Lange Commentary - Hebrews 9:16

Lange Commentary - Hebrews 9:16 - 9:22

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Hebrews 9:16 - 9:22

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

III

In the concluding of this New Covenant the blood of Christ was indispensable

Heb_9:16-22

¹⁶For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be [be adduced or declared, öÝñåóèáé ] the death of the testator. ¹⁷For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all [since it scarcely is of any force] while the testator ¹⁸liveth. Whereupon [whence, ὅèåí ] neither [not even, ïὐäÝ ] the first testament was [has been] dedicated [inaugurated] without blood. ¹⁹For 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 [itself, ²⁰ áὐôü ] and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament [or, covenant] ²¹which God hath [om. hath] enjoined unto you. Moreover [And] he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry [service]. ²²And almost [parety nearly, or about, ó÷åäüí ] all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is [there takes place] no remission.

[Heb_9:16.— öÝñåóèáé , not be, as E. V., but, adduced, declared, Alf., implied; Words., brought to pass; many, afferri coram judice, of establishing judicially; Moll renders “beigebracht werden.”

Heb_9:17.— ἐðὶ íåêñïῖò , over the dead, in case of the dead, lit., on condition of persons as dead.— ἐðåß ìÞðïôå elegantly softening and appealing rather to the judgment of the reader; “for look whether perchance it has force;” see if it be not perhaps invalid. It is by no means intensive, as in the E. V., “it has no force at all.” Otherwise it should be taken as a question: “Since does it at all=it does not at all, does it?”

Heb_9:18.— ὃèåí , whence, logical.— ïὐäÝ ., not even.— ἐãêåêáßíéóôáé , Perf., has been inaugurated, not, was dedicated. The Perf, implies that it stands before our eyes.

Heb_9:19.— ëáëçèåßóçò ãÜñ , for after every commandment was spoken, etc.— áὐôü ôå ôὸ âéâëßïí , both the book itself.

Heb_9:20.— ἐíåôåßëáôï , Aor., enjoined, not, hath enjoined.

Heb_9:21.— êáὶ ôὴí óêçíὴí äÝ , and the tabernacle too; so êáß — äÝ , constantly and elegantly used in Greek. Not quite as in E. V. and Alf., and moreover.

Heb_9:22.— êáὶ ó÷åäüí , and pretty much, pretty nearly, as one might say. It does not like our almost (Gr. ὀëßãïõ äåῖí ) positively exclude a part, but simply declines to guarantee the exact accuracy of the statement. Almost, therefore, is never its proper rendering. Alf. renders almost, but adds parenthetically, one may say that, which is sufficiently exact.— áὶìáôåê÷õóßá , either shedding of blood in the slaughter of the victim, or pouring out of the blood of the victim when slaughtered; the former here seems more probable. Áἱìáôåê ., “seems to be a word coined by the sacred writer, to express his meaning.” Alf.— ãßíåôáé , takes place.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Heb_9:16. For where a testament is, etc.—Attempts have been very naturally made (springing from the ὄèåí of Heb_9:18, and the ãÜñ connecting this verse with Heb_9:15), to take äéáèÞêç here in its ordinary sense of covenant (Crit. Sacr., VII. 2 p., 1067 sq., Seb. Schmidt, Michaelis, Cramer, Ebrard, etc.). They are convicted at once, however, of error, by the utter falseness of the idea that in the formation of a covenant the death of Him who framed it is indispensable to its validity, as well as by the intolerable harshness of any other mode of explaining ὁ äéáèÝìåíïò . For although ἐðὶ íåêñïῖò might indeed denote “over slaughtered sacrificial victims,” inasmuch as in later usage ôὸ íåêñüí , is frequently= ôὸ ðôῶìá ,—it is impossible that ὁ äéáèÝìåíïò can be applied either to the animal offered in sacrifice in confirmation of the covenant, or to the man regarded as replaced and represented by the victim, and thus pledging himself as it were to a moral death, or to the mediator of the covenant. If, on the other hand, in allusion to the above mentioned inheritance ( êëçñïíïìßá ), we evolve here out of the more general signification of äéáèÞêç (arrangement, dispositio) the more special one of testamentary arrangement, testament, we must beware of extending the application of the comparison made in illustration of the thought, beyond the immediate sentiment and purpose of the writer, and thus of introducing alien and incongruous elements into the passage. Such is the idea advanced by Menken, who says (Homilies on Chapters 9 and 10., p. 142) that only He who by His death has proved Himself worthy of the inheritance, could make others fellow-heirs with Him; as also that of Hofmann, who (Weissag. II., 165) appeals in proof of the necessity of the death of the ὁ äéáèÝìåíïò , to the fact that during His life He could add something to His possessions, and thus could not during His life-time make any one an heir of the whole property that He should leave behind Him. The question is not now of a setting forth of the ultimate ground of the death of Christ, a ground already assigned at Heb_9:15—but of an illustration of its practical necessity, in order for the delivering over of the blessings of salvation, as an inheritance. Compare as to the idea, Luk_22:29 : êἀãὼ äéáôßèåìáé ὑìῖí êáèὼò äéÝèåôü ìïé ὁ ðáôÞñ ìïõ âáóéëåßáí . Among the ancient Hebrews there were, it is true, no arbitrary testamentary bequests, Deu_21:16. But among the later Jews they were by no means unknown (Michaelis, Mos. Recht. II., § 80), and the sentiment in question is conceived and expressed not from a Hebrew, but a Hellenic point of view. If we decline giving to öÝñåóèáé the signification adduced (Hofm. Schriftb. II. 1, 428) or endured (referred by Wittich to the relatives), the most probable rendering will be that of sermone ferri=constare (Bretschn.). The juristic application of the word=afferri coram judice (Hammond, Elsner, and the majority, since Valckenaer) is restricted properly to the adducing of evidence in court, and applies not to the right of inheritance. The rendering esse, extare= ãßãíåóèáé [be or become), which, with the ancients and up to the time of Valck., was the prevalent one, is held among later comm. only by Schultz and Böhme, and cannot be sustained. The rendering expectari (Grot.) is totally inadmissible. Grammatically indefensible too is the making ìÞðïôå = ìÞðù , not yet (Vulg., Erasm., Luth., Schlicht., Böhme). In a strictly objective sentence we should indeed have expected ïὐ ; but the later writers in causal sentences with ὅôé and ἐðåß frequently confound ïὐ and ìÞ (Madvig, Synt., § 207, Anm. 2). If, with Winer, we decline ascribing to our author a negligence belonging properly to the vulgar idiom (Mullach, Gramm. der Griech. Vulgarsprache, p. 29), but give to ìÞ its subjective force, we must then (with Œc., Beng., Lachm., Hofm., Del., etc.) assume an interrogation; and this all the more, as ἐðåß , also at Heb_10:2; Rom. 3 6; 1Co_14:16; 1Co_15:29; introduces a proof in the form of interrogation, and ìÞðïôå appears alike in direct (Joh_7:26) and indirect (Luk_3:15; 2Ti_2:25) interrogations. Quite unnecessarily Isidor. Pelus. (Ep. IV., 113) prefers the reading ìὴ ôüôå found only in D.

