Death is necessary to validate the new covenant. The author has made it clear that Christ’s death has instituted a better covenant (vv. 11–15) which is superior to animal offerings (vv. 12–14). But the need for such a sacrifice has yet to be explored. So a key word in this section (v.16-28) is “necessary” (anankē, vv. 16, 23). In the process of exploring this point, the author clearly underscored the measureless superiority of the sacrificial death of Christ.
The New Covenant provides two gifts to a believer: redemption and inheritance. Believers receive redemption from the sins committed under the Law. In other words, Christ paid the price to free us from our own sin. His death substitutes for our death, the penalty for our sins. Like the Israelites, believers receive an inheritance, but our inheritance is eternal. By imitating the faith and patience of Abraham, believers are assured that they will inherit the marvelous promises God has made. The Mosaic covenant was ratified by blood, that is to say, death. It was not the death of the one making the covenant, but the death of the animals offered as a sacrifice to God.
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a covenant, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when people are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (NASB)
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- The New Covenant provides two gifts to a believer: redemption and inheritance.
- Since Christ has accomplished an eternal redemption, we are able to share in an eternal inheritance.
- By practicing faith and patience, believers are assured that they will inherit the marvelous promises God has made.
- Hebrews 9:15 makes it clear that there was no final and complete redemption under the Old Covenant. Those transgressions were covered by the blood of the many sacrifices, but not cleansed until the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (Rom. 3:24–26). The ministry of Christ is effective to deal with our sins. His finished work on earth and His unfinished work of intercession in heaven are sufficient and efficient.
CLOSER LOOK:
Verse 15: The paragraph begins in verse 15 by pointing out the need for Christ to die to save the O.T. saints from their sins (cf. Rom. 3:25). To hold onto their profession and serve the living God (v. 14) is to retain the hope of an “eternal inheritance” (cf. “eternal redemption” in v. 12 and “the eternal Spirit” in v. 14) which has been promised to recipients of New Covenant life. Christ “is the Mediator” (cf. 8:6; 12:24) of that “new covenant,” and the “inheritance” is available to “those who have been called” since the death of the Mediator has freed them from all guilt derived from “the violations (sins) committed under the first covenant.”
The author was here perhaps countering the appeal of the sectarians, or others, to the “guilt feelings” of those Jewish Christians who must often have been charged with deserting their ancestral faith.[1] But the blood of Christ ought to quiet their consciences permanently and lead them to pursue the “eternal inheritance” which the New Covenant relationship brought them. When there is a new sacrifice, there has to be a new law. As an analogy, when the US became a country we had a new constitution. The US did not operate under the laws of England.
When we look at this statement: “since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant.” One possible reason we have this here is because under the Mosaic Law (remember the first covenant mention here is referring to the Mosaic covenant), there was no stipulation for the kind of sacrifice Christ offered. In other words, what does the law do? It is a tutor (think back to our discussion on Galatians 3:24) that leads you to Christ. It points out our sinfulness. That is probably what it means here about the sins committed when they broke the Law.
Then the writer says, “those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” So, here again we have the sin and transgression, but notice also we have the security. Now, the word “may” used here could cause some doubt. But notice what the eternal inheritance is based upon. It is based upon the death of Christ and because it happened, this will also happen. While there is some discussion and debate on eternal security between groups, but for many of us we can say that eternal security ultimately rests firmly and completely on the Person and work of Jesus Christ.
Of course, the writer meant here as elsewhere that it is only “through faith and patience” that the readers could “inherit what has been promised” (6:12); but if they would rest their consciences at the Cross, they could pursue this heirship undistractedly.
