Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - Hebrews 12:24 - 12:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb 12:24. Διαθήκης νέας, of the new covenant) It is elsewhere called καινή, νέα here: νέος denotes the newness of that which is native or born, or even that which is living: comp. ch. Heb 8:13, note,[82] and ch. Heb 10:20; Isa 43:19.-Μεσίτῃ, to the Mediator) Formerly Moses, himself the mediating messenger, feared and trembled: now access has been granted to the Mediator of the New Testament.-αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ, to the blood of sprinkling) A remarkable connection to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, AND to the blood of sprinkling. The blood is looked upon in this passage, as it is in heaven, in the same way as the Mediator is looked upon, and God, and the ten thousands, etc. Attend, reader, to what is now to be said, by distinct positions.
[82] Νέος, the opposite of γέρων; as καινὸς is of πάλαιος, Νέος, recent or lately originated, young. Καινὸς, new, that which comes in place of what was formerly. So καινὴ διαθήκη, the New Testament, as opposed to the Old covenant or Testament: but νέα διαθήκη, the recently established covenant, of which the Jews were now partakers.-
§ 1. The blood of Jesus Christ was most abundantly shed in His suffering and after His death.
In the sacrifices of the Old Testament, αἱματεκχυσία, the shedding of blood, was requisite; and the blood was to be entirely poured out, so that nothing should remain in the veins and vessels of the bodies. This was accomplished also in the one oblation of the New Testament-the oblation of the body of Jesus. Shedding of this most precious blood in every way then took place: in the garden, by sweat; in the palace, by scourging; on the cross, by the nails; and after death, by the spear. Thus Christ was manifestly put to death in the flesh, 1Pe 3:18. I do not know whether he who has duly weighed the words of Psa 22:15-16, can say, that even a drop of the whole mass of blood remained in His most holy body: I am poured out like WATER. My strength IS DRIED UP as a potsherd, and my tongue has cleaved to my jaws; and Thou hast brought me unto THE DUST of death. Truly the Lamb of God ἐσφάγη, was sacrificed. It does not mean, that one part of His blood was shed, another part not shed: but, as His whole body was delivered up, so His whole blood was shed: Mat 26:28. The shedding of the blood and the death of Christ are concomitant: the one is not the cause of the other. He truly laid down His blood and His life; but not for natural causes, on account of which ordinarily they die, who perish by a violent death. This arises from the surpassing excellence of the Subject.
§ 2. The state of the shed blood followed the actual shedding of that blood.
The actual shedding of the blood was, while it was being shed; we call the state of the shed blood the whole period of its continuance out of the body of the Lord, whether that be short or long.
§ 3. That blood, even in its state of being shed, was free from all corruption.
We were redeemed NOT WITH CORRUPTIBLE THINGS, such as silver or gold, but with the PRECIOUS blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot; 1Pe 1:18-19. The preciousness of that blood excludes all corruption. This remains firm and sure; nor do we in any way approve of the unworthy opinions of some respecting the shed blood of Christ, whom Hoepfner expressly confutes, especially in Tract. de S. C., p. 55.
§ 4. It cannot be affirmed, that the blood, which was shed, was again put into the veins of our Lord’s body.
Human reason comprehends nothing but what refers to this life: wherefore we only put our trust in Scripture, which very often refers to the shedding of the blood and to the death of Jesus Christ; and it too does not less celebrate His resurrection and eternal life. But it gives no direct intimation of the putting of the blood again into the body; nor is that fact to be deduced from Scripture by fair inference. Certainly this mode of reasoning makes a large leap: The blood of Christ is incorruptible; therefore it returned into His veins. If the body without the blood, and the blood out of the body, were uncorrupted during the three days of His death, each of them remains also more uncorrupted, after death was fully accomplished, without the other. Let us hear what Scripture suggests.
§ 5. At the time of the ascension the blood separated from the body was carried into heaven.