Heb_9:18. Whence, also, neither has the first covenant, etc.—The reference of ὅèåí to Heb_9:15 by putting Heb_9:16-17, in parenthesis (Zachar., Mor., Storr, Heinr., Bisp.,) is inadmissible. The words êáôὰ ôὸí íüìïí are not to be connected with ðÜóçò ἐíôïëῆò =(“Every commandment as contained in the law,” (Schlicht., Calov, Beng., Bl., Bisp., etc.,) but with ëáëçèåßóçò , Œc. Erasm., Calv., Bez., Grot., etc.,); not, however, in the sense of “according to the command” in reference to the injunction, Exo_20:22, (Bez., etc.,) but, “in accordance with the law received on Sinai;” inasmuch as in concluding the covenant, an exact repetition of the divine commands was indispensable.

Heb_9:19. He took the blood, etc.—The êáß after âéâëßïí which we must not (with Colomes. and Valcken.) strike out, and which cannot possibly, with Beng., be taken as corresponding to the êáὶ äÝ of Heb_9:21, forbids our making áὐôὸ ôὸ âéâ . dependent on ëáâþí . We are to assume here, as also in the mention of the goats which might be chosen for burnt offering, (Lev_1:10 f.; Lev_4:23 f.; Lev_9:2 f.; Num_6:10 f.; Heb_7:27; comp. Exo_24:5); and were also used in the expiatory offerings mentioned in Heb_9:12-13, and in like manner in respect to the means of purification, (which elsewhere are found only in the case of lepers, LeHebrews Heb_9:14 and those defiled by dead bodies, Numbers 19.) an expression drawn from tradition, (and which, at least in respect to that which immediately follows, is also found in Joseph. Antt. III. 8, 6), of the event recorded, Exodus 24. In the citation we have ôïῦôï instead of the ἰäïὐ of the Sept., ὁ èåüò instead of êýñéïò , and ἐíåôåßëáôï instead of äéÝèåôï .

Heb_9:21. And the tabernacle, too.—Since the tabernacle and vessels were constructed at a later period, the author cannot refer to anything that is contemporaneous with what is hitherto mentioned. To this fact points the êáὶ äÝ =but also, on the other hand also. The anointing is that enjoined, Exo_40:10, which is probably identical with that which was performed, Lev_8:10, during the seven days of priestly consecration, an account of which, similar to that here recorded, is given by Josephus, while the original text recounts only the sprinkling with oil, as of the positive means of consecration, but mentions the purifying by the blood of atonement only in reference to the altar, Lev_8:15; Lev_8:19; Lev_8:24.