Let’s look at “Redemption”[2] a little closer. Two related words, lutrōsis and apolytrōsis, are both translated redemption and are frequently used by the NT writers. The word lutrōsis indicates the act of freeing or releasing by paying a ransom price; and apolytrōsis means the act of buying back by paying a ransom price. Christ paid the ransom price with His own blood (1 Pet 1:18-19) and thus freed us from the demands of the law and its curse on sin to become children of God (Gal 3:13; 4:5).[3]
Verses 16–17: The real question in Hebrews 9:16-17 is how the noun diatheke is to be translated. Should it be “will” or “covenant”? It might seem from verses 16-17 that the writer is talking about a will. If we take it as will, in opening the new unit of thought, the writer employed a swift semantic shift in which the author treated the Greek word for “covenant” (diathēkē) in the sense of a will. While “covenants” and “wills” are not in all respects identical, the author meant that in the last analysis the New Covenant is really a testamentary disposition. Like human wills, all the arrangements are secured by the testator and its beneficiaries need only accept its terms. Treating the New Covenant in this way, the author argued that its force—like that of all human wills—depends on the death of the one who made it.[4] That is when it takes effect. One reason to translate it as will is when we look at the phrase, “there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it,” that typically fits a will. Think about a will today, if a person has a will and you are in it, you typically cannot go before they are dead and claim the inheritance. Also, think about the story of the prodigal son. The son basically asks for his inheritance before the father was dead, which makes the father’s love even that much more remarkable.
However, others say it seems best to render it “covenant.” There are two main reasons: (1) The context is not discussing wills, but covenants. (2) Verses 18-20 explain how the first covenant (the law of Moses) was made (cf. Ex. 24:1-8). Taking the view that it means covenant, what then is being said in verses 16-17? The thought is the person who makes the covenant represents their own death by making a sacrifice. Think back to the OT covenant. In what sense is a covenant valid only when men are dead if it is not a will? In the OT, the death of the animal was basically the signature of the covenant treaty.
Also, to be fair to the author, the word used here has some ambiguity and can mean either covenant (or agreement) or will. So they may be using the “stretchability” (i.e. word play) of this term to cover both concepts in a sense. The author uses the two different meanings of the word and ties them together (if you take it as meaning will).
If you were to take it as will, you may ask how is the covenant lacking? If we translate it as will, then what do we do with the prior context? We should probably be consistent and translate it as will throughout. It would be weird to go from covenant to will and back to covenant. In translating, there is some freedom to translate words within their context. But, that is the problem here. These words are used within the context and it makes it more difficult to assign one meaning to one passage and another meaning to the other passage that is right next to it.
See my response on this discussion in a previous posts for more details on this topic.
Verses 18–21: The Old Covenant was also put into effect with blood. So, as verse 18 affirms, as the Mosaic covenant was ratified by blood, so is the new covenant. Drawing on material that may have partly been derived from traditions known to the writer but not specified in the Old Testament, the writer described the inauguration of the Old Covenant through ceremonies involving the sprinkling of sacrificial blood.
Verse 22: This verse applies to the Old-Covenant institutions, and the words “almost” (may see “nearly everything”) leave room for the flour offering which a poor Israelite might bring for their sin (Lev. 5:11–13). But the writer was thinking of the system as a whole and the ritual of the Day of Atonement that pertained to the totality of the nation’s sins, which showed that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. These words also constitute a principle that is true in the New Covenant. Regarding the word “almost,” some see this in a sense of that it is not true in each and every cases but it is a general principle. “Almost” indicates that there were exceptions to blood purification (Lev 5:11-13), but that they were few in comparison with the central importance of sacrifices made for the remission of sins (Lev 17:11). There is a difference between a principle and a promise. This seems to start the establishment of a principle where the writer is going to build upon moving forward.
Summarizing this section: Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant who redeemed the called that they might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. This is why it was done. The rational was established in three ways. One, by legal practice. However you understand it to be covenant or will, it is still a legal practice. Second, by historical precedence. Historical precedence established at Sinai, an establishment of the first covenant. Third, by the biblical principle of blood that is referred to here. What the author do next to some degree is unpack this and relate this to the personal work of Christ.
[1] Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 802.
[2] Strong’s 629, referenced in Heb 9:15; Rom 3:24; Eph 1:14; Col 1:14
[3] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, H. Wayne House, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1999), 1651.
[4] Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 802.