Hebrews 9:15–22

9:15 Our author has spoken of Christ as the guarantor and mediator of a new covenant (7:22; 8:6–7). Then he discussed the old covenant’s sanctuary and sacrifices and how Christ’s entering the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood achieved our eternal redemption (9:1–14). But why are rituals involving death and bloodshed at the core of Israel’s worship and of God’s covenant (diathēkē)? The answer lies in the exclusive, comprehensive commitment the Lord imposed on his people by inaugurating a covenant relationship with them. Only two outcomes were possible. If covenant servants were faithful, they would be blessed (“eternal inheritance”). If not, they would endure curse (“death”).

Moses elaborated these opposite alternatives in graphic detail in his farewell addresses to the Israelites (Deuteronomy 28). The gravity of the covenant mandated that a death had to occur in order for those who had transgressed its commandments to escape its curse. Yet the Israelites “did not continue in my covenant” (Heb. 8:9). They brought upon themselves the covenant’s dire curses, including famine, violence, exile, disease, and death. They needed to be redeemed, which could occur only through the death of an innocent substitute, Christ, whose blood purified covenant breakers from their treasonous acts, which deserve death (9:14).

9:16–17 The ESV, like most versions and interpreters, gives the impression that the discussion shifts here suddenly, surprisingly, and briefly from biblical covenants (v. 15) to the administration of a last will and testament in the Greco-Roman legal system (vv. 16–17) and then back again to biblical covenants (vv. 18–20). (Although the NASB uses “covenant” to represent diathēkē in 9:16–17, its wording in verses 16–17 also describes the administration of a will after a testator’s death.) This widespread interpretive tradition suggests that the mention of “inheritance” led the author to switch legal contexts, from covenants between living parties to a will involving stipulations to be implemented after the testator’s death.¹ However, the term translated “covenant” in verses 15, 18 (diathēkē) is the same word translated “will” in verses 16–17. This Greek term did often mean “last will and testament” in Hellenistic extrabiblical literature, but diathēkē was also the term that the LXX typically used to represent the Hebrew word berit (covenant). Did our author, even though he was deeply influenced by the LXX and biblical categories, suddenly “switch gears” to introduce a secular Hellenistic concept into his discussion of the relation of Jesus’ death to the transgressions of the first diathēkē?

Recent research into ancient Near Eastern treaties and biblical covenants suggests that our author has the ratification rites of biblical covenants in view in verses 16–17. This interpretation certainly makes better sense (than the “will” view) of the inferential links between these verses and their context, and it also explains certain peculiarities in the Greek wording.² Consider first the inferences linking verses 16–17 to the preceding and following contexts. The conjunction “For” (gar) shows that verse 16, which binds diathēkē to death, supports the previous claim (v. 15) that a death has occurred to effect redemption from transgressions of the first diathēkē—the covenant established at Sinai. In verse 18 the opening “therefore” (hothen) indicates that the death-diathēkē connection described in general terms in verses 16–17 can be seen in the specific event of Moses’ sprinkling of “the blood of the covenant” to inaugurate the covenant at Sinai.

The peculiar Greek wording is smoothed out by the ESV: “The death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death.” That is a responsible interpretation. But a more literalistic rendering of the Greek would be, “The death of the one who made it must be brought [pheresthai]. For a diathēkē is confirmed [bebaia] over dead things [epi nekrois].” If a will is in view, the “bringing” of the testator’s death would presumably require evidence of his death (the ancient equivalent of modern death certificates), which would set in motion the settling of the estate. But this fails to explain the plural “dead things” (nekrois, which the ESV makes singular and abstract: “death”). If, however, verses 16–17 refer to covenant inauguration, the covenant maker’s “death” is brought in the animal carcasses symbolizing his self-maledictory oath and the curse to befall him if he breaks the covenant. Covenant ratification rituals involving slain, split carcasses are described in Genesis 15:8–21 (where the Lord invoked covenant curse on himself) and Jeremiah 34:8–20 (where Jews who broke their covenant commitment brought upon themselves the cursed death symbolized by animal carcasses through which they had passed).