Heb_9:22. And all things, as one might say, are purified with blood, etc.—Also, water and fire are a means of purification; but when the question is of forgiveness of sin, then blood is demanded, according to Lev_17:11. The vegetable sin-offering of the poor, Lev_5:11-13, forms no exception, but is a recognized substitute. Chrys., Primas., etc., erroneously refer ó÷åäüí to êáèáñßæåôáé as if expressing the imperfection of this purification, neither, however, does it belong to ἐí áἵìáôé , (Beng., Böhm.), but to ðÜíôá . The word áἱìáôåê÷õóßá is understood by De W., Thol., Hofm., Keil, of the pouring out of blood on the altar, and the sprinkling, while Bl., Lün., Del., Kurtz, on the contrary, refer it to the slaughter, which is parallel to the death of Christ upon the cross. Del. recalls the language of the last Supper, Luk_22:20, as in point of symbol and of fact, furnishing the closest parallel, without yet being insensible to what, on purely archæological grounds, may be urged in favor of the former explanation (comp. Einhorn, Prinzip des Mosaismus, p. 82 ff.).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Even in the Old Test the salvation promised by God to His people, under certain terms and conditions, appears as an inheritance. ðַçֲìָä . It is thus not unscriptural, and not even surprising, but merely uncommon, when Christ, who previously was regarded as the accomplisher of the revelation of God, and as royal head and leader of His people to salvation, as pledge and mediator of that new covenant which was promised and typified in the Old, is now represented as a Testator, in that, for the vivid illustration of the close connection, lying in the very nature of the case, between the death of Jesus Christ and the attainment of the inheritance of the children of God, promised to us by God, and given over as His own, to Christ, for transmission to us, this comparison opens the most appropriate and the most instructive analogies.

2. Since such is the state of the case, for this reason even in the formation of the old covenant, the application of blood, for cleansing and for expiation, was indispensable, and during the existence of that economy was always employed for such a purpose, in accordance with the express command of God. It was then, with a reference to the death of Jesus Christ, as the true and efficacious sacrifice, that this arrangement was instituted; and it is no accommodation to Jewish prejudices, and Rabbinical modes of expression, to regard Christ as a priest and an offering; rather, on the contrary, the Levitical offerings are to be conceived under the point of view of a divinely ordained type of the sacrifice determined in the eternal counsels of God, and freely undertaken by Christ, (Heb_10:5 ff.). Hence the ὅèåí , Heb_9:18.

3. In this connection becomes explicable, also, the sprinkling of the Tabernacle, and of the sacred vessels, and of the sacred records of the divine revelation and covenant, with blood, as well as the sprinkling of the people, although this belongs only to tradition. It expresses the obligation inhering in both parties for the offering of the efficient sacrifice, and the present inability to furnish it with the means existing at the time. Remittere peccata non est opus absolutæ misericordiæ, sed fit interveniente simul satisfactione eaque sufficientissima licet a misericordia divina procurata. (Seb. Schmidt).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Obedience to the ordinances of God is not merely the duty of men, but our best auxiliary in the struggle against sin.—The law of God which makes acquainted with and condemns sin, points also the way to the forgiveness of sin.—Sin is a stain which can be removed only by blood.—On the connection of sin, expiation, and forgiveness.

Starke:—Just as surely as Christ has died, so sure is the covenant of grace with God.—Divine justice demanded blood, and without this God could not be propitiated, Col_1:14; Col_1:20.—Moses, a faithful servant in the house of God. Blessed are they who are his imitators!—There is, in itself, nothing pure before God, not even the holy place, nor the teachers who enter thither to conduct the service of God, as the people who assemble there to serve God, and this even in their best acts; yet the blood of Christ purifies all.—How capital a point of faith is furnished by the blood and death of Jesus Christ! without this, all His suffering were in vain, and that even though it had been far heavier than it was. By this we are reconciled with God.

Rieger:—Only through Christ, and His death, has the whole blessing of redemption, which God would apply to us miserable wretches for our salvation, amounted to a proper testament and bequest, i.e., to a gracious economy confirmed by the death of its Author.

Heubner:—If everything is defiled by the impure hands of men, if the whole earth is desecrated by sin, then does everything stand in need of cleansing and consecration, Job_15:4.—In the expiatory power of the death of Jesus lies its proper significance, Isaiah 53.—Without a surrender to death there is no reconciliation. The yielding up of life an expiation for desecrated life, Exo_17:11.

Footnotes:

Heb_9:18.—Instead of ïὐä ’ A. C. D. E. L., 4, 44, 55 (but at the Sin.), write ïὐäÝ .

Heb_9:19.—The article before íüìïí is vouched for by A. C. D*. L., 21, 47, 71. In the Sin. it comes from a second hand.

Heb_9:19.—The Art. before ôñÜãùí is required by Sin. A. C. D. E., 80.

Heb_9:19.—For ἐῤῥÜíôéóå all the Uncial MSS. have ἐñÜíôéóåí .

Alford criticises the Eng. ver. “must have suffered” on the ground that the antecedent time, being already indicated by the ἔäåé , need not be again expressed by ðáèåῖí . The criticism would be just if the ἔäåé were in the English version instead of in the Greek. But in English the must, which translates the ἔäåé , not having in itself the idea of past time, this idea has to be put into the accompanying Infinitive. The rendering of the common version is therefore, I think, idiomatic and unexceptionable.—K.].