18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 1 or, purified. is the meaning of this very word VEKOÓS-nekros-in ch. vi. 1; ix. 14 of this very epistle when it is applied to.works- dead works'-if it never refer to anything but men? Comp. James ii. 17. 20. 26; Eph. ii. 1.5; Rev. iii. 1. In Eccl. ix. 4, it is applied to a dead lion. I suppose, therefore, that the Greek phrase here will admit of the interpretation which the exigency of the place' seems to demand, and that the idea is, that a covenant with God was ratified over the animals slain in sacrifice, and was not considered as confirmed until the sacrifice was killed. ¶ Otherwise. Since —Èπεì. That is, unless this takes place it will be of no force. It is of no strength. It is not strong-loxú-it is not confirmed or ratified. While the testator liveth. Or while the animal selected to confirm the covenant is alive. It can be confirmed only by its being slain. A full examination of the meaning of this passage (Heb. ix. 16, 17) may be found in an article in the Biblical Repository, vol. xx. pp. 51-71, and in Prof. Stuart's reply to that article. Bib. Repos. xx. pp. 356 -381. 18. Whereupon. "Oev - Whence. Or since this is a settled principle, or an indisputable fact, it c.ccurred in accordance with this, that the first covenant was confirmed by the shedding of blood. The admitted principle which the apostle had stated, that the death of the victim was necessary to confirm the covenant, was the reason why the first covenant was ratified with blood. If there were any doubt about the correctness of the interpretation given above, that vs. 16, 17, refer to a covenant, and not a will, this verse would seem to be enough to remove it. For how could the fact that a will is not binding until he who makes it is dead, be a reason why a covenant should be confirmed by blood? What bearing would such a fact have on the question whether it ought or ought not to be confirmed in this manner? Or how could that fact, though it is universal, be given as a reason to account for the fact that the covenant made by the instru mentality of Moses was ratified with blood? No possible connexion can be seen in such reasoning. But admit that Paul had stated in vs. 16, 17, a general principle that in all covenant transactions with God, the death of a victim was necessary, and everything is plain. We then see why he offered the sacrifice and sprinkled the blood. It was not on the basis of such reasoning as this: 'the death of a man who makes a will is indispensa ble before the will is of binding force, THEREFORE it was that Moses confirm. ed the covenant made with our fathers by the blood of a sacrifice;' but by such reasoning as this: 'It is a great principle that in order to ratify a covenant between God and his people a victim should be slain, therefore it was that Moses ratified the old covenant in this manner, and therefore it was also that the death of a victim was necessary under the new dispensation.' Here the reasoning of Paul is clear and explicit; but who could see the force of the former? Prof. Stuart indeed connects this verse with ver. 15, and says that the course of thought is, 'The new covenant of redemption from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore (v) the old covenant, which is a type of the new, was sanctioned by the blood of victims.' is this the reasoning of Paul? Does he say that because the blood of a Mediator was to be shed under the new dispensation, and because the old was a type of this, that THEREFORE the old was confirmed by blood? Is he not rather accounting for the shedding of blood at all, and showing that it was necessary that the blood of the Mediator should be shed, rather than assuming that, and from that arguing that a typical shedding of blood was needful? Besides, on this supposition But 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the a Ex. 24. 6, &c.; Le. c. 14 & 16. why is the statement in vs. 16, 17, introduced? What bearing have these verses in the train of thought? What are they but an inexplicable obstruction? The first testament. Or ra ther covenant- - the word testament being supplied by the translators. Was dedicated. Marg. Purified. The word used to ratify, to confirm, to consecrate, to sanction. Literally, to renew. Without blood. It was ratified by the blood of the animals that were slain in sacrifice. The blood was then sprinkled on the principal objects that were regarded as holy under that dispensation. people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of been consistent with the object of the apostle. In that argument it was essential that he should state only the facts about the ancient dispensation which were admitted by the Hebrews themselves. Any statement of his own about things which they did not concede to be true, or which was not well understood as a custom, might have been called in question, and would have done much to invalidate the entire force of