Hebrews 9.22
May 4th 2014
Meat
Welcome welcome.
We stream live and record these teachings for future use.
Let’s begin with prayer, hear the Word of God set to music and then after a few moments of prayerful reflection pick it back up at verse 15 of chapter 9.
PRAYER
MUSIC
REFLECTION
Alright, we left off last week with some great passages as the writer of Hebrews said:
Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
And that took us into a discussion about the shed blood of Christ.
Verses 15-22 (let’s say) where the writer says:
15 And for this cause he (Christ) is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For 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, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
The topic of blood – specifically the shedding of the blood (first) of animals and then of Christ Himself.
It’s a topic that speaks to testaments, sacrifice of life, and the like.
We’re going to get more into the topic of blood and shed blood but today we have to get through verses 15 and the looming 16 which are not easily comprehended.
Have you ever seen a movie or television show where the behind the scenes events are completely missed by someone?
For instance say a child loves a stuffed animal and cannot go to sleep without it and the parent, when dropping the child off to school inadvertently leaves the stuffed animal on the top of the car and then realizing her mistake spends all day (and night) trying to locate the bear (which makes its way from the top of the car to the street to the hands of a beggar to being used to traffic drugs to being flown to China, to being handed to a . . . until the mother finally tracks it down, rushes home, and hands it to the child who takes it casually and says, “Thanks, Mom, I was wondering about him.”
That is the story behind verse 16. In all probability most of you will read it and say, “Oh cool. Your explanation works . . . but the hidden backstory is insane.
Okay, so back to verse 15:
15 And for this cause (the cause that says in verse 14:
(How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God)?
“And for this cause he (Christ) is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
For this cause, with this view in mind, to clear the conscience of sinful man, He (Christ) is the mediator of the New Testament.
Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant between God and Man.
Speaking of the Law to the people of Galatia, who were inclined to the elements of the Law Paul asks in Galatians 3:19:
Galatians 3:19 “Wherefore (or why do you) then serve the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”
That mediator being Christ. Mediator of the New Covenant.
He is the Mediator between God and man in respect to that new covenant which he has made, or the new dispensation by which men are to be saved.
He stands between God and man—with such parties being at variance–and undertakes the work of mediation and reconciliation for us.
We have spent no small amount of time talking about that first tabernacle, and all the symbolism surrounding it – symbolism that depicts God as extremely hard to approach due to His holiness (and humanities sinfulness) allowing, as it were, only one man of millions, who has been washed in water, cleansed by animal blood, anointed and set apart to represent the whole house of Israel to go in once a year as a means to offer sacrifice.
Well now we have a mediator of the New Covenant the writer points out who is permanently mediating on behalf of those who have trusted in His shed blood.
Now notice something here – the writer does not say that Christ is a mediator of a testament but of “the new testament.”
A testament, a will, does not need a mediator, so to speak. It might require legal expertise to handle objections or challenges to it, but a will or testament (a last will and testament) is the will of one person being carried out – period.
No mediation is required.
But the “new” testament or covenant (or the new arrangement or disposition on how God will pardon and save the guilty does.
Why? Because the New Covenant is based on faith – the presence and or absence thereof. And so Christ, upon whose shed blood we trust, stands as a mediator between God and Man, ratifying who are His . . . by faith . . . and who are not.
“That by means of death,” His own death as a sacrifice for sin,” and we are presented with a tough line in my opinion IF taken on face value and without context:
“that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
Now, on face value we could read this and believe that Christ’s death was only for the redemption of transgressors who were under the first testament (or under the Old Law).
That is what the line says, quite frankly.
But we have to remember a few things here. First, the writer is speaking to a Jewish reader. His purposes are to explain to Him who Christ is relative to their particular history and world view.
Additionally, we know from other passages that Christ shed His blood for the sins of the whole world, and not just those who transgressed under the former law.
Certainly his death was for the transgressors of the Law under the Old Covenant and that is what is being said here with the general idea being that relative to the offenses committed by those under the law there was no expiation could be made by the sacrifices under that dispensation – no shed blood available then could truly redeem anyone.
The writer seems to be pointing out that those who had committed transgressions under that covenant, and who could not be fully pardoned (especially due to conscience) by the imperfect sacrifices then made would through Christ receive a full forgiveness of all their sins because of Him.
This was the fulfillment of the promise of the Great Messiah for whom they had long awaited.
In other words, while the blood of bulls and goats could not do the job they offered that blood “in faith” – looking forward to and relying on the promised mercy of God and the perfect sacrifice to come which would bring full acquittal in mind and body.
Additionally, the implication for the convert Jews of that age was that the blood of Christ now remitted all sins which could not be expiated by the sacrifices offered under the law.
The author adds that:
“they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
I would reiterate that by and through His foreknowledge God calls to those who are ready to hear and not before and not after.
Does He call to all – I would say absolutely – but according to His will, and ways, and foreknowledge.
