Whence neither the first was inaugurated without blood.
The writer has just spoken of wills and the death that makes them valid. Now he turns back to Israel: even the first covenant began with blood. Why did a covenant of law need death at all? And what did that blood say to the people?
Blood was never an optional extra in God's dealings with people. The blood at Sinai carried a different force from the blood of Christ, yet it taught the same need.
The first covenant did not forget this need: a covenant must rest on the blood of a victim. Everything was sprinkled with blood. Only, in this case, it was the solemn sanction of death attached to the obligation of the covenant. The types always spoke of the necessity of death coming in before men could be in relationship with God. Sin had brought in death and judgment. We must either face that judgment ourselves, or see our sins blotted out because another has faced it for us.
English versions move between "covenant" and "testament" in these verses. One Greek word lies behind both.
We have read of a covenant, the word for which in the original also bears the meaning of testament. We are to be reminded how the first covenant was ratified: by blood, the blood of the sacrifices. Before he comes to that, the writer recalls to his readers how in ordinary life there is the need of death — the death of the one who made the testament — before a testament can be valid. We can see why the thought of a testament comes in at verses 16 and 17: the Lord had to die for the new covenant to be made. To ratify the first covenant, Moses shed the blood of animals. The Lord gave His own.
The blood that sealed this covenant was a warning, not a comfort. It fixed the penalty for breaking what the people had agreed to.
The blood is sprinkled, as though calling God to witness. Sprinkled on the altar it was a witness that the law, if broken, called for the shedding of blood, the execution of judgment. Sprinkled on the people, it declared that if they broke that law they would be the objects of God's wrath, on the terms of the covenant. In other words, they would not merely be condemned like the rest of the world for general sinfulness. They would be condemned specifically as people who had entered a covenant relationship with God and broken it.
That blood bound the people to the covenant; it did not remove their sins:
It is a great mistake to suppose that the blood there is used as a sign of the putting away of sin. The meaning here, I take it, is this: the people formally pledged themselves to legal obedience, and bound themselves in this solemn way to obey. The blood sprinkled came from the animals killed in view of the old covenant. In the same way, they did not shrink from that dreadful and extreme penalty if they failed to obey the will of God. It was calling down death on themselves from God if they violated His commandments.
Moses sprinkled two things: the people and the book. Each act carried a different weight.
Sprinkling the people seems to have reminded them that death was the penalty of disobedience. Any breach of its demands meant the death penalty on them. Sprinkling the book, on the other hand, would show that death was necessary as the basis of everything. So even the law system was not dedicated without blood. The inspired writer adds this fact here, because it is exactly the point of the argument in this letter.
The verse opens with a link word — "Therefore" in the ESV, "whence" in older versions. It ties the general rule about death to Israel's history, and the likeness between the covenants only sharpens the contrast.
A testament is only valid once a death has taken place. The connecting word "whence" shows that this general principle also applied to the old covenant, which was likewise inaugurated with blood. This is a clear parallel between both covenants, and yet what a contrast! The blood of the first covenant testified that anyone breaking it deserved death. The blood of the new covenant tells us that the mediator has paid the price: His blood was shed.
- Blood first. Even the covenant of law began with blood. Death has always had to come in before people can stand in relationship with God.
- Blood as warning. Sprinkled on the people, it called God to witness. Break the covenant, and death follows.
- Blood as foundation. Sprinkled on the book, it showed that death underlies everything God does — the very point this letter is pressing.
- Blood as will. One Greek word means both covenant and testament. A testament needs the death of the one who made it. Moses gave the blood of animals; Christ gave His own.
- Blood as payment. The same ceremony, the opposite message. The old blood said the breaker deserved to die. The new says the mediator has died instead.
For every commandment having been spoken according to [the] law by Moses to all the people; having taken the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
At Mount Sinai the people had just heard the law read aloud and had promised to obey it. What follows is a strange ceremony. Blood is mixed with water and splashed over both the written book and the crowd. The question is what that blood was saying.
The letter looks back to the day the first covenant came into force. One commentator contrasts it with the rescue God had already worked for Israel:
The first covenant was inaugurated with blood, as we read in Exodus 24. This is not redemption, but in the strongest contrast with it. The picture of redemption had already been given (Exodus 12, 14). It was the blood of the Passover lamb, followed by the crossing of the Red Sea. That blood sheltered them from the judgment of God. The power that came next set the people free from their enemies, destroyed for ever. But now Israel, far from God, had agreed to stand on the condition of their own obedience (Exodus 19). God had spoken those ten words that would test the people.
If you turn back to Exodus 24, several things in this verse are simply not there. Writers note the additions carefully:
It is of interest to note that when this is referred to in Hebrews we are given details not given to us in Exodus. He took "water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop," and further, he sprinkled not only the people but also the book that he had written.
The sprinkling was not a rite of forgiveness. The clue is that everything got the same treatment — altar, scroll, and crowd alike:
It cannot be atonement, because the people and the book are sprinkled equally with the altar; nor, for the same reason, could it be cleansing. The life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). So the blood, and the shedding of it, stands for death. And death, when it is joined to sacrifice, stands for the penalty of sin. So here the sprinkling of the blood means death as the punishment the law lays down. The people promised obedience. Then Moses sprinkled them, and the book as well, to teach that death would be the penalty for breaking the law.
Commentators differ on whether the book and the people carry the same message. One writer keeps them apart:
The sprinkling of the people seems to have reminded them that death was the penalty of disobedience. Any breach of the law's demands meant the death penalty for them. The sprinkling of the book, on the other hand, shows that death was necessary as the basis of everything.