The entrance of the Priest of the New Testament into the true sanctuary was His Ascension into heaven; and indeed, at the death of Christ, the veil of the earthly temple was rent asunder, and then the true sanctuary, heaven, was opened; but the entrance itself was made by ascending into heaven. The resurrection took place on the third day after His death; His ascension, forty days after the resurrection. Moreover Christ entered into the sanctuary by His own blood; not merely after the blood was shed, and by the force of its being shed, nor with the blood taken back into the body, but BY the blood: therefore this Priest Himself carried into the sanctuary His own blood separately from His body (Scherzerus, in Syst., p. 390, accuses one of rashness, who thought that the particles of Christ’s blood which adhered to the lash, to the crown of thorns, and to the nails, and the drops of blood shed, were miraculously preserved on the earth, and were multiplied in the Eucharist); and at the very time of His entrance or ascension Christ had His blood separate from His body. His body was bloodless; yet not lifeless, but alive. The blood in His body would not have agreed with the type of the priest under the Old Testament, who entered into the sanctuary with the blood of animals. See ch. Heb 9:7; Heb 9:25, and especially Heb 12:12, where διʼ and διὰ entirely correspond to each other with the same meaning. Witsius, in Diss. de sacerdotio Aaronis et Christi, T. I. Misc., p. 510, where he treats of the passage Heb 13:11, acknowledges, that the analogy between the type and the antitype should be preserved; but he at the same time interprets the blood of Christ to be His soul, not correctly: for blood, properly so called, is denoted, as in the type, so in the antitype. Comp. Exx. in Symb. ap., p. 171. Moreover there is a still weaker explanation given by Sibrandus Lubbertus, lib. ii. c. Socin. de J. C. Servatore, c. 21: “We read concerning the annual sacrifice, Leviticus 16, that its blood was carried into the most holy place; but there is a great difference between this blood and the blood of Christ. For the material blood, that was shed when the animal victim was slain, was carried into the sanctuary; but the material blood of Christ, which was shed when He was slain for us, was NOT carried into heaven. What then was done? As the priest under the law appeared in the Levitical sanctuary with the blood of the victim slain for himself and the people, so Christ appears for us in heaven, not with the material blood that was shed, but by the power and efficacy of the blood shed for us.” The apostle does not say, the power and efficacy of the blood, but Christ’s own (proper) blood (ch. Heb 9:12), by which an entrance was made into the sanctuary: nor does he call it MATERIAL blood, but the blood of Him, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot unto God. The discourses of excellent interpreters and commentators often imitate this emphasis, which is given to this subject by the apostle. Chrysost. Hom. 33, on Hebrews 13 : “The actual economy of the suffering was without-I say, without; but the blood was carried up INTO heaven. You observe, that we are partakers of the blood that was carried into the sanctuary-the true sanctuary-the blood of the sacrifice in which He alone, the High Priest, delighted.” Some refer certain words of this passage to one thing, others to another; but all agree in giving the same meaning to ἀλλʼ εἰς τὸν, κ.τ.λ. The above translation is that which I am inclined to adopt. Conr. Pellicanus on Hebrews 9 : “Christ brought the price of His blood for redeeming us to the Father, into heaven.” Calvin on Hebrews 10.: “Since the blood of cattle became soon corrupted, it could not long retain its efficacy; but the blood of Christ, which has no foul corruption, but always flows with untainted colour, will be sufficient for us to the end of the world. We cannot wonder, if the sacrifices of cattle that had been slain had no power to give life, as they were dead; but Christ, who rose from the dead, to confer life upon us, diffuses His own life into us. This consecration of the way is perpetual, because the blood of Christ is always in a manner dropping before the Father’s face for the purpose of bedewing heaven and earth.” And on ch. 13: “Christ carried His own blood INTO the heavenly sanctuary, to make atonement for the sins of the world.” Again: “The apostle (Heb 13:20) seems to me to mean, that Christ so rose from the dead, that His death notwithstanding is not effaced, but retains eternal freshness and efficacy; as if he had said, God raised His Son, but in such a way, that the blood which He shed once for all in His death, for the ratification of the eternal covenant, still retains its efficacy (vigour) after the resurrection, and brings forth its own fruit, as if it were continually flowing.” Hunnius on Hebrews 13 : “Christ carried His own blood into the Holy of Holies.” Dorscheus, P. I. Theol. Zach., p. 51, etc., says on Zec 9:11 : “The blood is considered under that aspect of profusion and effusion, but not as it is in its natural state and within its ordinary vessels. 1. Because the manner (nature) of the type requires this: for the blood, under the Old Testament or Covenant, was considered as extravasated and shed, and by this very circumstance it was the shadow of the profusion and effusion of blood which was to take place under the New Testament. 2. Because the nature of the Divine covenant requires this, which demands shedding of blood. 3. Because in this aspect of the blood [i.e. by the effusion of the blood] an act of satisfactory obedience due to God for sin is performed, etc.” Sal. Deylingius: “Christ having ascended into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of GOD, commits our affairs to GOD, and shows to the Father His blood that was shed for us, and His wounds.” Again, quoting Rappoltus, he says: “He presents (shows) to His Father His own blood as the ransom and price of redemption for us, and teaches that by the shedding of it Divine justice has been satisfied.” Observ. Miscell., pp. 571, 572. I do not maintain that these interpreters show the present condition of the blood that has been shed; but I say, that their statements, if such a condition be kept in mind, are more consistent with the texts of which they treat.
