Hebrews 9:20

heb 9:20Exo 24:8, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words." The change is here made to accord with Christ's inauguration of the new testament, or covenant, as recorded in Luk 22:20, "This cup (is) the new Testament in My blood, which is shed for you": the only Gospel in which the "is" has to be supplied. Luke was Paul's companion, which accounts for the correspondence, as here too "is" has to be supplied.

testament--(See on Heb 9:16-17). The Greek "diathece" means both "testament" and "covenant": the term "covenant" better suits the old dispensation, though the idea testament is included, for the old was one in its typical relation to the new dispensation, to which the term "testament" is better suited. Christ has sealed the testament with His blood, of which the Lord's Supper is the sacramental sign. The testator was represented by the animals slain in the old dispensation. In both dispensations the inheritance was bequeathed: in the new by One who has come in person and died; in the old by the same one, only typically and ceremonially present. See ALFORD'S excellent Note.

enjoined unto you--commissioned me to ratify in relation to you. In the old dispensation the condition to be fulfilled on the people's part is implied in the words, Exo 24:8, "(Lord made with you) concerning all these words." But here Paul omits this clause, as he includes the fulfilment of this condition of obedience to "all these words" in the new covenant, as part of God's promise, in Heb 8:8, Heb 8:10, Heb 8:12, whereby Christ fulfils all for our justification, and will enable us by putting His Spirit in us to fulfil all in our now progressive, and finally complete, sanctification.

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

9:20 “This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you” (Exod 24:8): Jesus used similar language at the Lord’s Supper, referring to his own death (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; 1 Cor 11:25).

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

Heb 9:20. Τοῦτο τὸ αἶμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς) LXX., ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς διέθετο Κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων.—ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς) commanded me to bring to you.

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

Heb_9:20. Exo_24:8, LXX.: καὶ εἶπεν· ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς διέθετο κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων.

ἧς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός] Bengel: praecepit mihi, ut perferrem ad vos.

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.

Verse 20. This is the blood of the testament] (covenant.) Our Lord refers to the conduct of Moses here, and partly quotes his words in the institution of the eucharist: This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Mt 26:28. And by thus using the words and applying them, he shows that his sacrificial blood was intended by the blood shed and sprinkled on this occasion, and that by it alone the remission of sins is obtained.

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

20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament, etc. If that was the blood of the testament, then neither the testament was without blood ratified, nor the blood without the testament available for expiation. It is hence necessary that both should be united; and we see that before the explanation of the Law, no symbol was added, for what would a sacrament be except the word preceded it? Hence a symbol is a kind of appendage to the word. And mark, this word was not whispered like a magic incantation, but pronounced with a clear voice, as it was destined for the people, according to what the words of the covenant express, which God hath enjoined unto you. Perverted, then, are the sacraments, and it is a wicked corruption when there is no explanation of the commandment given, which is as it were the very soul of the sacrament. Hence the Papists, who take away the true understanding of things from signs, retain only dead elements.

This passage reminds us that the promises of God are then only profitable to us when they are confirmed by the blood of Christ. For what Paul testifies in 2 Corinthians 1:20, that all God’s promises are yea and amen in Christ — this happens when his blood like a seal is engraven on our hearts, or when we not only hear God speaking, but also see Christ offering himself as a pledge for those things which are spoken. If this thought only came to our minds, that what we read is not written so much with ink as with the blood of Christ, that when the Gospel is preached, his sacred blood distills together with the voice, there would be far greater attention as well as reverence on our part. A symbol of this was the sprinkling mentioned by Moses!

At the same time there is more stated here than what is expressed by Moses; for he does not mention that the book and the people were sprinkled, nor does he name the goats, nor the scarlet wool, nor the hyssop. As to the book, that it was sprinkled cannot be clearly shown, yet the probability is that it was, for Moses is said to have produced it after he had sacrificed; and he did this when he bound the people to God by a solemn compact. With regard to the rest, the Apostle seems to have blended together various kinds of expiations, the reason for which was the same. Nor indeed was there anything unsuitable in this, since he was speaking of the general subject Or purgation under the Old Testament, which was done by means of blood. Now as to the sprinkling made by hyssop and scarlet wool, it is evident that it represented the mystical sprinkling made by the Spirit. We know that the hyssop possesses a singular power to cleanse and to purify; so Christ employs his Spirit to sprinkle us in order to wash us by his own blood when he leads us to true repentance, when he purifies us from the depraved lusts of our flesh, when he imbues us with the precious gift of his own righteousness. For it was not in vain that God had instituted this rite. David also alluded to this when he said,

“Thou wilt sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed.” (Psalm 51:7.)

These remarks will be sufficient for those who wish to be sober-minded in their speculations.

