Hebrews 9:15. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν] and just for this cause is He the Mediator of a New Covenant. By means of καί, Hebrews 9:15 attaches itself closely to the preceding context, and διὰ τοῦτο points back to the main thought contained in Hebrews 9:9-14; just for this reason, that the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes that which the Levitical sacrifices are unable to accomplish; namely, that, presented by virtue of eternal spirit, brings in an eternal redemption, these, on the other hand, as ordinances of the flesh, are able to effect only purity of the flesh. Not specially to τὸ αἱμα, Hebrews 9:14 (Sykes, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Maier), does διὰ τοῦτο glance back. For in this case διʼ αὐτό, or rather διὰ τοῦ αἵματος, would more naturally have been written. Nor is διὰ τοῦτο to be taken together with ὅπως, as a mere preparation thereto (so Schlichting, Schulz, Böhme, Bleek, Stengel, Ebrard, and many). For thereby Hebrews 9:15 would be torn from its connection with that which precedes.

Upon καινῆς there does not rest an emphasis, as is supposed by Bleek and Delitzsch. For otherwise the adjectives must have been prefixed to the substantive. On the contrary, what is to be specially emphasized is διαθήκης. For just the inner nexus of the N. T. διαθήκης, with the redemptive death of Christ as its mediating cause, is to be brought out; whereas the adjective καινῆς could be presupposed as familiar from the disquisition Hebrews 8:8 ff., in that there the perfect covenant promised by God was sufficiently characterized as a new one.

ὅπως] in order that. False the interpretation of Heinrichs: “unde sequitur.” The final clause ὅπως κ.τ.λ. is not designed to develop more nearly the διὰ τοῦτο; it depends upon διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, and indicates the goal to which, in accordance with the decree of God, the διαθήκη καινή should lead, and at the same time the way and means by which the attainment of this goal should be accomplished.

θανάτου γενομένου] a death having ensued. The death of Christ is that which is meant. The author, however, expresses himself generically, because he has already in mind that which is to be observed, Hebrews 9:16-17.

Εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων] for redemption from the transgressions (or sins) committed under the first covenant (or at the time of the first covenant). Note of design to θανάτου γενομένου, not to λάβωσιν.

τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν] the promise, i.e. the promised blessing itself. With τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν we have to combine τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας, as a declaration wherein the promised blessing consists (genitive of apposition). By the separation of the two closely connected words, τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν is brought out more emphatically, and the discourse gains in point of rhythm. Less suitably, although free from objection on linguistic grounds, did the Peshito, Faber Stapulensis, Braun, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Stein, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 594), Moll, Ewald, and others take τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας with οἱ κεκλημένοι: those who are called to the eternal inheritance.

οἱ κεκλημένοι] Comp. κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι, Hebrews 3:1. The expression is here used absolutely, and is not to be referred exclusively to the Christians. For, according to Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 11:39-40, the power of the redemptive death of Christ extends retroactively likewise to the generations of the past. And just for this reason the participle perfect is written, and not the participle aorist. For not to the historic act of the temporal vocation, but to the being called, as a fact in the decree of God already completed and extending into the present, is attention to be drawn.

Hebrews 9:15-28. In order, however, that Christ might become the mediator of the New Covenant, it was matter of necessity that He should suffer death. This follows from the very notion of a διαθήκη, since the same is only ratified after the death of the διαθέμενος has been proved; as accordingly the first or O. T. διαθήκη was not inaugurated without blood. For the inauguration of the earthly sanctuary the blood of slain animals sufficed; for the consecration of the heavenly sanctuary, on the other hand, there was need of a more excellent sacrifice. This Christ has presented once for all in the end of the world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death.

Hebrews 9:15. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, “And on this account,” that is to say, because, as stated in Hebrews 9:14, Christ’s blood cleanses the conscience from dead works and thus fits men to draw near to God, διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, “He is mediator of a new covenant”. The old covenant with sacrifices which could only cleanse the flesh allowed sins to accumulate. But Christ, as above stated, obtained cleansing from sins, and so laid the essential foundation of a new covenant, Hebrews 8:12. ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου … “that a death having taken place for deliverance from the transgressions [committed] under the first covenant, those who have been called might receive the promised eternal inheritance”. Even under the old covenant this inheritance had been promised. A gospel had been preached to them, and they had been invited, Hebrews 4:2. God being during that period the covenant God of the people, this involved eternal good. But until their transgressions were atoned for they could not receive the inheritance. The sacrifices under the old covenant could not atone for sin, therefore a new covenant with a death which could atone was necessary; in order that such a death having taken place and their sins being removed they might receive fulfilment of the promise. The retrospective reference of the death of Christ is here affirmed; as in Hebrews 11:40 it is stated that without us, i.e., without the Christian dispensation, the O.T. believers could not be perfected, The words οἱ κεκλημένοι, therefore, include not only the Hebrews addressed but all who had lived under the O.T. dispensation. ἀπολύτρωοιν … παραβάσεων, the genitive is of the object from which redemption is achieved, and ἐπὶ is scarcely “against” as in Vaughan, but rather “in the time of,” as in Hebrews 9:26, Php 1:3.