the argument. It is to be presumed, therefore, that the facts here referred to had been preserved by tradition; and in regard to this, and the authority due to such a tradition, we may remark, (1) that it is well known that the Jews had a great number of traditions which they carefully preserved; (2) that there is no improbability in the supposition that many events in their history would be preserved in this manner, since in the small compass of a vo 19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people. When he had recited all the law, and had given all the commandments entrusted him to deliver. Ex. xxiv. 3. T He took the blood of calves and of goats. This passage has given great perplexity to commentators from the fact that Moses in his account of the trans-lume like the Old Testament it canactions connected with the ratification of the covenant with the people, (Ex. xxiv.), mentions only a part of the circumstances here referred to. He 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. It has been made a question, therefore, whence Paul obtained a knowledge of these circumstances? Since the account is not contained in the Old Testament, it must have been either by tradition, or by direct inspiration. The latter supposition is hardly probable, for (1) the information here can hardly be regarded as of sufficient importance to have required an original revelation; for the illustration would have had sufficient force to sustain his conclusion if the literal account in Exodus only had been given, that Moses sprinkled the people; but (2) such an original act af inspiration here would not have not be presumed that all the events of their nation had been recorded; (3) though they had many traditions of a trifling nature, and many which were false (comp. Notes on Matt. xv. 2), yet they doubtless had many that were true; (4) in referring to those traditions, there is no impropriety in supposing that Paul may have been guided by the Spirit of inspiration in selecting only those which were true; and (5) nothing is more probable than what is here stated. If Moses sprinkled 'the people ;' if he read 'the book of the law' then (Ex. xxiv. 7), and if this was regarded as a solemn act of ratifying a covenant with God, no. thing would be more natural than that he should sprinkle the book of the covenant, and even the taberna cle and its various sacred utensils We are to remember also, that it was common among the Hebrews to sprinkle blood for the purpose of conse crating, or as an emblem of purifying Thus Aaron and his sons and the 1 goats, with water, and scarlet | both the book, and all the peowool, and hyssop, and sprinkled ple, 1 or, purple. 66 the wool used by Moses was of this colour is not known, unless it be be cause it was the most expensive of colours, and thus accorded with everything employed in the construction of the tabernacle and its utensils. Wool appears to have been used in order to absorb and retain the blood. And hyssop. That is, a bunch of hyssop intermingled with the wool, or so connected with it as to constitute a convenient instrument for sprinkling. Comp. Lev. xiv. 51. Hyssop is a low shrub, regarded as one of the smallest of the plants, and hence put in contrast with the cedar of Lebanon. It sprung out of the rocks or walls, I. Kings iv. 33, and was used for purposes of purification. The term seems to have comprised not only the common hyssop, but also lavender and other aromatic plants. Its fragrance, as well as its size, may have suggest ed the idea of using it in the sacred services of the tabernacle. The appearance of the hyssop is represented by the cut on the following page. garments were sprinkled with blood when they were consecrated to the office of priests, Ex. xxix. 19-21; the blood of sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar, Lev. i. 5. 11; iii. 2. 13; and blood was sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary, Lev. iv. 16, 17; comp. Lev. vi. 27; vii. 14. So Josephus speaks of the garments of Aaron and of his sons being sprinkled with "the blood of the slain beasts, and with spring water." Having consecrated them and their garments," he says, "for seven days together, he did the same to the tabernacle, and the vessels thereto belonging, both with oil and with the blood of bulls and of rams." Ant. B. iii. ch. viii. § 6. These circumstances show the strong probability of the truth of what is here affirmed by Paul, while it is impossible to prove that Moses did not sprinkle the book and the tabernacle in the manner stated. The mere omission by Moses cannot demonstrate that it was not done. On the phrase the blood of calves and of goats,' see Note on ver. 12. ¶T With And sprinkled both the book. This water. Agreeably to the declaration circumstance is not mentioned by of Josephus that spring water was Moses, but it has been shown above used.' In Lev. xiv. 49-51, it is ex-not to be improbable. Some exposipressly mentioned