The blood called God in as a witness to the terms. It also put Israel in a different position from the rest of the world:
The blood is sprinkled, as though calling God to witness. Sprinkled on the altar, it was a witness that the law, if broken, called for the shedding of blood and the carrying out of judgment. Sprinkled on the people, it declared that if they broke that law they would be the objects of God's wrath, according to the terms of the covenant. In other words, they would not just be condemned like the rest of the world for their general sinfulness. They would be condemned as people who had entered the covenant relationship with God and then broken it.
These three items reappear elsewhere in the law, and that is where their sense is found:
Here we are told that the medium through which he did this was "water, scarlet wool, and hyssop"... These details suggest the two kinds of atoning work, if I may put it that way. One had to do with the sanctuary: the blood of the sacrifice carried in and sprinkled on the mercy seat. The other was the ashes of the red heifer, which was burned whole, with cedar and hyssop and scarlet wool.
One dictionary explains what hyssop stands for:
The hyssop is in contrast to the stately cedar, and is symbolic of man's littleness.
Both covenants began with blood. That is what makes the contrast so sharp:
This is a clear parallel between both covenants — and yet what a contrast! The blood of the first covenant testified that anyone breaking it would deserve death. The blood of the new covenant tells us that the mediator paid the price; His blood was shed.
- Blood binds. At Sinai the covenant was sealed in blood, with God called in as witness to the terms.
- Blood accuses. Book, altar and people were all sprinkled alike. So this blood cannot mean atonement. It names death as the penalty for breaking the law.
- Blood indicts. Sprinkled on the people, it warned them. They would be judged not as sinners in general, but as covenant-breakers who had agreed to the terms.
- Blood points. The water, scarlet wool and hyssop point to the sanctuary sacrifice and the red heifer. Hyssop, the lowly plant, marks how small man is.
- Blood saves. The new covenant opens with blood too — but there the Mediator pays the penalty the first covenant only announced.
saying, This [is] the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined to you.
Moses read the law aloud at Sinai, then threw sacrificial blood over the book and over the people. Hebrews quotes what he said as he did it, to prove that no covenant ever begins without blood — and to ask what that blood told the people it touched.
The blood here is not the blood of the Passover lamb. God had already redeemed Israel out of Egypt before they agreed to the terms of law:
The first covenant was inaugurated with blood, as we read in Exodus 24. This is not redemption, but stands in the strongest contrast with it. God had already given the picture of redemption in the blood of the Passover lamb, followed by the crossing of the Red Sea. The blood sheltered them from the judgment of God. The power that came next set the people free from enemies destroyed for ever. But now Israel, far from God, had agreed to stand on the condition of their own obedience... This letter says Moses sprinkled that blood on the book and on all the people. It showed one thing only: death as the penalty of disobedience. So it was in no way propitiatory but penal.
The ESV says God "commanded" this covenant; older translations say He "enjoined" it. Israel had promised obedience, and the sprinkled blood fixed that promise in place:
In the former covenant the people were contracting parties. So the blood Moses sprinkled stood as a witness against them: the slightest failure to keep its terms would cost them their life... For the people, the Lawgiver's own words declared what it meant. He had just read out the commandments of the Lord in their hearing. "This is the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined to you." It was the solemn and significant fastening of that yoke of bondage, from which only the blood of a human life could set them free.
The blood marked both the written terms and the people who had agreed to them. That double sprinkling carried a double message, and it put Israel where no other nation stood:
The blood is sprinkled, as though calling God to witness. On the altar, it was a witness that the law, if broken, called for the shedding of blood and the carrying out of judgment. On the people, it declared that if they broke that law they would be the objects of God's wrath, on the terms of the covenant. In other words, they would not just be condemned like the rest of the world for general sinfulness. They would be condemned as people who had entered a covenant relationship with God and broken it.
Hebrews lists items the Exodus account leaves out — water, scarlet wool, hyssop. Those extras point to more than one kind of atoning work:
If you turn to the Old Testament passage, you will find no mention there of the things that went with this sprinkling. Exodus only tells us that he sprinkled half the blood on the altar and the other half on the book and the people. Here we learn the means he used: "water, scarlet wool, and hyssop"... These details suggest the two kinds of atoning work. One had to do with the sanctuary: the blood of the sacrifice carried in and sprinkled on the mercy seat. The other was the ashes of the red heifer, burned whole with cedar, hyssop and scarlet wool.
Both covenants opened with blood. That likeness makes the difference sharper:
There is a clear parallel between the two covenants, and yet what a contrast! The blood of the first covenant testified that anyone breaking it deserved death. The blood of the new covenant tells us that the mediator has paid the price: His blood was shed.
Christ's words over the cup reach back to Egypt and to Sinai together:
The Lord's supper refers both to the Passover and to Sinai. "Do this in remembrance of me" points to Egypt, and so does the occasion itself; "the new covenant in my blood" points to Sinai. As Passover, it is the memory of deliverance through One broken for us — deliverance from judgment and wrath. As blood of the covenant, it puts us in a new relationship, on the ground of grace through the forgiveness of sins.
- Sealed. No covenant begins without blood. Moses opened the first by sprinkling the book of the law and the people who had promised to keep it.
- Binding. Israel signed on as contracting parties. God enjoined the terms on them: a yoke fastened, not a gift handed over.
- Penal. This blood was not propitiation but penalty. It announced death as the price of disobedience, and marked Israel as covenant-breakers if they failed.
- Fuller. Hebrews adds water, scarlet wool and hyssop to the Exodus record. The details tie the moment to the wider work of atonement.
- Answered. Christ took up the same words over the cup. Moses' blood said what the covenant-breaker deserved; His blood says the mediator has paid it.