15–28. The indispensableness and efficacy of the death of Christ

15. for this cause] i.e. on account of the grandeur of His offering.

the mediator of the new testament] Rather, “a mediator of a New Covenant.” Moses had been called by Philo “the Mediator” of the Old Covenant, i.e. he who came between God and Israel as the messenger of it. But Christ’s intervention—His coming as One who revealed God to man—was accompanied with a sacrifice so infinitely more efficacious that it involved a New Covenant altogether.

by means of death] This version renders the passage entirely unintelligible. The true rendering and explanation seem to be as follows: “And on this account He is a Mediator of a New Covenant, that—since death” [namely the death of sacrificial victims] “occurred for the redemption of the transgressions which took place under the first covenant—those who have been called [whether Christians, or faithful believers under the Old Dispensation] may [by virtue of Christ’s death, which the death of those victims typified] receive [i.e. actually enjoy the fruition of, Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 6:17, Hebrews 10:36, Hebrews 11:13] the promise of the Eternal Inheritance.” Volumes of various explanations have been written on this verse, but the explanation given above is very simple. The verse is a sort of reason why Christ’s death was necessary. The ultimate, a priori, reason he does not attempt to explain, because it transcends all understanding; but he merely says that since under the Old Covenant death was necessary, and victims had to be slain in order that by their blood men might be purified, and the High Priest might enter the Holiest Place, so, under the New Covenant, a better and more efficacious death was necessary, both to give to those old sacrifices the only real validity which they possessed, and to secure for all of God’s elect an eternal heritage.

Hebrews 9:15. Διαθήκης καινῆς, of the new testament) Here the testament is rather urged, than the newness of the testament: comp. Hebrews 9:16.—θανάτου γενομένου, by means of death that took place) that is, at the time when the death had taken place. The moment of this (His) death properly divides the Old Testament from the New.—εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήχῃ παραβάσεων, for the redemption of the transgressions, that were under the first testament) There is a passage of Paul very like this in Romans 3:24-25. The preposition ἐπὶ, under, not merely denotes the time, but intimates that the first testament had no power of redemption, and that the people of old were more on account of it transgressors. Ἀπολύτρωσις, the compound, occurs here: λύτρωσις, the simple word, occurs, Hebrews 9:12.—ἐπαγγελίαν, the promise) given to Abraham.—λάβωσιν, might receive) for formerly they could not.—οἱ κεκλημένοι) those called, named heirs (ch. Hebrews 3:1).—κληρονομίας, of the inheritance) An apposite appellation; for there is an allegory: testament, death, inheritance.

Verses 15-17. - And for this cause he is the Mediator of a new testament, that by means of death (literally, death having taken place), for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Here the view of the gospel as a new διαθήκη (introduced first in Hebrews 7:22, and enlarged on in Hebrews 8:6-13) is again brought in. For the word is still διαθήκη, though here, for reasons that will appear, rendered "testament" in the A.V. The connecting thought here is - It is because of Christ's sacrifice having been such as has been described, that he is the Mediator of that new and better covenant; it qualified him for being so. A sacrifice, a death, was required for giving it validity (vers. 16-23), and the character of his sacrifice implies a better covenant than the old, even such a one as Jeremiah foretold. Further, the purpose of his death is said to be "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant." For in the passage of Jeremiah the defect of the first covenant was based on the transgression of its conditions by man, while under the new one, such transgressions were to be no more remembered. But this could not be without atonement for them; the whole ceremonial of the Law signified this; and also that such atonement could not be except by death. The death of Christ satisfied this requirement; and so the new covenant could come in. So far the course of thought is clear. Nor is there difficulty in understanding the purport of ver. 18, etc., taken by itself, where the "blood-shedding" that inaugurated the first covenant is regarded as typical of that of Christ in the inauguration of the new one. But there is a difficulty about the intervening verses (16, 17), arising from the apparent use of the word διαθήκη in a new sense, not otherwise suggested - that of testament rather than covenant. The verses are, as given in the A.V., For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be (φέρεσθαι. a word of which the exact meaning is not clear; some interpret "be brought in, or proved," some "be understood, implied ") the death of the testator (τοῦ διαθεμένου, equivalent to "him that made it"). For a testament is of force after men are dead (ἐπὶ νεκροῖς): otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (or, for doth it ever avail while he theft made it liveth? ἐπεὶ μήποτε: cf. Hebrews 10:2; Romans 3:6; 1 Corinthians 14:16; John 7:26; Luke 3:15). Now, the word διαθήκη itself undoubtedly may bear the sense of "testament." Its general meaning is " disposition," or "settlement;" and it may denote either compact between living persons, or a will to take effect after the testator's death. In the verses before us it appears to be used specifically in the latter sense. For they express general propositions, which are not true of all covenants, but are true (according to their most obvious sense) of all testaments. Further, this sense is distinctly applicable to the new διαθήκη, regarded as the dying Christ's bequest to his Church. Hence, but for the context, we should naturally so understand it in these verses. The difficulties attending this sense are:

