Show Bible Commentary For A Bible Verse

Click here to show/hide instructions.

Selected Verse: Hebrews 9:18 - King James

Verse	Translation	Text
Heb 9:18	King James	Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Summary Of Commentaries Associated With The Selected Verse

Open All | Close All Open All | Close All

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]
Whereupon--rather, "Whence." dedicated--"inaugurated." The Old Testament strictly and formally began on that day of inauguration. "Where the disposition, or arrangement, is ratified by the blood of another, namely, of animals, which cannot make a covenant, much less make a testament, it is not strictly a testament, where it is ratified by the death of him that makes the arrangement, it is strictly, Greek 'diathece,' Hebrew 'berith,' taken in a wider sense, a testament" [BENGEL]; thus, in Heb 9:18, referring to the old dispensation, we may translate, "the first (covenant)": or better, retain "the first (testament)," not that the old dispensation, regarded by itself, is a testament, but it is so when regarded as the typical representative of the new, which is strictly a Testament.

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]

Whereupon--rather, "Whence."

dedicated--"inaugurated." The Old Testament strictly and formally began on that day of inauguration. "Where the disposition, or arrangement, is ratified by the blood of another, namely, of animals, which cannot make a covenant, much less make a testament, it is not strictly a testament, where it is ratified by the death of him that makes the arrangement, it is strictly, Greek 'diathece,' Hebrew 'berith,' taken in a wider sense, a testament" [BENGEL]; thus, in Heb 9:18, referring to the old dispensation, we may translate, "the first (covenant)": or better, retain "the first (testament)," not that the old dispensation, regarded by itself, is a testament, but it is so when regarded as the typical representative of the new, which is strictly a Testament.

Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834]
Whereupon - Ὅθεν Hothen - "Whence." Or since this is a settled principle, or an indisputable fact, it occurred 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 Heb 9:16-17, 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 instrumentality of Moses was ratified with blood? No possible connection can be seen in such reasoning. But admit that Paul had stated in Heb 9:16-17, 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 indispensable before the will is of binding force, therefore it was that Moses confirmed 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 Heb 9:15, and says that the course of thought is, "The new covenant or redemption from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore (ὅθεν hothen) the old covenant, which is a type of the new, was sanctioned by the blood of victims." But 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, why is the statement in Heb 9:16-17, introduced? What bearing have these verses in the train of thought? What are they but an inexplicable obstruction? The first testament - Or rather covenant - the word "testament" being supplied by the translators. Was dedicated - Margin, "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.

Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834]

Whereupon - Ὅθεν Hothen - "Whence." Or since this is a settled principle, or an indisputable fact, it occurred 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 Heb 9:16-17, 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 instrumentality of Moses was ratified with blood?

No possible connection can be seen in such reasoning. But admit that Paul had stated in Heb 9:16-17, 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 indispensable before the will is of binding force, therefore it was that Moses confirmed 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 Heb 9:15, and says that the course of thought is, "The new covenant or redemption from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore (ὅθεν hothen) the old covenant, which is a type of the new, was sanctioned by the blood of victims." But 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, why is the statement in Heb 9:16-17, introduced? What bearing have these verses in the train of thought? What are they but an inexplicable obstruction?

The first testament - Or rather covenant - the word "testament" being supplied by the translators.

Was dedicated - Margin, "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.

Vincent's Word Studies, by Marvin R. Vincent [1886]
Whereupon (ὅθεν) Rend. wherefore, or for which reason: on the general principle that a covenant must be ratified by death. Neither the first testament was dedicated without blood (οὐδὲ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος ἐνκεκαίνισται) Rend. "neither hath the first (covenant) been inaugurated without blood." There is surely no excuse for inserting testament here, as A.V., since the allusion is clearly to the ratification of a covenant with blood. But further, as this and the verses immediately following are intended to furnish a historical illustration of the statements in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, we seem forced either to render covenant in those verses, or to assume that the transaction here related was the ratification of a will and testament, or to find our writer guilty of using an illustration which turns on a point entirely different from the matter which he is illustrating. Thus: a testament is of force after men are dead. It has no force so long as the testator is alive. Wherefore, the first covenant was ratified by slaying victims and sprinkling their blood. For the incident see Exo 24:8. Ἐνκαινίζειν only here and Heb 10:20. lxx, to renew, Sa1 11:14; Ch2 15:8; Psa 51:10 : to dedicate, Kg1 8:63; 1 Macc. 4:36. Comp. τὰ ἐνκαίνια the feast of dedication, Joh 10:22. Rend. οὐδὲ neither, as A.V., and not not even, in which case the meaning would be, "not even the first covenant, although its ministries did not perfect the worshipper as touching the conscience," a thought which would be foreign to the point, which is merely the analogy in the matter of death.

Vincent's Word Studies, by Marvin R. Vincent [1886]

Whereupon (ὅθεν)

Rend. wherefore, or for which reason: on the general principle that a covenant must be ratified by death.

Neither the first testament was dedicated without blood (οὐδὲ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος ἐνκεκαίνισται)

Rend. "neither hath the first (covenant) been inaugurated without blood." There is surely no excuse for inserting testament here, as A.V., since the allusion is clearly to the ratification of a covenant with blood. But further, as this and the verses immediately following are intended to furnish a historical illustration of the statements in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, we seem forced either to render covenant in those verses, or to assume that the transaction here related was the ratification of a will and testament, or to find our writer guilty of using an illustration which turns on a point entirely different from the matter which he is illustrating. Thus: a testament is of force after men are dead. It has no force so long as the testator is alive. Wherefore, the first covenant was ratified by slaying victims and sprinkling their blood. For the incident see Exo 24:8. Ἐνκαινίζειν only here and Heb 10:20. lxx, to renew, Sa1 11:14; Ch2 15:8; Psa 51:10 : to dedicate, Kg1 8:63; 1 Macc. 4:36. Comp. τὰ ἐνκαίνια the feast of dedication, Joh 10:22. Rend. οὐδὲ neither, as A.V., and not not even, in which case the meaning would be, "not even the first covenant, although its ministries did not perfect the worshipper as touching the conscience," a thought which would be foreign to the point, which is merely the analogy in the matter of death.

Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, by John Wesley [1754-65]
Whence neither was the first - The Jewish covenant, originally transacted without the blood of an appointed sacrifice.

Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, by John Wesley [1754-65]

Whence neither was the first - The Jewish covenant, originally transacted without the blood of an appointed sacrifice.

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826
Whereupon - Ὁθεν. Wherefore, as a victim was required for the ratification of every covenant, the first covenant made between God and the Hebrews, by the mediation of Moses, was not dedicated, εγκεκαινισται, renewed or solemnized, without blood - without the death of a victim, and the aspersion of its blood.

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826

Whereupon - Ὁθεν. Wherefore, as a victim was required for the ratification of every covenant, the first covenant made between God and the Hebrews, by the mediation of Moses, was not dedicated, εγκεκαινισται, renewed or solemnized, without blood - without the death of a victim, and the aspersion of its blood.

Top