that the blood of tors, however, in order to avoid the the bird that was killed to cleanse a difficulty in the passage, have taken house from the plague of leprosy this in connexion with the word λaßuv I should be shed over running water, -rendered 'he took'-meaning, 'takand that the blood and the water should ing the blood, and the book itself;' be sprinkled on the walls. It has but the more natural and proper conbeen suggested also (see Bloomfield), struction is, that the book was sprin that the use of water was necessary kled with the blood. And all the in order to prevent the blood from people. Moses says, 'and sprinkled coagulating, or so as to make it pos-it on the people.' Ex. xxiv. 8. We sible to sprinkle it. And scarlet wool Marg. Purple. The word here used denotes crimson, or deep-scarlet. The colour was obtained from a small insect which was found adhering to the shoots of a species of oak in Spain and in Western Asia, of about the size of a pea. It was regarded as the most valuable of the colours for dye-standing on an elevated place, and ing, and was very expensive. Why surrounded by a large assembly, if 6 are not to suppose that either Moses or Paul designs to say that the blood was actually sprinkled on each one of the three millions of people in the wilderness, but the meaning doubtless is that the blood was sprinkled over the people, though in fact it might have fallen on a few. So a man now 20 Saying, This is the blood" of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. a Mat. 26. 28. he should sprinkle water over them | When this was done, the covenan! from the place where he stood, might be said to sprinkle it on the people, though in fact but few might have been touched by it. The act would be equally significant whether the emblem fell on few or many. 6 between God and the people was con. firmed-as a covenant between man and man is when it is sealed. T Which God hath enjoined unto you. In Ex. xxiv. 8, "which God hath made with you." The language used 20. Saying, This is the blood of the by Paul, which God hath enjoined' testament. Of the covenant. See VETEλaro-commanded-shows that Notes on vs. 16, 17. That is, this is he did not regard this as strictly of the blood by which the covenant is the nature of a covenant, or compact. ratified. It was the means used to When a compact is made between confirm it; the sacred and solemn parties, one does not enjoin or comform by which it was made sure.mand the other, but it is a mutual 21 Moreover he sprinkled 22 And almost all things are likewise with blood both the by the law purged with blood ; tabernacle, and all the vessels and without shedding of blood of the ministry. is no remission. a Ex. 29. 12, 36. b Le. 17. 11. b mission or forgiveness of sins. That is, though some things were purified by fire and water, yet when the matter pertained to the forgiveness of sins were pardoned except by the sins, it was universally true that no shedding of blood. Some impurities might be removed by water and fire, but the stain of sin could be removed only by blood. This declaration referred in its primary meaning, to the Jewish rites, and the sense is, that under that dispensation it was uni agreement. In the transactions between God and man, though called -Berith, or diaýên, diatheke, the idea of a covenant or compact is so far excluded that God never loses his right to command or enjoin. It is not a transaction between equals, or an agreement; it is a solemn arrangement on the part of God which he proposes to men, and which he enjoins them to embrace; which they are not indeed at liberty to disregard, but which when embraced is appropriately rati-versally true that in order to the forfied by some solemn act on their part. Comp. Notes on ch. viii. 6. 21. He sprinkled—both the tabernacle. This circumstance is not stated by Moses. On the probability that this was done, see Notes on ver. 19. The account of setting up the tabernacle occurs in Ex. xl. In that account 'it is said that Moses anointed the tabernacle with the holy anointing oil. Vs. 9-11. Josephus (Ant. B. III. ch. viii. § 6), says that he consecrated it and the vessels thereto belonging with the blood of bulls and of rams. This was undoubtedly the tradition in the time of Paul, and no one can prove that it is not correct. And all the vessels of the ministry. Employed in the service of God. The altar, the laver, (Ex. xl. 10, 11), the censers, dishes, bowls, &c., which were used in the tabernacle. 22. And almost all things. It is a general custom to purify everything by blood. This rule was not universal, for some things were purified by fire and water, (Num. xxxi. 22, 23), and some by water only. Num. xxxi. 24; Lev. xvi. 26. 28. But the exceptions to the general rule were few. Almost everything in the tabernacle and temple service, was consecrated or purified by blood. ¶ And without shedding of blood is no remission. Re giveness of sin blood must be shed. |