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.
And the tabernacle too and all the vessels of service he sprinkled in like manner with blood;
Moses had just sprinkled the book of the law and the people. Now the blood goes onto the tent itself and every tool used in its service. That raises a plain question. Why would a building and its furniture need cleansing, when the people were the ones who had sinned?
The sprinkling of the people came at the giving of the law, but the tent did not exist yet. One writer treats that gap as decisive:
Moses sprinkled the tabernacle too, and all the vessels of the ministry, in the same way with the blood. This must be a different occasion from the inauguration of the law. One fact alone makes it clear: neither the tabernacle nor the vessels belonging to it existed yet.
Commentators differ here, because the Old Testament nowhere records this exact act:
The connection with Sinai (Hebrews 9:19) tends to show that it was then, and not recorded in the Old Testament. Still, Hebrews 9:21 does not settle whether it happened when the tabernacle was set up. Verse 22 clearly makes the statement general, so we may suppose he was already past Sinai.
The tent was God's meeting place, pitched in the middle of a people who kept sinning. Blood was the safeguard:
This provision was needed to guard the meeting place with God, and the vessels for service, from defilement. Without the sprinkling of the blood, everything would have become defiled. A sinful people were involved, and God was holy.
Blood marked everything inside — veil, table, altar, lampstand. One writer imagines an outsider objecting to the mess, and a priest answering him:
What do you mean by these marks of blood on that glorious veil, on the sides of the Tabernacle, on the table and the altar and the lampstand? Everything is marked with blood. Why do you not remove these stains that spoil their beauty? And the priest could reply, That blood gives true beauty to it all. It is a pledge that we, a sinful people, have a right to enjoy the privileges these precious things bring us. Without the blood, a holy God could not live among us or serve us, and we could not offer Him our worship.
The Old Testament account has a second element alongside the blood. The pair carries meaning for Christians:
In this chapter of Leviticus we also learn that Moses applied both blood and oil to the tabernacle, the altar and the other vessels of the sanctuary. Hebrews 9:21 refers to this, as far as the blood is concerned. It shows that the whole of this earthly system stood before God on that basis. For us it pictured that the cross of Christ, together with the gift of the Spirit, forms the foundation of all our blessing.
The whole arrangement — furniture, priests, even their clothing — was a picture. The reality is one blood doing many things at once:
Under the Old Testament order, blood purged and sanctified everything in the tabernacle, the priests and their clothing. Everything was sprinkled with blood, including the book of the law and the people (Heb. 9:18, 21). This was a picture of the blood of the Lord Jesus, which has done everything for the Christian. With His blood He "purchased" us (Acts 20:28), "justified" us (Rom. 5:9), "redeemed" us (Eph. 1:7) and "sanctified" us (Heb. 13:12), and it "cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
The blood reached every part of that system, right up to the throne of God. What it points to is bigger still:
On the day of atonement the blood had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat to meet the holy claims of God's throne. It was also sprinkled seven times in front of the mercy seat, so that Aaron the priest could stand in God's presence. The whole tabernacle system was sprinkled with blood. It pointed forward to the time when God would secure the whole universe, and all the redeemed in it, by the precious blood of His own Son, shed while He hung on the cross.
- Cause — holiness. God is holy; the people were sinful. Blood kept the meeting place and its vessels from defilement.
- Provision — sprinkling. Blood on the tent and every tool of service was the safeguard that let a holy God stay in the middle of a failing people.
- Timing — uncertain. Commentators differ over when Moses did this. The tent did not exist at Sinai, and the Old Testament never records the act.
- Meaning — beauty, not blemish. The blood marks did not spoil the sanctuary. They were the pledge that a sinful people had a right to worship there.
- Reach — from tent to universe. The blood of Christ purchases, justifies, redeems, sanctifies and cleanses. With the gift of the Spirit, it is the foundation of all our blessing. It will secure the whole universe for God.
and almost all things are purified with blood according to the law, and without blood-shedding there is no remission.
Hebrews 9 has been describing the old covenant, its tabernacle, and the death that opened them. This verse gives the rule behind the whole arrangement. It raises two questions: why "almost" everything, and why the verse speaks of blood shed rather than blood applied.
The verse does not say that everything was purified with blood. The law itself made a few exceptions.
This was so true that the text adds a further fact: with blood almost all things are purified under the law. Yet it is not said of everything, for water was used in some cases and fire in others. Both picture death, and fire pictures death in its most extreme form, as divine judgment. How blessed for us is the gift of grace, where the judgment was felt in a perfection known and possible nowhere else! He expiates as well as purifies, and He does both by His death.
The second half of the verse changes the word. Up to here the chapter has spoken of blood sprinkled, that is, blood applied. Now it speaks of blood shed.
As regards forgiveness: it can never be obtained without the shedding of blood. Notice that the verse does not say "application" here. It speaks of the accomplishment of the work of true propitiation.
Blood shed once and presented to God is the ground on which God can be righteous and still bless anyone.
The point here is not sprinkling with blood, but shedding of blood, and without it there can be no forgiveness. The power of that blood, shed once for all, is presented to God and brings forgiveness to man. It is the ground of divine righteousness, at a time when human righteousness had proved wholly at fault. It is the righteousness of God to all, and on all who believe. It sweeps away every distinction, so that God may bless anyone — and He does bless all who believe.
God does not simply overlook sin. Something must answer for it before He can pardon.
Sin is an offence against God. It is an insult to His supreme power and authority. That is why we need forgiveness. And when we have offended the Creator of heaven and earth, forgiveness is impossible without a true basis for it. That fully satisfactory basis is "the precious blood of Christ." In Him "we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7). But "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22). God forgives because He sees perfect virtue in the blood of Christ.
If blood is the only ground, every other ground fails. Even the deepest sorrow over sin is not enough.
Think of all the tears of sorrow that ever poured out of broken hearts, from the days of Joseph's brothers to the day of Acts 3 and to this present moment. Not one of them could form the just foundation of a sinner's acceptance and peace with God. Not one could wash away a single stain from the human conscience. The blood of the divine Victim, and that alone — nothing except that precious blood, that atoning death, that matchless sacrifice — could justify a holy God in forgiving one sin.
The same test rules out a more religious substitute: the idea that Christ's law-keeping is what counts for the believer.
Many people think that Christ's keeping of the law is put to the believer's account, so that God counts him righteous. But it was the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat that spoke of righteousness being met. True, if the Lord had not kept the law perfectly He could never have been the Saviour. But we must always insist on this: His death alone secured righteousness for the believing sinner.
Forgiveness rests on blood already shed. That is why the believer's standing can never be reopened.
Come testing, come trial, come what may, the ground of my peace is never touched. If it were not already settled and done, it never could be. Why? Because God says that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." So if the work were not fully done, Christ would have to die again and shed His blood again. But it is finished.
- Almost — the word is exact, not vague. Water and fire cleansed in some cases, and both pictured death.
- Shed — the verse points to the sacrifice itself, not to blood applied. The work comes first.
- Basis — God does not overlook offence; He forgives because He sees perfect worth in the blood of Christ.
- Alone — neither tears nor repentance nor even Christ's law-keeping wins acceptance. His death alone met righteousness.
- Finished — since blood cannot be shed a second time, forgiveness resting on it can never be undone.