§ 6. The blood of Jesus Christ always remains blood shed.
If the return of the blood of Jesus Christ into His body ever could or should have happened, it could or should have happened at least at the very moment of the resurrection, and not later. But that this did not happen before the ascension is evident from the preceding section. Therefore it did not happen at the resurrection; and therefore no time can be found, to which we may ascribe that return. The condition of the blood shed is perpetual. Jesus Himself is in heaven, and His body is also there: so too is His blood in heaven; but His blood is not for that reason now in His body. I am not inclined to refer to this the vision in Rev 1:14, concerning the whiteness of the head of Jesus Christ, as if it were bloodless; for it has respect to the hair white as snow; but the face is compared to the exceeding brightness of the sun in his greatest strength, ibid. v. 16. Nor do we allege what is found at Luk 24:39, which has been alleged by Augustine, as bearing on this point; for the blood, although it be in the body, is less felt and seen than the flesh and bones. There are other indications given of the blood being separate from the body. The sacred writings present the body and blood under the aspect of things divided, not only in the sufferings and death of our Lord, but also in the supper instituted in remembrance of His death. Examine ch. Heb 13:9, etc., Heb 10:10; Heb 10:29; 1Co 11:24-25. The mode of predicating follows the mode of existence; for this very reason the body and blood of Christ are considered as quite distinct, because there is a distinction or separation existing in respect (on the part) of the subject. Therefore the blood, as shed, is still in heaven before the eyes of God; it still speaks for us; it is still the blood of sprinkling: 1Pe 1:2. The blood of Abel, which the earth, having opened its mouth, drank from the hand of Cain, cried out apart from the body; so the blood of Jesus Christ speaks, likewise apart, in heaven, with greater power and benignity. For this reason mention is here properly made of the blood of sprinkling apart from Jesus Himself, as in ch. Heb 10:19; Heb 10:21, the entrance into the sanctuary in the blood of Jesus, and this same High Priest, are praised (spoken of) apart; and ch. Heb 13:12, the blood of Jesus is considered apart from His body (comp. Heb 12:11); and ch. Heb 13:20, the very raising of the great Shepherd of the sheep from the dead is said to have been accomplished through the blood of the eternal covenant. Comp. Rev. Riegeri. Hist. Frr. Boh., vol. ii., p. 68, etc., where, following the footsteps of Pfaffius, a very wide field of old and more recent opinions is so spread out before us, that this single opinion, which he skilfully states, comes forth without any of the disadvantages attending on the rest. The blood itself shed, not the shedding of the blood, is the ransom, the price of eternal redemption. That price, paid to God, remains paid, without being restored to the body of the Redeemer. The redemption is eternal; the value of the price is eternal, just as if the Redeemer hung on the cross daily and expired daily for us. In His death there was the power of a life that was not to be dissolved. In His life there is the value of His death, which is perpetual. The death of the Lord itself swept away the weakness of His life in the world, in which (weakness), for the sake of undergoing death, He became a partaker of flesh and blood, ch. Heb 2:14 : and so the same death, as a passage to a glorious life, had something forthwith suited to a glorious life. Comp. 1Ti 3:16, note. Hence the annunciation (“showing forth”) of the Lord’s death comprises His whole history, even that of His burial and resurrection (with which latter the burial is closely connected, 1Co 15:4), that of His ascension, that of His sitting at the right hand of God until He come: 1Co 11:26. The great Shepherd of the sheep was brought from the dead, but the covenant, in the blood of which He was brought, is eternal, ch. Heb 13:20. From this it is plain, that John has described with great propriety the Lamb, seen by him in His life and glory, as slain.
§ 7. This same fact was acknowledged by the ancient Doctors of the Church.
