And for this reason he is mediator of a new covenant, so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, the called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
This verse looks two ways at once: back to a mountain of unpaid offences under the law, and forward to an inheritance that lasts forever. Both rest on one death, and the word "Therefore" ties that death to the blood just described.
The verse looks back to the blood just described. That sacrifice qualifies Him for the position He now fills.
The blood which Jesus has shed gives Him a title to be the Mediator of the new covenant. This blood could not belong to the first covenant. Under that covenant, purification only applied to defilements of the flesh. This blood belongs to the second. It is the foundation of this covenant, under which sin is no more before God.
A mediator stands between two sides. Moses filled that role under the old covenant. The comparison shows what makes this one better.
To be a mediator (or, as people say today, to "broker a deal") you need to have access to both parties and be able to relate to both. Moses was the mediator of the old covenant… He alone was allowed to draw near to God (Ex. 24:1–2)… But Christ is mediator of "a better covenant, which is established on the footing of better promises" (8:6). These promises are better because they are unconditional. They include the blessing of forgiveness… He alone could establish that covenant. He was ready and able to lay the foundation for its blessings — on the cross.
Older English Bibles printed "testament" here — that is, a person's will. One writer tests that word against the verse:
"First" what? "Testament" is said here, but it is clearly wrong. How can you speak of "the transgressions of the first will"?… A second will always cancels the first. But here the first was painfully effective, because it produced transgressions… Besides, what have transgressions to do with a will? The moment you bring in "first covenant," everything is easy, plain and forcible. The first covenant was the law, and what the law brought in was transgressions.
The verse names a debt behind and a promise ahead, and one death answers both.
His death had a twofold bearing. It brought redemption for the transgressions under the old covenant. It also became the basis for the promise linked with the new. Something had to remove the mighty mountain of transgressions piled up under the law. And something was needed if God was to call people with an eternal inheritance in view. Both these great ends come "by means of death" — the death of Christ.
Sins committed under the law had long gone unpunished. That raised a question about God's own justice.
Because of His death the Lord said, through the prophet, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." That is the voice of the new covenant. The old covenant could only demand obedience, and when a man failed, sentence him to die. But now His death has taken place. It upheld the law's authority to the utmost. So grace can act freely and grant remission of sins, instead of keeping the memory of them alive. More than that: it can righteously vindicate God's patience in the past. That is "for the redemption of the transgressions" committed under that legal system, with its penalty of death for the offender.
The promise goes to "those who are called." That word decides who is included, and it lets in more than one group.
It reaches backwards, applying itself to transgressions committed beforehand. It applies now to the state of those who are called… Everything in this present period happens by calling. Calling opens the door of the new covenant to those who found themselves under the grave consequences of the first. It opens the same door to those who never belonged to it at all.
The word "eternal" marks a contrast. Under the law, Israel could keep its land only by obeying.
This stands in marked contrast with the law. If Israel had kept it, they would have retained the earthly inheritance. But those who share the heavenly calling receive their inheritance by divine promise. It does not rest on their responsibility, so it cannot be lost.
- Blood — His sacrifice gives Him the title of Mediator. The office rests on the cross.
- Backwards — His death pays for the offences piled up under the law and clears the old debt.
- Between — as Mediator He reaches both sides. Unlike Moses, He laid the covenant's foundation Himself.
- Beckoned — the blessing now comes by calling. It reaches those under the first covenant and those never under it.
- Beyond — the called do not get land held by obedience. They get an eternal inheritance that rests on promise and cannot be lost.
(For where [there is] a testament, the death of the testator must needs come in.
The letter has been speaking about covenants. Now it turns to something every reader knows: a will, and the death that makes it take effect.
One Greek word lies behind "covenant" all through the New Testament, and it is the word used here. Commentators differ on whether these two verses are the exception.
On the question of "covenant" or "testament": "covenant" is always right, except in Hebrews 9:16-17. Even here some have disputed it, but it seems simpler to take it as "testament" — an observation made in passing. The Greek word means covenant, or testament, or disposition.
Read "covenant" here and the sentence is no longer true. Two people can make an agreement without either of them dying.
Where men make a covenant, is it in the least necessary that either of the contracting parties should die? Jacob and Laban made a covenant between them. But did it need Jacob or Laban to die before it was valid? If either had died, that would have been the end of it. But when the man who makes a testament dies, the will takes effect. Then, and only then, can his children — or whoever he left his property to — receive the benefit.
The verse before this one promised an eternal inheritance to those God calls. That word inheritance is what brings a will into view.
How does anybody usually get an inheritance? By a testament, of course, as everyone knows... So no picture could be more natural. If God meant certain people He had called to have an inheritance, there should be a testament about it. That the word here means "testator" is to me beyond question. As far as I know, it is never used to mean "covenanting victim," as some argue — and I do not believe it ever could be.
The verse calls for the death of the one who made the will. Apply that to Christ, and it reaches back to the day He became man.
The Lord became a man so that He could die, and so give us an everlasting inheritance — and a great deal more besides. He who had spoken at Sinai is the very same One who came to die. The figure of a testator therefore applies in all its force. He was pleased to die like this, though in His divine nature He could not die. So in His infinite grace He stooped to share in blood and flesh, so that He might die.
Any death will not do. A will takes effect only when the person who wrote it dies. With Christ the order is reversed.
The second meaning of the word comes in to show that death is necessary — and not just any death, but the death of the testator, the one who gives the blessing. Without this the testament would have no validity at all. No one could enforce it, and no benefit could pass to anyone. And in this sense the reality goes beyond even this God-given illustration. In the normal run of things death is unavoidable, and the will coming into force is a consequence. But our blessed Lord endured death so that He could give the blessing.
A will can be written long before it takes effect. The death turns the plan into a possession — and it covers more than the future inheritance.
You might say the will was drawn up in eternity... But does that secure the inheritance to us? Something has to come in so that the will of the Testator may be made good — the death of the Testator... And this does not only look forward to the eternal inheritance. It also looks back over all our blessings. So everything we have had, even our daily mercies, is part of those purchased and bequeathed blessings.
In ordinary life the one who makes the will is gone when it takes effect. Here He is not.
The death of the Testator had taken place, and the testament had been placed into the Father's hands. He has answered the perfect trust of His beloved Son. He raised Him from the dead and made Him the Trustee and Administrator of the Will of God... So the Will will be carried out not only according to the letter of it, but according to the spirit of it too, and not one detail of it shall fail.
- Word — one Greek term means both covenant and testament. Commentators differ here, and many read "testament" because of the inheritance just named.
- Test — a covenant needs nobody to die. A will does, so only a will makes this verse true.
- Death — the Testator is Christ, who became man so that He could die and leave us the inheritance.
- Estate — the will dates back to eternity. His death makes good the future inheritance and every daily mercy along the way.
- Executor — no human testator comes back. The Father raised Him, and He now carries out His own will, so not one detail fails.