The final clause of verse 17, “It is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive,” is difficult for both the “will” interpretation and the “covenant” interpretation of diathēkē. In the ancient world, as in our day, a will was “in force” as a legal document as soon as it was certified by a testator. Only the execution of its stipulations regarding the distribution of the estate awaited the testator’s death. If, however, diathēkē means “covenant” in verses 16–17 (as well as in the surrounding verses), this clause of verse 17 would mean that the covenant is not ratified until the covenant maker has taken the self-maledictory oath, committing himself to maintain loyalty—or face violent death. One scholar writes, “The formulation accurately reflects the legal situation that a covenant is never secured until the ratifier has bound himself to his oath by means of a representative death.”³

9:18–20 The ratification of the Sinai covenant illustrates the principle of verses 16–17: entering into covenant with the living God is deadly, dangerous business! A chiastic structure binds the description of Sinai’s covenant inauguration (vv. 18–20) and the consecration of its sanctuary (vv. 21–22)—both by blood:

1. (A)Not . . . without blood
   1. (B)according to the law
      1. (C)he sprinkled
         1. (D)this is the blood of the covenant
      2. (C')he sprinkled
   2. (B')according to the law
2. (A')without the shedding of blood⁴

Although the ritual of passing between animal carcasses is not mentioned in connection with the inauguration of the covenant at Sinai, the sprinkling of sacrificial blood at that ceremony served to symbolize the lethal consequences that would ensue in the event of a breach of commitment. Unlike the covenant with Abraham, in which the Lord alone bore the obligation to secure his servant’s blessedness, at Sinai blood was sprinkled both on the people and on objects representing the Lord (Ex. 24:3–8). The Exodus account states that Moses threw half of the blood of slain animals on the Lord’s altar, read from the book of the law, and then sprinkled the rest of the blood on the people who had vowed to observe “all that the LORD has spoken.” Hebrews says that the blood was sprinkled on the book itself and on the people. Both texts speak of the blood being applied to the people, which is our preacher’s point: at Sinai, Israel bound themselves to keep the Lord’s covenant or else face a violent death under his curse.

Hebrews mentions other features (goats as well as calves, water, scarlet wool, hyssop) that do not appear in Exodus 24. The author and his readers may have known of oral traditions not preserved in Scripture. The blood of both calves and goats was integral to the Day of Atonement ritual (Heb. 9:12; cf. Leviticus 16). The mention of features involved in other cleansing rituals (Leviticus 14; Numbers 19) may underscore the pervasiveness of the people’s defilement. Moses’ announcement, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you” (cf. Ex. 24:8), was appropriated by Jesus when he instituted the Lord’s Supper: “This is my blood of the covenant” (Matt. 26:28).

9:21–22 The tent (tabernacle) was to be the dwelling place of the holy covenant Lord. Yet the tent and its furnishings had been crafted by the hands of those same covenant-breaking, defiled, death-deserving servants. Therefore the sanctuary itself and its equipment needed ceremonial purification, as did the people. Our author stresses the use of blood in the consecration of the tent and its contents, although Exodus also prescribed the use of a specially formulated sacred anointing oil (Ex. 30:22–33; 40:9–10). Blood was used to “atone for” the incense altar in the Most Holy Place (Ex. 30:1–10) and, with the holy oil, to consecrate the altar for burnt offerings in the courtyard (Lev. 8:15).

The widespread use of blood (and a heifer’s ashes, also from a victim’s violent death) in the procedures of the old covenant’s sanctuary served only for the purification of the flesh and could not reach the conscience (Heb. 9:9–10). Yet those rites announced a truth transcending their own effects: in order for sinful people to be redeemed from covenant curses, they need a full and free forgiveness that wipes their sullied record clean. They need the God of justice, who does not merely excuse breaches of his covenant, to fulfill his promise that he “will remember their sins no more” (8:12). Such forgiveness cannot occur “without the shedding of blood,” and the only blood that can wash clean our stained consciences is “the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet. 1:19).