The fathers generally agreed, that the body of the Lord is now bloodless, nay, even aërial: see Magnif. Pfaffii diss. c. Roger, p. 50; and from this point some have descended even to too great subtlety. The author of the questions among the works of Athanasius, T. ii., f. 433, qu. 128, says, “The men of old themselves, and the ancient prophets, were baptized with that blood and water which flowed from the side of Christ. And how? Listen: Since the human body consists of four elements, it is again resolved into the same after death. So it happened also with Christ: because His holy side gave forth its blood and water, they were resolved, as those of the prophets were resolved, namely, into elements; and He thus baptized these (the elements of the prophets, etc.) when found, etc. Theodorus Abucaras has furnished a paraphrase to this philosophic observation, to whom alone Ittigius ascribes it in the Exercitation, in which he both publishes and refutes the little work of Abucaras. To be resolved into elements,-what is that, but to be subjected to corruption? But away with any thought of this kind concerning the blood of the Lord. These writers would not have fallen into this mistake, if they had learned from older authors, that the blood was put into His body when He rose from the dead. I know not whether this restoration of the blood was even acknowledged by the fathers (the proof [onus probandi] lies with him who maintains the acknowledgment), or at least that it is to be found brought forward before that communion in one kind (at length in the 13th and 14th cent.) began to prevail; to the defenders of which dogma, the Schoolmen, the excuse of concomitancy was convenient. The restoration of the blood was not universally maintained even in the age of Gerson, as is evident from his sermons on the day of the Lord’s circumcision, and from the Josephini, dist. 8. After the Reformation many admitted and propagated that opinion without any controversy, and therefore, as it happens usually, without any doubt. But the grounds on which they rest, evince that the blood of the Lord remained free from corruption, and that His remains (relics), accompanied with miracles, do not continue in the earth; both of which we heartily acknowledge; but by these same arguments it is not positively defined what is the present condition of that precious blood. Sec. I. Gerhard’s dispp., p. 789, 1426, seq.; J. Meisneri. exam. catech. Pal., p. 596, etc. It will be thy duty, Christian reader, to compare together the several opinions on this subject, and decide on them according to the rule of sacred Scripture.
§ 8. The personal union and the state of the shed blood well agree (are quite compatible with one another).
These two are not at variance with each other during the three days of His death: and much less is there any opposition ever afterwards. This whole consideration admits nothing Nestorian, nothing Eutychian.
§ 9. The resurrection and glorious life of Jesus Christ does not set aside the state of the shed blood.
If any one were to suppose that a small quantity of blood remained in the body of the Saviour even after His side was pierced, the restoration of the blood shed to the body might seem on that account the less necessary to the natural reason. But the whole blood was indeed shed, and yet it was not again restored; for the natural or animal life consists in the blood and its circulation, and is supported by bread; but the word of God without bread feeds the bodies of the saints. See concerning Moses, Exo 24:18; Exo 34:28; also concerning Elias, 1Ki 19:8; but chiefly concerning Jesus Christ, Mat 4:2; Mat 4:4. For His whole mode of living is known to have exceeded in purity that of all men even from the suitableness of his raiment, Joh 19:23, note. But if the power of God effects that on the earth, how much more is that done and will be done in heaven? Mat 22:29 (and for this reason the reader should by the way, but seriously, be reminded, that blood newly produced in the place of that which was shed, was never even dreamt of being ascribed by us to the risen Redeemer): His glorified life does not require the circulation of the blood. The whole is of God, Rom 4:4; Rom 4:10; 1Co 6:13; 1Co 15:44; 1Co 15:50. Our body, our blood, are subject to corruption. What will happen in regard to our blood, I know not; (even in the animal life itself we consider a very great loss of blood, provided life be not endangered, as a matter of less importance than the maiming of a finger or a joint:) The Saviour will certainly make the body conformable to His glorious body. Comp. Samml. von A. und N. 1739; I. Beytr. art. 8; Vales. philos. sacr., p. 81; Melch. I. 712. “We think it quite clear, that the battle fought by Michael, Revelation 12, did not take place immediately after Christ’s ascension into heaven, whither THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB being introduced, took away the dragon’s right to accuse.” Pfaff. Syst. germ., p. 307; Heding. ad Heb 9:24; Heb 10:14; Kraft Nachr. I. Band, p. 878. The hole in the side (such as a deadly wound would be in the natural body) is the never-failing proof and ornament of His glorified life: Eze 37:6; Eze 37:8. The veins are not mentioned, but גידים are nerves or muscles.
§ 10. The state of the shed blood very strongly confirms communion in both kinds.