In light of this I am presently convinced that there are some who are not called by Him here in this life – Our God knows they would never respond – but based on their person and personality He will call to them when they are good and ready to receive – and receive they will.
In any case, in this life, He calls His own – those who are urgently ready to hear and see and follow, that, as the writer puts it, “they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
Then we are presented with a whopper:
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
“For where a testament (or covenant is) there must also of necessity be the death of a testator.”
This is a unique passage.
The American Standard translates it this way
“For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it.”
The Modern King James says:
“For where a covenant [is], the death of him covenanting must be offered.”
The Revised put in in a more modern legal sense (for whatever it’s worth, saying)
“For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.”
Finally, Young’s Literal Translation puts it this way:
“for where a covenant [is], the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary,”
AS strange as Young’s is, for me, it makes most sense when we take the time to examine verse 16 – which is what we are going to do.
I am, amidst all the evidence, the Greek, the Hebrew, and the debate among great theological minds going to begin by admittedly taking the easy way out on this.
I am taking this “out” because frankly the amount of disputation is insane and I am not smart enough to put it all together rationally.
Listen to the passage again:
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
The arguments over the passage all stem over the use (and non use) of the Greek terms Dee-Atha-kay and Sootith-ama-hee.
I’m telling you, I sat from 630 am until 11:45 reading up on this debate and it is cray cray.
I was lost and confused.
And in the end I am going to suggest that, in spite of all the positions are arguments the writer was making this point:
In order for the blessings (inheritance) to be passed to the surviving beneficiaries the one who has made the offering has to die.
Again – ready – where verse 16 says:
16 “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator,”
I would say the point the writer is making is, speaking of Jesus Christ:
“In order for the blessings (inheritance) to be passed to the surviving beneficiaries the one who has made the offering has to die.”
I think it is an illustration the writer is making to prove a point to all he has been talking about relative to high priest making “offerings of blood” for the sins of the people.
Verse 17 clears things up and I think supports my final stance on verse 16, saying:
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Yes, we could read this as an example of legal-ease that the writer uses to make his point, that a will (or testament) is really of now value to the recipients or the beneficiaries until the testator (or the author of the will) has died.
We cannot take this explanation of mine and extrapolate it out to Moses (who gave the Law or Old Covenant) and say that the law was of no benefit until Moses was dead.
But as an illustration regarding Christ I would suggest this works – that just as there can be no beneficiaries to a last will and testament until the one who authors it is dead, so neither is there any salvation until the author and finisher of our faith has died too, or, as the author puts it, his testament or will is of no strength as long as he remained alive.
Then, tapping back into the Old Covenant, to which the Hebrew reader would relate the writer says (at verse 18):
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
First of all, the double negative in the King James – for NEITHER the first testament was dedicated WITHOUT blood – means, for the first testament was dedicated WITH blood.
So, in other words, just as a will or last will and testament is of no value while the author is alive, based on such a concept or illustration, “the first testament was dedicated with blood,” signifying the death of the animal.
And we find a parallel – it wasn’t until there was death (of animals) by the shedding of blood that the people benefited. And the writer now goes into some detail regarding this, saying
(Verse 19)
19 For 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, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
19 For 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, and all the people,
In Exodus 24 we read that Moses took the law and recited it all before the people.
“He took the blood of calves and of goats.”
Now, this line is difficult because the Old Testament record only speaks to part of what the writer describes here.
It says nothing of the blood of calves and of goats; nothing of water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop; nothing of sprinkling the book, the tabernacle, or the vessels of the ministry.
Since the description is not contained in the Old Testament where did the writer get these insights?
From three or four potential places friends.
By oral tradition, from books or recordings not included in canon, by secular report or through direct revelation.
It appears to me that the writer mentions things that would have been readily known by the Jews of his day so therefore he would not – by direct revelation – include something that would be unfamiliar to them.
I think it can therefore be presumed that the information he includes here had been preserved by tradition.
In light of this I think we can see that the writer saw fit to pull from information NOT included in the Old Testament proper as a means to reach and teach the Jewish reader with truth so to stand on dogma that we only quote scripture to prove our points was not followed by at least one New Testament writer.
I mean while it is confirmed that many traditions and teachings of the ancients were false they doubtlessly had an abundance NOT INCLUDED in sacred text that were true and could be used to reach others.
Additionally, we know that the writer was inspired to write what he writes here so we can even say the Holy Spirit had him pull from non biblical material to make his points.
Finally, we know from the rest of the Old Testament narrative that while these things are not specifically mentioned, they are totally congruent with other practices found therein.
If Moses sprinkled “the people;” if he read “the book of the law” and it was regarded as a solemn act of ratifying a covenant with God, nothing would be more natural than that he should sprinkle the “book of the covenant,” and “the tabernacle” and its various sacred utensils.
