The Definitive Nature of Christ’s Work
We now come to the first detailed statement of the definitive nature of Christ’s work—an argument that will be restated in several forms before we reach the end of this major section of the epistle in 10:18. It is now convincingly shown that, although the work of Christ corresponds in considerable detail to that of the levitical priesthood, it stands in contrast to the work of the latter as its ultimate counterpart. It is what truth is to shadow, what pattern is to copy. The work of Christ is final, absolute, definitive, complete, and perfect. Only such words are appropriate to describe what the author expounds.
9:11 Although the word already is not found in the underlying Greek, it is an appropriate inference from the tense of the aorist participle. The focus is clearly on what has been accomplished through the work of Christ on the cross. The good things that have come refers to the degree of eschatological fulfillment that has already come to those who through Christ have become participants in the new covenant. This note of “realized eschatology” (see footnote on p. 35 = 1:13), encountered at the very beginning of the book (in the reference to “last days” of 1:2) as well as in other sections (see especially 12:18–24), is to be kept in tension with affirmations of “future eschatology” that are found in the book (e.g., 6:11, 18; 9:28; 10:25). The orientation of the writer is clearly toward the present experience of the good things made possible through Christ’s work as high priest. The long Greek sentence that composes verses 11–12 is turned into two independent sentences in NIV. The greater and more perfect tabernacle, not man-made (lit., “made with hands”), not a part of this creation, refers of course to the truth of which the copy was but a shadow (cf. 8:2–5), namely, the “heavenly sanctuary” or the place of the very presence of God himself (see 9:24).
9:12 The tabernacle referred to in the preceding verse, however, is not something through which Christ passed to get to the Holy of Holies (as, for example, he passed “through the heavens,” 4:14). It is itself the heavenly reality, not made by hands, the place of “God’s presence” (9:24). Thus Christ entered the Most Holy Place not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood. But as F. F Bruce notes, the author refrains from actually saying that Christ took his blood into the Holy of Holies. This would be to press the analogy too far, with the result that the atonement is made to depend upon something subsequent to the cross, that is, the appearance of Christ and the offering of his blood in the heavenly sanctuary. The text of the original says simply that it was “through his own blood” that Christ entered once and for all into the Holy of Holies. The necessity for the offering of blood is underlined in verses 18 and 22. So superior is the offering of his own blood that it procured eternal redemption, by which language the author intends a sharp contrast to the provisional character of what was accomplished by the offering of the blood of animals. Stress on the salvation accomplished by Christ as eternal is also found in 5:9 (cf. 13:20). Since his work is once for all, its consequence is an eternal redemption. The superiority of Christ’s accomplishment is thus both qualitative (intrinsic) and temporal (time-transcending).
9:13 Verses 13 and 14 form one long sentence in the Greek text, with verse 13 providing an “if” clause, and verse 14 a “then how much more” clause. The OT rituals, involving the blood of goats and bulls (cf. Lev. 16:15–16) and the sprinkling of the transgressors with the ashes of a heifer—which were mixed with water to make “the water of cleansing … for purification from sin” (Num. 19:9, 17–19)—cleansed the Israelites at only the external level. NIV brings this out in the words so that they are outwardly clean (lit., “the purifying of the flesh”). This interpretation is supported by the Greek word for “defiled,” translated by NIV ceremonially unclean. These ceremonies, therefore, were really effective only for one kind of cleansing, that is, from ceremonial contamination.
9:14 But the incomparably superior blood of Christ brings about the reality of a far more significant cleansing. Christ offered himself unblemished (lit., “blameless”) to God, and this was done through the eternal Spirit—a further indication of the categorical difference between the offering of Christ and those of the levitical priesthood. Although the interpretation of the phrase is exceptionally difficult, the eternal Spirit probably means the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this is an allusion to the great importance of the Spirit throughout the actual ministry of Jesus; or it may reflect the relationship of the Spirit to Israel’s “Servant of the Lord,” who ends up giving his life for the sins of the people (Isa. 42:1; 53:5–6, 10, 12). The Spirit is the agency par excellence of the accomplishment of God’s saving will. It is only to be expected then that our “eternal redemption” (v. 12) be accomplished by Christ’s offering through the eternal Spirit. The new kind of cleansing made possible by this offering of Christ is described as the purifying of our consciences. That is, this cleansing penetrates to the inner recesses of our personhood and so involves far more than the cleansing of the flesh from ceremonial defilement.