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.

(20) The testament which God hath enjoined unto you.—Better, the covenant which God commanded in regard to you. “Commanded,” see Heb_8:6 : in the LXX. the word is “covenanted.”

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

20. This is] In the Hebrew “Behold!” Some have supposed that the writer adopted the variation from a reminiscence of our Lord’s words—“This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat_26:28). But if such a reference or comparison had been at all present to his mind, he would hardly have been likely to pass it over in complete silence.

which God hath enjoined unto you] Rather, “which God commanded with regard to you,” i.e. which (covenant) Jehovah commanded me to deliver to you.

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.

Saying, this is the blood of the testament,.... The first testament or covenant; this proves what the apostle had asserted in Heb 9:18 that it was dedicated with blood, or confirmed by it; compare with this Mat 26:28

which God hath enjoined unto you; the people of Israel, to observe, and which they promised to do; 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.

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

Ver. 20. Saying, This is the blood, &c.] A tropical and sacramental expression, whereunto our Saviour seemeth to allude in those words of his, "This cup is the new testament in my blood," &c. The sacraments of the Old Testament had a resemblance unto the New; but that was for works of the law, this is for remission of sins.

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.

Saying, This is the blood of the testament - Of the covenant; see notes on Heb 9:16-17. That is, this is the blood by which the covenant is ratified. It was the means used to confirm it; the sacred and solemn form by which it was made sure. When this was done, the covenant between God and the people was confirmed - as a covenant between man and man is when it is sealed.

Which God hath enjoined unto you - In Exo 24:8, “which God hath made with you.” The language used by Paul, “which God hath enjoined” - ἐνετείλατο eneteilato - “commanded” - shows that he did not regard this as strictly of the nature of a “covenant,” or “compact.” When a compact is made between parties, one does not “enjoin” or “command” the other, but it is a mutual “agreement.” In the transactions between God and man, though called בּרית beriyt, or διαθήκη diathēkē, the idea of a “covenant” or “compact” is so far excluded that God never loses his right to “command” or “enjoin.” It is not a transaction between equals, or an “agreement;” it is a solemn “arrangement” on the part of God which he proposes to mankind, and which he enjoins them to embrace; which they are not indeed at liberty to disregard, but which when embraced is appropriately ratified by some solemn act on their part; compare notes on Heb 8:6.

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

This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto you; (Exodus xxiv.) that is, this is to confirm that testament. Christ made use of the like words, when he bequeathed us the divine legacy of his Body and Blood, at his last supper, saying: (Matthew xxvi. 28.) This is my blood of the new testament. And as the words of Exodus were understood of the true blood of the victims offered, so the words of Christ signify the true blood of Christ, there really present in the sacrament, in a spiritual manner, and to be shed in a bloody manner upon the cross. (Witham) --- The correspondence of words, in dedicating both testaments, proveth the real presence of blood in the cup or chalice.

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).

Moses, after his sprinkling the altar, book of the covenant, and all Israel, taught them the meaning of it; saying: This that is the blood wherewith I have sprinkled you, is a sign or a seal of the testament, the blood by which it is ratified and confirmed. The blood typified and represented by it, was that of Christ the Testator, by which all the new testament is ratified to all penitent, believing sinners that look to it, without which it could never have been made good. The blood of Christ is the immovable foundation of this testament, Exo 24:8; compare 1Co 11:25; even the testamental covenant which Jehovah had made with them, and which he enjoined them by such a rite as this to ratify and confirm.

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

20. Blood of the testament—Or bequest. The blood indicating the death of the testator, and thereby certifying the validity of the testament and the security of the inheritance.

Which—Referring to testament.

Unto you— Rather, in regard to you; in your behalf. This blood-bought bequest is enjoined in our behalf by God the Father Almighty. Compare these quoted words with the language of our Saviour. Luk_22:20.

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

Saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined me to deliver unto you - By this it is established. Exod. xxiv, 8.

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

20. This is the blood of the testament. The covenant had been dedicated by blood. It is well to note that this covenant embraced the Decalogue, yet it was the covenant done away to make room for the covenant of Christ. The tabernacle worship had not yet been set up.

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.

20. Τοῦτο. In the Hebrew “Behold!” Some have supposed that the writer adopted the variation from a reminiscence of our Lord’s words—“This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat 26:28). But if such a reference or comparison had been at all present to his mind, he would hardly have been likely to pass it over in complete silence.

ἧς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός. “Which God commanded with regard to you,” i.e. which (covenant) Jehovah commanded me to deliver to you.

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.