It was common among the Hebrews to sprinkle blood for the purpose of consecrating, or as an emblem of purifying. Evidence for this is in the fact that
Aaron and his sons and their garments were sprinkled with blood when they were consecrated to the office of priests (Exodus 29:19-21);
That the blood of sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar, (Leviticus 1:5; 3:2,13);
and blood was sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary (Leviticus 4:16,17)
From secular history we know that Josephus writes of the garments of Aaron and of his sons being sprinkled with “the blood of the slain beasts, and with spring water.”
He also adds:
“Having consecrated them and their garments for seven days together,” he says, “he (Moses) did the same to the tabernacle, and the vessels thereto belonging, both with oil and with the blood of bulls and of rams.”
(From Josephus Antiquities B. iii. chap. viii. & 6.) (verse 20)
20 Saying, “This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.”
So Exodus 24:8 says that when Moses sprinkled blood on whatever he sprinkled blood he said:
“This is the blood of the testament which God has enjoined unto you.”
“This is the blood by which the covenant is ratified.” This is the means used to confirm the covenant – it represents the life and death of a living being.
And when this blood was shed and spread it was the sacred and solemn form which said it was sure.
Once accomplished the covenant between God and the people was confirmed. The writer says that Moses said, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has “enjoined” unto you.”
Exodus 24:8 actually says, “which God has made with you.” (verse 21 – a continuation of a non-biblical bit of information) as it says:
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
And then verse 22
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
And almost all things.
This passage is at best quizzical, perplexing.
Where it says, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood,” we are forced to reflect.
We know that according to Numbers 31 and Leviticus that water, and fire often served to purify but the writer says, “almost all things are by the law purged with blood.”
Young’s Literal Translation of Hebrews 9:22 puts it better, saying:
“and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come.”
Now we’re starting to get some clarity. The law required the shedding of blood as a means to purify almost all things (with the exceptions of those things mentioned in Numbers and Leviticus which could be purified by fire and water and in some cases, just water alone).
The verse adds:
And without shedding of blood is no remission (or forgiveness of sin).
So where some things could be purified by fire and/or water, shed blood was requisite for the forgiveness of sins.
Why?
I mean even pagan cultures have appeased their God’s by the shedding of blood, even to the point of going so far to drink and bath in blood to empower themselves.
Why?
Many critics of Christianity, modern humanists believe the relationship to shed blood and forgiveness to be barbaric and archaic.
What is it about blood and the shedding of it for the ONLY remission of sin?
We get an idea when we look at Leviticus 17:11 which says:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
“The life of the flesh is in the blood,” and from this blood must be shed to remit or receive a forgiveness of sin?
Let’s wrap our time up discussing this concept.
In Genesis God said, referring to the diet of his people:
“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”
We know that certain religious groups have refused blood transfusions over this passage but the point God seems to be making is “don’t eat (consume) the blood of animals.” And in teaching this He let’s us know, again, that in the blood is the life.
So, we have God, the creater, the giver of life, not only saying don’t eat blood but He establishes the fact that sins cannot be forgiven unless blood is shed – spilt – lost . . . taken from or out of the living creature to the point where that creature loses its life.
The giver of life has established the shedding of blood (wherein the life exists) to establish the forgiveness of sin.
So, we might ask, why does sin require the stuff that life subsists – blood.
What is sin?
The thought came to me years ago that all sin is somehow the robbery of life from another human being. To God, sin is an indication of a lack of faith and love upon Him and His will and ways because He has told us (in stone or on our hearts) what not to do to others.
But when it comes to other people, sin is in some way or another, and to some degree or another, the robbery of life.
God is the giver of life. When we steal life from others (by and through our sin) justice requires a loss of life on our behalf to pay or atone for the life we took from them.
So we share some gossip. How much life is lost over the act? How much time does the piece of gossip rob from the one harmed.
People say things about me online that are untrue. If I choose to try and manage them and hunt them down and correct them, how much of my life is lost doing so?
You work hard for six weeks and save enough to purchase a new cell phone. And someone steals it. They are stealing, robbing you of your life, of the time it took not only to purchase the phone but to replace it with another – all to the benefit of their own lives.
We commit adultery. How much life and time have we taken – stolen – from the spouse and family (and even from the other person and ourselves) through the act?
For sin (which is the theft of life) there must be the loss of life (which is in the blood).
This is why the nation of Israel, under the law had a hierarchy of sacrifices for the sins committed.
Take a life, lose a life, take an eye, lose and eye. Etc Etc.
So in the economy of God, who is just, and merciful, and perfect, it only makes sense that when a person sins (steals life from another) that the shedding of blood is the ONLY means by which that person could ever be forgiven.
There are all sorts of applications to this concept, which we don’t have time to cover (like forgiveness and how it plays into this) but by this understanding we can see why and how the shedding of blood, in the name of justice, is only fair.
As we continue into next week we’ll speak of how the shedding of mortal or temporal animals can only cover or atone for the temporal cleansing of sin (ceremonial cleansing of sin) and how it would take the shedding of the perfect blood of an eternal being offered from the heart of pure motives out of love for God to grant forgiveness to believers eternally.
Question
Prayer
