the Second Week after Easter
Click here to learn more!
Read the Bible
George Lamsa Translation
Hebrews 9:18
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- CondensedParallel Translations
That is why even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.
Whereupon, neither the first Testament was dedicated without blood.
Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.
This is why even the first agreement could not begin without blood to show death.
Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.
Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
That is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.
Blood was also used to put the first agreement into effect.
This is why the first covenant too was inaugurated with blood.
Whence neither the first was inaugurated without blood.
That is why blood was needed to begin the first agreement between God and his people.
Wherefore neither was the first ordeined without blood.
That is why even the first covenant went into effect only with the use of blood.
Therefore not even the first covenant was ratified without blood.
From which neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood.
So even the first covenant was not put in force without [the shedding of] blood.
Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.
So that even the first agreement was not made without blood.
Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood.
This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.Exodus 24:6;">[xr]
Wherefore neither the first without blood was confirmed.
Therefore also the first [fn] was not confirmed without blood.
For which cause also, neither the firste [testament] was dedicated without blood.
Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.
Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood.
Whence neither was the first testament consecrated without blood.
Accordingly we find that the first Covenant was not inaugurated without blood.
Wherfor nether the firste testament was halewid without blood.
Therefore even the first [covenant] has not been dedicated without blood.
Hence even the first [testament] was not dedicated without blood.
So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.
Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.
That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal.
The Old Way of Worship had to have a death to make it good. The blood of an animal was used.
Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
Whence, not even the first, apart from blood, hath been consecrated;
Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood.
Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood.
For which cause also nether that fyrst testament was ordeyned with out bloud.
whence not even the first apart from blood hath been initiated,
For the which cause that first Testamet also was not ordeyned without bloude.
whence even the first testament was not established without the effusion of blood.
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.
It was the death and blood of animals that put into effect the first agreement.
Contextual Overview
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
And Shem and Japheth took a mantle and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward and they did not see their fathers nakedness.
He said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.
God shall enrich Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and Canaan shall be their servant.
NOW these are the descendants of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and to them were sons born after the flood.
And the sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
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.