From acts that lead to death is NIV’s interpretation of what is literally “from dead works.” Almost certainly the expression means here what it meant in 6:1, namely, sinful deeds that should lead to repentance. Despite the author’s minimizing of the levitical ritual, he never regards it as sinful, nor does he connect it with repentance. Those who have experienced this new cleansing—the cleansing of the conscience—are now able truly to serve the living God. The word serve here (latreuō) is intentionally the same word earlier used for specifically priestly service (e.g., 8:5; 9:9). Only with the fulfillment brought by Christ’s “once for all” sacrifice is it possible to arrive at the goal of serving God. The language of the cultus has been spiritualized here, as it is elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5).
So significant is the contrast being drawn in this passage and so basic is it for the material that follows (which really only elaborates what has now been stated) that it is worth displaying the various elements in two contrasting columns:
New…Old
the good things already here, v. 11 (9:23–24; 10:1)….shadows, copies, 8:5; 10:1
greater and more perfect tent, v. 11 (9:24)….man-made (“earthly”) place for worship, 9:1
entered once and for all the Most Holy Place, v. 12 (9:25–28; 10:1–3, 10–14)….every day, 7:27; once a year, 9:7
he took his own blood, v. 12 (10:4–10)….blood of goats and bulls, 9:12 (9:18–22)
obtained eternal salvation, v. 12….outward rules until the new order, 9:10
purifies the conscience, v. 14 (9:15)….takes away ritual impurity, 9:13
That the content of the new elements corresponds to Jeremiah’s promises concerning the new covenant is confirmed by the explicit statement of the next verse. Note too the use of the quotation from Jeremiah again at the end of this major section of the book (10:16–18).
Additional Notes
9:11 Some manuscripts read “the good things to come,” thereby orienting the verse to the future rather than to present fulfillment. On the basis of both antiquity and diversity of witnesses, the reading of NIV’s text is to be preferred. The reading “the good things to come” is probably caused by the influence of the same words in 10:1. On the importance for our author of the title “high priest,” see note on 2:17. The adjective “man-made” (cheiropoiētos) occurs only once again in Hebrews, in this same chapter (v. 24), where it is used in exactly the same sense. Several other occurrences of this word in the NT touch upon an anti-temple motif, a viewpoint that was probably also shared by our author (Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; 17:24). Some have regarded the reference to a greater and more perfect tabernacle as a reference to the incarnation (cf. note on 8:2). But this is most unlikely since Christ’s humanity would then be not a part of this creation (contrast the view of the incarnation expressed in 2:14, 17). See J. Swetnam, “The Greater and More Perfect Tent. A Contribution to the Discussion of Hebrews 9.11,” Biblica 47 (1966), pp. 91–106, who argues that “the greater and more perfect tabernacle” refers to the eucharistic Body of Christ.
9:12 Beginning in v. 11 (“through the tabernacle”) and continuing in the present verse (“not … by means of the blood of goats and calves,” but “by his own blood”) is a series of phrases governed by the repeated preposition “through” or “by” (dia), which may also be translated “in virtue of” or “on the grounds of.” The expression the blood of goats and calves is also found in vv. 13, 19, and 10:4 (where, however, “bulls” is used). For the importance of “blood” in this and succeeding chapters, see note on 9:7. The reference to his own blood (cf. 13:12 for the only other occurrence of this phrase) may be contrasted with 9:25 where an ordinary high priest necessarily depends on “blood that is not his own.” Elsewhere we read of Christ having “offered himself” (7:27) and “the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ” (10:10). Once for all is indispensable for our author’s argument (see note on 7:27). Most Holy Place is NIV’s correct interpretation of the underlying ta hagia (lit., “the holies”), KJV, RSV, and NASB all retain the literal reading, “the holy place.” It is clear that our author does not mean the Holy Place described in 9:2, but rather what he has described in 9:3. The same Greek expression is also used for the Holy of Holies in 9:8 (see too 9:24, 25; 10:19; 13:11).
The word redemption (lytrōsis) occurs in Hebrews only here (the only other NT occurrences are Luke 1:68 and 2:38; for the verb, however, see 1 Pet. 1:18). The meaning is not greatly different from the ordinary word our author uses for “salvation” (sōtēria, for which see note on 2:3). On lytrōsis and related words, see F. Büschel, TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 340–56. The fact that obtained in the Greek text is an aorist tense participle indicates that salvation was already obtained (on the cross) and thus any idea of a subsequent presentation of Christ’s blood in the heavenly sanctuary is ruled out. Only after our salvation had been secured did Christ ascend to heaven. On this and related questions, see the lengthy excursus, “The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood,” in Hughes, pp. 329–54.