20.] This is the blood of the testament (LXX, ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης. It has been suggested, first it would appear by Böhme, that the change has been made by the Writer after the tenor of the N. T. inauguration of the testament by our Lord, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, Luk 22:20, the only Gospel in which ἐστιν fails) which God (LXX, κύριος: changed apparently to preserve more completely the O. T. character of the saying) commanded (LXX διέθετο, which would seem at first sight more appropriate to ver. 16. But ἐντέλλεσθαι διαθήκην is a common LXX expression elsewhere, see besides reff. Deu 4:13; Deu 29:1: Ps. 110:9: Jer 11:3) in regard to you (it is much disputed, how the logic of this passage can cohere: seeing that, how properly soever the latter διαθήκη may be spoken of and argued on as being a testament, the former one could have no such character, and consequently cannot be thus argued on. And the question is very variously answered according to the standing-point of different Commentators. Even such as Tholuck, Lünemann, and Bleek, question the applicability of the Writer’s argument. But, I believe, wrongly. The matter seems to stand thus. The word διαθήκη has the double sense of a covenant and a testament. Both these senses may be applied to both διαθῆκαι: to the latter more properly belongs the testamentary sense, but to the former also in as far as it was typical of and foreshadowed the other. In the latter, all is clear. Christ, the heir of all things, has bequeathed to us His people an everlasting inheritance; has died, sealing the testament with His blood. In the former all this is formally, though inadequately represented. The κληρονομία, faintly shadowed forth by temporal possessions, had yet a recognized blessed meaning far beyond those possessions: the testator was imperfectly, but still was formally represented by the animals slain in sacrifice: there was a death, there was a sprinkling of and sealing by blood: and surely it requires no more stretch of concession to acknowledge the victim in sacrifice to represent the Lamb of God in his sonship and his heritorship, than it does in his innocence and propitiatory power. The one idea is just as poorly and inadequately set forth by it as the other. But in both cases there is an inheritance, and in both it is the same. In both it is bequeathed: in the latter actually by One who has come in person and died: in the former, only typically, by the same One ceremonially present. So that, if our ὅθεν in ver. 18 were to be filled up, it would be, ‘Whence, i. e. since the former covenant also had its testamentary side, and thus was analogous to as well as typical of the latter.’

The charge brought against the Writer on account of his transition of meaning in διαθήκη, is equally without foundation. He is thinking in Greek. In Greek, διαθήκη has these two meanings: not divided off from one another by any such line of demarcation as when expressed by two separate words, but both lying under one and the same word. What more common, or more ordinarily accepted, than to educe out of some one word its various shades of meaning, and argue on each separately as regards the matter in hand? Take the very word ‘Testament’ as an example. In our common parlance it now means a book: the Old Testament, the book of the former covenant, the New Testament, the book of the latter. But we do not therefore sink the other and deeper meaning; nay we rather insist on it, that it may not become lost in that other and more familiar one. I cannot see how the Writer’s method of procedure here differs essentially from this).

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

20. τοῦτο rd αἷμα τ. δ.) Tho words in Ex. xxiv. 8 aru ᾿Ιδοὺ (so Lebr.) τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς διέθετο Κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λύγων τούτων. It is possible that the corresponding phrase at the institution of the New Oovenant (Matt. xxvi. 28) may have influenced the quotation.

The force of the words is: ‘This Blood shed, offered, sprinkled upon you, shews the validity and the power of the purpose of God.’ So Primasius : ac si diceret: Heec est confirmatio hujus testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus.

dver. πρὸς ὑμᾶς) commanded to youward,...Vulg. mandavit ad vos, to be brought to you; you were the people to whum the Lord looked in the commandments which He gave me. The full construction appears in Ecclus. Σὶν. 3 ἐνετείλατο αὐτῷ [Μωυσεῖ] πρὸς λαὸν αὐτοῦ. Yet comp. Acts iii. 25 διαθ. ἧς ὁ θεὸς διέθετο πρὸς τοὺς παTépas....

The sprinkling of the Tabernacle and ite vessels took place ut a later time. They were not yet made when the Sacrifice of the Covenant was offered. Moreover it is not recorded in the Pentateuch that the Tabernacle

was sprinkled with blood, though it ‘and all that was therein’ was anointed with oil (Ex. xl.9; comp. Philo, Vit. Moe. iii. § 18; ti. 158 M.). But Josephus, like the writer of the Epistle, regards the Tabernacle as having been consecrated with blood: τήν τε σκηνήν, καὶ τὰ περὶ αὐτὴν σκεύη ἐλαίῳ τε προθυμιωμένῳ καθὼς εἶπον καὶ τῷ αἵματι τῶν ταύρων καὶ κριῶν σφαγέντων καθ᾽ ἐκάστην ἡμέραν ἑνὸς κατὰ γένος [ἐθεράπενεἾ (Ants. iii. 8, 6).

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.