(1) The word is not used in this specific sense before or afterwards in this Epistle or in Jeremiah 31, which is the basis of the whole argument, or elsewhere, apparently, either in the Old Testament or the New.

(2) The sense does not suit the case of the old διαθήκη, which was a covenant between the living God and his people; and there is no intimation of two senses being intended in the two cases: indeed, in the passage before us, the same sense seems to be distinctly implied, since the blood-shedding which inaugurated the old is at once (in ver. 17) spoken of as answering to the death which inaugurated the new, as though death inaugurated both in the same sense.

(3) The word, in the sense of covenant (equivalent to the Hebrew berith), is common in the LXX., expressing an idea familiar to Jews and Jewish Christians, while testamentary dispositions were, as far as we know, unfamiliar to the Hebrews; and, though the Roman testamentary law may have come into use when the Epistle was written, it is thought unlikely that the writer, addressing Hebrews, would have referred to it in illustration of a Divine dispensation, or, if he had, have used a word so well known to them in its traditional sense.

(4) Christ is called (here as well as in Hebrews 12:24 and Hebrews 13:20) the Mediator (μεσίτης) of the new διαθήκη: but a testament does not require a Mediator, nor, if it has one, can the same person be both mediator and testator. If, however, the sense of testament should seem inevitable here, we may explain as follows. Though the word has been used so far in a general sense, yet the writer, on the suggestion of θανάτου γενομένου in ver. 15, passes in thought at ver. 16 to the specific sense of testament, as suiting the case of Christ, the language he uses being sufficient for carrying his readers with him in the transition. Further, though the old διαθήκη was not in itself a testament, yet it was typical of that which was; its whole ceremonial foreshadowed the future Testator's death, and so, in a typical sense, it might also itself be called one. Consequently, in ver. 18, the inaugurating sacrifices of the old dispensation are regarded as representing the death of the testator; for they prefigured Christ, through whose death the "eternal inheritance" is bequeathed to man. (In accordance with this view, the Vulgate renders διαθήκη testamentum throughout the Epistle, even when the old dispensation is referred to.) As to ὁ διαθέμενος (translated "the testator"), it is, according to this view, ultimately God the Father in the new διαθήκη, as well as in the old, though, of course, the Godhead could not die. But the Father having placed the whole inheritance destined for mankind in the hands of Christ as Mediator, in his human death the testator died. And thus one of the difficulties above mentioned may be met, viz. that of Christ being regarded both as Testator and Mediator. Christ was, in fact, both - Testator, in that, being one with God, he bequeathed through his death the kingdom appointed unto hint by the Father; Mediator, in that it was through his incarnation only that the "eternal inheritance" willed to us by the Father could be transmitted in the way of testament. So in effect Chrysostom explains. Apposite to this view of the subject are his own words (Luke 22:29), "And I appoint (διατίθεμαι) unto you a kingdom, as my Father appointed (διέθετο) unto me." Here we have the same verb (διατίθεμαι) as is used in the Epistle. And though, in the passage from St. Luke, the idea of a testamentary appointment is not necessarily implied, yet it is naturally suggested where Christ is speaking on the eve of, and with reference to, his death. There is, however, another view taken (decidedly by Whitby, Ebrard, and in the recent 'Speaker's Commentary'), according to which the idea of a testament does not come in at all, the word διαθήκη retaining here, as elsewhere, its usual sense of covenant. The position is that, though the propositions of vers. 16, 17 are not true of all covenants, yet there is a sense in which they are true of any covenant between God and man; which is the only kind of covenant that the writer has in view, or that his readers would be led to think of by the previous reference to Jeremiah 31, or by the associations of the word διαθήκη as used in the Old Testament. The sense in which the propositions are true of such a covenant is thus expressed by Ebrard: "Whenever sinful man will enter into a covenant with the holy God, the man must