will is of binding force, therefore it was that Moses confirmed the covenant made with our fathers by the blood of a sacrifice;” but by such reasoning as this: “It is a great principle that in order to ratify a covenant between God and his people a victim should be slain, therefore it was that Moses ratified the old covenant in this manner, and “therefore” it was also that the death of a victim was necessary under the new dispensation.” Here the reasoning of Paul is clear and explicit; but who could see the force of the former?

Prof. Stuart indeed connects this verse with Heb 9:15, and says that the course of thought is, “The new covenant or redemption from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore (ὅθεν hothen) the old covenant, which is a type of the new, was sanctioned by the blood of victims.” But is this the reasoning of Paul? Does he say that because the blood of a Mediator was to be shed under the new dispensation, and because the old was a type of this, that therefore the old was confirmed by blood? Is he not rather accounting for the shedding of blood at all, and showing that it was “necessary” that the blood of the Mediator should be shed rather than assuming that, and from that arguing that a typical shedding of blood was needful? Besides, on this supposition, why is the statement in Heb 9:16-17, introduced? What bearing have these verses in the train of thought? What are they but an inexplicable obstruction?

The first testament - Or rather covenant - the word “testament” being supplied by the translators.

Was dedicated - Margin, “Purified.” The word used to “ratify,” to “confirm,” to “consecrate,” to “sanction.” Literally, “to renew.”

Without blood - It was ratified by the blood of the animals that were slain in sacrifice. The blood was then sprinkled on the principal objects that were regarded as holy under that dispensation.

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

Forasmuch as all testaments are put in force by the death of the testator, and all covenants are most strongly confirmed by death and blood in God’s own judgment, thence it is that the Mosaical covenant was confirmed by them.

Dedicated; egkekainistai, strictly taken, signifieth made new, or renewed. It is not used in the New Testament but in this place, and Heb 10:20; the Syriac translate it here confirmed, or ratified. In the Old Testament the Septuagint use it to express the Hebrew הנכו Deu 20:5. In which law, for a man who had built a house, and was called out to the wars, to return and dedicate it, was to take possession of it, and secure it from the claim of another. Here it is properly used to make sure, firm, and inviolable; and that by blood, typical of Christ’s, which is the highest and most solemn ratification. So were the covenants before ratified, but especially under the law, and the Mosaical covenant itself, as appears by instance, Gen 15:9,10,17,18; 31:44,54; compare Exo 24:5,7,8.

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

18. Whereupon—In accordance with this demand of death for a testament, the emblem of death, namely, blood, is freely shed and abundantly used.

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

Wherefore neither hath the first (testament, A.V; or, covenant) been dedicated without blood. Here the blood of slain victims, which had been essential for the first inauguration of the old diayhkh , is referred to as expressing the principle of vers. 16, 17, viz. that there must be death for a diayhkh (in whatever sense the word may be intended, whether as a testament or as a covenant between God and man) to take effect. Whichever view we take of the intended import of the word, the reference is equally apposite in support of the introductory proposition of ver. 15; which is to the effect that Christ"s death (yanatou genmenou ), fulfilling the symbolism of the old inaugurating sacrifices, qualified him as Mediator of a new diayhkh .

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

Whence neither was the first - The Jewish covenant, originally transacted without the blood of an appointed sacrifice.

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

The type of the Old Testament sacrifices:

v. 18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

v. 19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,

v. 20. saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

v. 21. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the Tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.

v. 22. And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The statement of the preceding paragraph, that Christ became the Mediator of the New Testament by His death, by the shedding of His blood, is here substantiated by a reference to the type of the Old Testament: Whence neither the first (covenant) has been inaugurated without blood. The children of Israel were received into the covenant of the Lord through death, over the dead bodies of the sacrificial animals as representing the people. The death of these animals was necessary, partly as a means of expiating the sins of the people, partly as indicating that the people died to the past and became wholly the peculiar nation of the Lord. So even the first covenant, imperfect and temporary as it was, was not ratified without the shedding of blood and the resulting death of the animals substituted for the believers.

This fact is shown in one pertinent instance: For when every command according to the Law had been spoken by Noses to all the people, he took the blood of bullocks and of goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled it upon the book itself and the entire people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you. The inspired author here refers to a story with which his readers were familiar. After Moses, in agreement with the command of the Lord, had repeated to all the people all the precepts which God had spoken, when they all had had an opportunity clearly to understand the obligations they assumed on entering the covenant, then Moses impressed the matter upon their minds by a solemn ceremony. The proper animals having been slaughtered, he took blood of bullocks and goats, added water to it, either to prevent coagulation or to symbolize the fact of cleansing, tied some scarlet wool on a stick of hyssop or wild marjoram, which was also associated with purifying, and then used this device for the purpose of sprinkling. See Num 19:6; Lev 14:4-7; Lev 14:49-52. He first sprinkled some of the blood upon the book itself, that is, upon the roll on which he had written the words of the Lord, the terms of the covenant, and then upon the people, as a party to the covenant, saying, at the same time, that this blood was the blood of the testament, that God thereby ratified the covenant between Himself and the nation chosen by Him. See Exo 24:3-8. Note that the words used by Moses are very much like those used by Christ at the institution of the Eucharist, by which the Lord signified that by the shedding of His sacrificial blood alone, for the remission of sins, the everlasting covenant of the New Testament is ratified.