The defenders of communion in one kind have no more specious pretence than the concomitancy of the body and blood. But the relation of the body and of the blood of the Lord in the sacred Supper is most distinct [the footing or aspect of the one is quite distinct from that of the other]. First, He says, This is My body: then next, This is My blood. Therefore the body is not exhibited by the blood, but by itself; the blood is not exhibited by the body, but by itself. Lightfoot, in Chron. of the Old Testament, compares Gen 9:4 with this passage. But the language of Dannhawerus is much to the purpose, who writes as follows: “The blood of Jesus Christ, shed for His disciples and for many, is a heavenly thing, as it is drunk in the sacred Eucharist, and because it is incorruptible, it still exists, 1Pe 1:19, and was carried by Christ into the sanctuary not made with hands; and yet (the blood spiritually received in the Eucharist) it is the very blood shed in the time of His passion. We must not enter here into scholastic disputes, truly scholastic and trifling, about the remains of Christ’s blood, and its being taken back, concerning which Baron. should be consulted, etc.” Hodos. p. 1202. At the death of Christ the blood was drawn out of the body: the “showing forth” of that death (1Co 11:26) demands that the bread, after having been blessed, should be eaten in remembrance of the Lord, and that the cup, after having been blessed, should be drunk in like manner in remembrance of the Lord; 1Co 11:24-25. Thomas Bromley has a profound Answer, published in ten treatises, on the different nature of enjoying the body and blood of Christ.
§ 11. The same cause [reason] admirably supports our faith.
The same Bromley, in the Revelation of Paradise, writes thus: “The blood of the eternal covenant is sprinkled in the sanctuary, which was in a peculiar manner performed once for all by the Lord Jesus after His ascension, according to Heb 9:12, By His own blood He entered once into the sanctuary, after He had obtained eternal redemption. But that is still continued at certain times by our great High Priest, for the purpose of allaying the wrath of God occasioned by sin; and it is therefore called the blood of sprinkling, on account of its use, which is continued in heaven, and in the consciences of the saints upon the earth.” Heb 9:14. They who are strong in spiritual judgment may decide such matters as these. Truly, believers, in the whole exercise of their faith, and especially in the sacred Supper, as much enjoy the efficacy of the blood of Jesus Christ, as if they had been established (placed) at the moment at which His blood was shed.
§ 12. This circumstance demands more ample consideration from the lovers of Christ.
We may transfer to the present discussion what Andreas Adamus Hochstetterus, P. M., has written in his Exercitation on the entrance of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies. “We do not doubt that the reader will perceive, from the discussion of an argument so perplexed, and omitted by even great interpreters, how much is still left to our own investigation (searching of the Scriptures), and will apply to the glory of the Saviour the labour which we have taken in searching out the hidden truth,” pp. 20, 21. I confess, I find this field but little cultivated, and on such a subject few in general are brought to stop and direct their attention to its consideration. But he who will not straightway shrink from that which seems at first a paradox (something contrary to what would be thought), will soon after taste its sweetness with the progress of faith. Notwithstanding, I obtrude nothing on any man; I merely ask the wise to condescend religiously to examine the whole subject, not according to the rule of human, but Divine judgment. Carnal curiosity has no place here, but the desire of knowing the Redeemer, so far as He has chosen to make known His glory by the rays of the apostolic testimony to them who love Him.
In commentaries and systems, indeed, this subject is not found to be well or fully treated; it is only slightly touched upon; and this perhaps arises from the following reasons: 1. In the passages concerning applicatory grace [applying to us redemption], it is said: The operating cause terminatively[83] is the Holy Spirit, which is true; but the mention of Christ and His merits is only made in relation to the question respecting the external impulsive cause. It so happens that the efficacious operation of Christ and His blood cannot come into consideration either in the one place or the other. 2. The proper (strict) consideration of Christ’s blood is sparingly introduced, and many have straightway recourse to a figure, whereby they understand under this word, blood, either the whole merit of Christ or His life, i.e. the living principle or soul. 3. In serious treatises, the writers directly refer rather to the holy and blessed fruits, than to the mode of the operations themselves, from which these fruits take their rise; comp., for example, the writing of an Anonymous author, die reinigende Kraft des Gottes-Blutes Jesu Christi (ed. A. 1745, Prenzl.), p. 49. When I was young, I anxiously meditated a solid disquisition on the bearing of the merit of Christ on our salvation; but after much thinking, I never proceeded so far as to write a special treatise on that subject. May the Lord Jesus, for His own name’s sake, now and henceforth bestow upon us the bright ray of His own light. Amen.
[83] As opposed to the external impulsive cause.