first die - must first atone for his guilt by death (or must put in a substitute for himself)." This principle is expressed (it is alleged), not only by the sacrifices that inaugurated this covenant of the Law, but also wherever a covenant between God and man is spoken of in the Old Testament; e.g. in the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:8, etc., and Genesis 22.). In the case of covenants between man and man (as between Abraham and Abimelech, and between Jacob and Laban) there was no need of slain victims, whoso life had to be given for that of one of the contracting parties; but there is always expressed such need in the case of a covenant between God and man. Further, the expression, διαθήκη ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, is, according to this view, illustrated by Psalm 50:5, where the LXX. has τοὺς διατιθεμένους τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ θυσίαις (in the Vulgate, qui ordinant testamentum ejus super sacrificiis). The same preposition ἐπὶ is used in both passages, and ἐπὶ θοσίαις is supposed to express the same idea as ἐπὶ νεκροῖς. This passage from the psalm is certainly much to the point in support of the view before us, serving moreover to meet in some degree one principal objection to it, viz. that it requires ὁ διαθέμενος to be understood of the human party to the covenant, and not of its Divine Author. Such is not the most obvious application of the word, nor the one sanctioned by the quotation from Jeremiah, or by other references to the Divine covenant (see supra, Hebrews 8:10, and also Genesis 15:18; Deuteronomy 5:2, 3; Luke 12:29; Acts 3:25; as well as Exodus 24:8, quoted below (ver. 20), where διέθετο, not ἐνετείλατο, is the word in the LXX. But such is the application in Psalm 50:5, and may be considered, therefore, not untenable. The writer may, indeed, have had the expression in the psalm in his mind when he wrote the verses before us. It appears from what has been said that difficulties attend both the views that have been above explained. It is not here attempted to decide between them. Hebrews 9:15The efficacy of Christ's sacrifice is bound up with a covenant. His priesthood involves a new and a better covenant. See Hebrews 8:6-13. That covenant involves his death.

For this cause (διὰ τοῦτο)

Indicating the close relation between the cleansing power of Christ's blood and the new covenant.

Mediator of the new testament (διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης)

For the new testament rend. a new covenant. See on next verse. For μεσίτης mediator, see on Galatians 3:19, Galatians 3:20.

By means of death (θανάτου γενομένου)

Rend. a death having taken place.

For the redemption of the transgressions (εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν παραβάσεων)

The phrase redemption of transgressions (that is, from transgressions) only here. Ἀπολύτρωσις in N.T. mostly absolutely: the redemption, or your redemption, or simply redemption. Twice with genitive of that which is redeemed, Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:14. Only once in lxx, Daniel 4:32. For παράβασις transgression, see on Romans 2:23.

Under the first testament (ἐπὶ)

On the basis of: estimated according to the standard of the provisions of the first covenant, and to be atoned for in the way which it prescribed. By this expression he emphasizes the insufficiency of every other atoning provision, selecting the system which represented the most elaborate and complete atonement for sin prior to Christ. The intimation is in the same direction with that of the phrase through an eternal spirit - that the ideal redemption must be eternal.

They which are called (οἱ κεκλημένοι)

Without regard to nationality. The scope of the new covenant was wider than that of the old. Comp. Acts 2:39. In Hebrews 3:1, the readers are addressed as "partakers of a heavenly calling," which corresponds with "eternal inheritance" here. Those who obtain this inheritance are designated as "called." See Ephesians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; 1 Peter 3:9.

Of eternal inheritance (τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας)

continued...

Hebrews 9:15 Interlinear
Hebrews 9:15 Parallel Texts


Hebrews 9:15 NIV
Hebrews 9:15 NLT
Hebrews 9:15 ESV
Hebrews 9:15 NASB
Hebrews 9:15 KJV

Hebrews 9:15 Bible Apps
Hebrews 9:15 Parallel
Hebrews 9:15 Biblia Paralela
Hebrews 9:15 Chinese Bible
Hebrews 9:15 French Bible
Hebrews 9:15 German Bible

Bible Hub