But the author adds another point: And he even sprinkled with blood both the Tabernacle and the vessels of the ministry likewise; and practically everything is purified with blood according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood remission does not take place. What had happened on this occasion was later repeated in just as solemn a manner, Lev 8:15-19, namely, when the Tabernacle was dedicated with appropriate ceremonies, Aaron in this case acting on behalf of Moses, at God’s command. It seems that while Moses attended to the anointing of the Tabernacle and its appointments personally, Exo 40:9-11, and also sprinkled the blood of Aaron’s sin-offering upon the altar with his own hands, the high priest afterward performed the consecration of all the holy vessels used in the work of the Levitical priesthood. The author is right, therefore, in stating that practically all things were cleansed by blood according to the rite of the Old Testament, blood being the symbol or agency of purification. Water was used for cleansing only from certain pollutions. The conclusion, then, is fully justified that without blood-shedding there is no remission of sins. Thus it was in the Old Testament. The application for the new covenant is obvious, namely, that there is no salvation but through the sacrificial death of Christ. He gave His life for the life of the world, and thereby gained eternal life for the world.

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

Our apostle heving entered upon a comparison between the first and second covenant in the former verses, he goes on to prosecute it in these; showing that both of them were dedicated, that is, confirmed by blood.

The first covenant which God made with Israel in Horeb, had not its sanction without typical blood and life for the observation of them. Now that the covenant between God and Israel was thus solemnized, and received its confirmation by blood, the apostle makes appear from the history of Moses, Exodus 24 unto which he appeals; where we find the sprinkler to be Moses, the sprinkling to be blood the things sprinkled were the book wherein the covenant was written, and the people who engaged themselves in the covenant.

Now the use and end of this sprinkling upon of it upon the altar was the confirmation of God’s part. And the words added to the action were, this is the blood of the covenant; that is, this is the blood by which the covenant is confirmed, and made inviolable betwixt God and you: He calls is the blood of the covenant, because it was a sign of it, and a seal confiming it.

In like manner, the new covenant was confirmed by blood, ever by the blood of Christ, as is evident from his own words. Luk 22:20. "This cup is the new testament in my blood for remission of sins."

Remission of sin is one principal blessing promised in the new covenant; but this promise had been in vain, if Christ’s blood made it remissible: So that the blood of Christ is the firm and immoveable basis and foundation upon which the new covenant was fixed. This is the first part of our apostle’s design in these words: Namely, to prove the necessity of Christ’s blood for confirmation of the new covenant.

Next, he proves the efficacy of that blood for taking away of sin; telling us, that the tabernacle, the vessels, and all the utensils thereunto belonging, yea, all the things which were purified, were ceremonially purified by blood; and that as without shedding of blood then there could be no remission, so no acceptance with God now without the shedding of the blood of Christ.

Learn hence, That in all things wherein we have to do with God, and whereby we approach unto him, it is the blood of Christ, and the application of it to our consciences, that gives a gracious acceptance with God; without this all is unclean and defiled now, as without shedding of blood there was no purification then.

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

18–22. Neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. The death and shedding of the blood of Christ was necessary to the inauguration of the New Testament, as has just been shown. Even when the First was inaugurated, Christ died in type and blood was shed. I believe that the apostle means to say that even in the inauguration of the Old Testament death was necessary, the death of a victim, which pointed to Christ's death.

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.

So not even the first covenant was established without blood

This can be stated in active and positive form. AT: "So God established even the first covenant with blood" (See: Active or Passive and Double Negatives)

first covenant

See how you translated this in Hebrews 8:7.

blood

The death of animals sacrificed to God is spoken of as if it were nothing but blood. AT: "the death of animals sacrificed to God" (See: Metonymy)

took the blood ... with water ... and sprinkled ... the scroll ... and all the people

The priest dipped the hyssop in the blood and the water and then shook the hyssop so drops of blood and water would fall on the scroll and on the people. Sprinkling was a symbolic action done by the priests by which they applied the benefits of the covenant to people and to objects. Here the scroll and the people's acceptability to God are renewed. (See: Symbolic Action)

hyssop

a woody shrub with flowers in summer, used in ceremonial sprinkling

the blood of the covenant

Here "blood" refers to the death of the animals sacrificed to carry out the covenant's requirements. AT: "the blood that brings into effect the covenant" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

covenant

blood

Moses

command

law

cow

goat

scroll

command

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

18. ὅθεν. “Wherefore”; because both “a covenant” and “a testament” involve the idea of death.

