Hebrews 9:18

Christian Standard Bible ®

That is why even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.

Parallel Translations

King James Version (1611)
Whereupon, neither the first Testament was dedicated without blood.

King James Version
Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

English Standard Version
Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

New American Standard Bible
Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

New Century Version
This is why even the first agreement could not begin without blood to show death.

New American Standard Bible (1995)
Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Legacy Standard Bible
Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Berean Standard Bible
That is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

Contemporary English Version
Blood was also used to put the first agreement into effect.

Complete Jewish Bible
This is why the first covenant too was inaugurated with blood.

Darby Translation
Whence neither the first was inaugurated without blood.

Easy-to-Read Version
That is why blood was needed to begin the first agreement between God and his people.

Geneva Bible (1587)
Wherefore neither was the first ordeined without blood.

George Lamsa Translation
For this reason not even the first covenant was confirmed without blood.

Good News Translation
That is why even the first covenant went into effect only with the use of blood.

Lexham English Bible
Therefore not even the first covenant was ratified without blood.

Literal Translation
From which neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

Amplified Bible
So even the first covenant was not put in force without [the shedding of] blood.

American Standard Version
Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.

Bible in Basic English
So that even the first agreement was not made without blood.

Hebrew Names Version
Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood.

International Standard Version
This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.Exodus 24:6;">[xr]

Etheridge Translation
Wherefore neither the first without blood was confirmed.

Murdock Translation
Therefore also the first [fn] was not confirmed without blood.

Bishop's Bible (1568)
For which cause also, neither the firste [testament] was dedicated without blood.

English Revised Version
Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.

World English Bible
Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood.

Wesley's New Testament (1755)
Whence neither was the first testament consecrated without blood.

Weymouth's New Testament
Accordingly we find that the first Covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Wycliffe Bible (1395)
Wherfor nether the firste testament was halewid without blood.

Update Bible Version
Therefore even the first [covenant] has not been dedicated without blood.

Webster's Bible Translation
Hence even the first [testament] was not dedicated without blood.

New English Translation
So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.

New King James Version
Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

New Living Translation
That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal.

New Life Bible
The Old Way of Worship had to have a death to make it good. The blood of an animal was used.

New Revised Standard
Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible
Whence, not even the first, apart from blood, hath been consecrated;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood.

Revised Standard Version
Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood.

Tyndale New Testament (1525)
For which cause also nether that fyrst testament was ordeyned with out bloud.

Young's Literal Translation
whence not even the first apart from blood hath been initiated,

Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)
For the which cause that first Testamet also was not ordeyned without bloude.

Mace New Testament (1729)
whence even the first testament was not established without the effusion of blood.

THE MESSAGE
Even the first plan required a death to set it in motion. After Moses had read out all the terms of the plan of the law—God's "will"—he took the blood of sacrificed animals and, in a solemn ritual, sprinkled the document and the people who were its beneficiaries. And then he attested its validity with the words, "This is the blood of the covenant commanded by God." He did the same thing with the place of worship and its furniture. Moses said to the people, "This is the blood of the covenant God has established with you." Practically everything in a will hinges on a death. That's why blood, the evidence of death, is used so much in our tradition, especially regarding forgiveness of sins.

Simplified Cowboy Version
It was the death and blood of animals that put into effect the first agreement.

Contextual Overview

¹⁵Therefore, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. ¹⁶Where a will exists, the death of the one who made it must be established. ¹⁷For a will is valid only when people die, since it is never in effect while the one who made it is living. ¹⁸That is why even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood. ¹⁹For when every command had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll itself and all the people, ²⁰saying, This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you. ²¹In the same way, he sprinkled the tabernacle and all the articles of worship with blood. ²²According to the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

the first: Hebrews 8:7-9, Exodus 12:22, Exodus 24:3-8

dedicated: or, purified, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 9:22

Reciprocal: Exodus 24:6 - the blood he Exodus 24:7 - the book Exodus 24:8 - sprinkled Leviticus 8:15 - Moses Jeremiah 31:32 - Not John 17:19 - I sanctify Ephesians 2:13 - are Hebrews 8:9 - the covenant Hebrews 13:12 - sanctify

Cross-References

Genesis 9:23
Then Shem and Japheth took a cloak and placed it over both their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father naked.

Genesis 9:25
he said:

Genesis 9:27
Let God extend Japheth;let Japheth dwell in the tents of Shem;let Canaan be Shem’s slave.

Genesis 10:1
These are the family records of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. They also had sons after the flood.

Genesis 10:6
Ham’s sons: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.

1 Chronicles 1:4
Noah, Noah’s sons:

Gill's Notes on the Bible

Whereupon neither the first testament,.... Or the first administration of the covenant of grace under the law:

was dedicated without blood; or "confirmed" without it, that dispensation being a typical one; and that blood was typical of the blood of Christ, by which the new covenant or testament is ratified; see Exodus 24:7.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

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 Hebrews 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 Hebrews 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 Hebrews 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 Hebrews 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.

Clarke's Notes on the Bible

Verse 18. Whereupon — οθεν. 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.