οὐδʼ. “Not even.”

ἐνκεκαίνισται. Lit., “has been handselled” or “inaugurated.” The word is from the same root as “Encaenia,” the name given to the re-dedication of the Temple by the Maccabees (Joh 10:22. Comp. Deu 20:5; 1Ki 8:63; LXX.). The perfect is used by the author, as in so many other instances where we should have expected an aorist.

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.

18.] Whence (τουτέστι, διότι ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι τὸ θάνατον προηγεῖσθαι τῆς διαθήκης. Thl.) neither has the first (διαθήκη, testament) been inaugurated (perf., inasmuch as the rites &c. belonging to it were still subsisting. ἐγκαινίζω is an Alexandrine verb: used in the LXX for to re-create or make anew: also for to put forth as new, to inaugurate: see reff., and numerous citations in Trommius. Notice that the reference is, here, simply to the first encænia of the law when it was put forth as new: not to any subsequent renewal of sacrifices by death: this is presently alluded to, vv. 21 ff. Thl. gives for ἐγκεκαίνισται,—τουτέστι, τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς συντάσεως κ. τῆς βεβαιώσεως ἔλαβεν) without (apart from, free from the exhibition of) blood.

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

Whereupon [οθεν] . Rend. wherefore, or for which reason : on the general principle that a covenant must be ratified by death.

Neither the first testament was dedicated without blood [ουδε η πρωτη χωρις αιματος ενκεκαινισται] . Rend. "neither hath the first (covenant) been inaugurated without blood." There is surely no excuse for inserting testament here, as A. V., since the allusion is clearly to the ratification of a covenant with blood. But further, as this and the verses immediately following are intended to furnish a historical illustration of the statements in vers. 16, 17, we seem forced either to render covenant in those verses, or to assume that the transaction here related was the ratification of a will and testament, or to find our writer guilty of using an illustration which turns on a point entirely different from the matter which he is illustrating. Thus : a testament is of force after men are dead. It has no force so long as the testator is alive. Wherefore, the first covenant was ratified by slaying victims and sprinkling their blood. For the incident see Exo 24:8. jEnkainizein only here and ch. 10 20 LXX, to renew, 1Sa 11:14; 2Ch 14:8; Psa 1:10 : to dedicate, 1Ki 8:63; 1 Macc. 4 86. Comp. ta ejnkainia the feast of dedication, Joh 10:22. Rend. ouJude neither, as A. V., and not not even, in which case the meaning would be, "not even the first covenant, although its ministries did not perfect the worshipper as touching the conscience," a thought which would be foreign to the point, which is merely the analogy in the matter of death.

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

18. ὅθεν.. ἐνκεκαίνισται) (Vulg. dedicatum est) whence, since every absolute, inviolable, covenant is based upon a death, and, further, since overy covepant of God with man requires complete solf-surrender on the part of man, not even hath the Arst covenant, though it failed in its issue, deer inaugurated without blood.

' The word ἐγκαινέζω occurs again in the N. T. in c. x. 20, note. It is used several times in the Lxx. to render

WAN (to renew, og. 1 Sam. xi. 14) and WH (to dedicate, og. 1 K. viii. 63). Oomparo 1 Mace. iv. 36, 54, 57; aud

τὰ ἐνκαίνια Jobn x. 22. 19. λαληθείσης γάρ...) Vulg. lecto enim omni mandato legis.... The

ceremonies connected with the ostablishment of the Law-Coveuant omphasise the ideas alroady seen to be involved in ‘blood’; for when every commandment had been spoken according to the Law by Moses...taking the Blood....The terms of the divine covenant were declared fully to the peoplo (Ex. xxiv. 3) and they exprossed their accoptance of them (id.). Then an altar was built ‘and twelve pillars.’ .Burnt-offerings were offered and peace-offerings were sacrificed (vv. 4, 5). Half the blood was sprinkled upon the altar: half was sprinkled over the people (vo. 6, 8).

Theso sacrifices wore offeral by young mon of the children of leraol, ropresentatives of the fulness of the people’s lifo (Ex. xxiv. 5) The ordinances of the Levitical priesthood were not yet given (Ex. xxviii); though some form of priesthood still

λύτρωσις ἔσται.... 866 also Barn. Zp. c. 7. The significance of blood and water fs marked : John v. 6; John xix. 34.

αὐτό τε τὸ βιβλ.] i.e. the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxiv. 7). This detail also is an addition to the Mosaic

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.