9:13 This is the only reference in the NT to the ashes of the red heifer used for purifying purposes according to Numbers 19. Our author finds the illustration to his liking since the sin removed by this rite was that of ceremonial defilement. This typifies the limited efficacy of the OT cultus. Ceremonially unclean translates koinoō (lit., “to make common”), a word used only here in Hebrews, but which is used with the same connotation of ceremonial defilement in other places in the NT (Mark 7:15–23; Acts 10:15; 11:9; 15:11–20; 21:28). The particular defilement that was to be remedied by “the water for impurity,” as it was called, was that of having touched a dead body (Num. 19:11ff.), but it was also applied to booty taken from an enemy (Num. 31:23). On the subject of cultic defilement, see F. Hauck, TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 789–809. On sprinkling and ceremonial cleansing, see C.-H. Hunzinger, TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 976–84. The word underlying sanctify (hagiazō), although it has a cultic sense here, elsewhere in Hebrews is used to refer to the purifying (the “setting apart,” but now in a moral sense) of Christians (cf. 2:11; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12). For the use of “flesh” (sarx) in Hebrews, see E. Schweizer, TDNT, vol. 7, pp. 141f.
9:14 Many commentators (e.g., Hughes, Montefiore, Delitzsch) prefer to understand eternal Spirit, not as the Holy Spirit (as a few manuscripts actually read), but as Christ’s own personal spirit, which is eternal in nature. The reference thus is to Christ’s unique personal nature, which enables him to accomplish this perfect sacrifice. A reference to the Spirit (which although it has no definite article, is still definite because of the modifier “eternal”) would, however, most naturally have been taken by the readers to be the Holy Spirit. Had the author intended Jesus’ own spirit, he could have indicated it unequivocally (e.g., by adding “his”), especially given the fact that no mention has hitherto been made of an eternal, personal spirit of Jesus. On the whole passage, see K. Grayston, “Salvation Proclaimed: III. Hebrews 9:11–14,” ExpT 93 (1982), pp. 164–68.
For the importance of the verb offered (prospherō), see note on 5:1. The word unblemished means literally “blameless” (amōmos) and is a deliberate allusion to the requirement in the OT cultus that the sacrificial animal be “without blemish or defect” (e.g., Lev. 14:10; cf. 1 Pet. 1:19). What could not be accomplished by the old sacrificial system—the cleansing of the conscience (see v. 9)—is now accomplished through Christ. For “conscience,” see note on 9:9. An equal number of key manuscripts read “your consciences,” but since the author reserves the second person for his exhortation sections, the reading our consciences is to be preferred. “Acts that lead to death” stands in stark contrast to the service of the living God. The latter is a common Hebraic manner of speaking of God (e.g., Matt. 16:16; 26:63; 2 Cor. 3:3; 1 Tim. 3:15; 4:10; Rev. 15:7; cf. Heb. 3:12; 10:31; 12:22).
Christ’s Sacrifice: The Foundation of the New Covenant
The author now turns to the relationship between the sacrificial death of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant. The existence of the latter, and the experience of it by Christians, depends squarely upon the former. The shedding of blood is thus essential to both old and new covenants.
9:15 For this reason—that is, because of his death—Christ (lit., “he”) is the mediator of a new covenant. It is clear that the author has in mind the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah (cf. the quotation in 8:8–12 and 10:16–17). The result of the inauguration of the new covenant is that those who are called receive the promised eternal inheritance. The author has already spoken of a special calling received by Christians through the preaching of the gospel in 3:1. It is significant that he uses particularly Jewish concepts of “promise” and “inheritance” here (cf. 6:17). This strengthens the motif of the fulfillment of the OT promises in the church (cf. 13:20). The basis of this new covenant and its reception by the called is now set forth. (In the original text, the basis is explicated before the result, whereas NIV places the basis last, introducing it with the words now that.) The basis of the new situation is that he has died, which has as its result that it sets people free (cf. the reference to “an eternal redemption” in v. 12). It redeems them from the sins (lit., “transgressions”) committed under the first covenant. The real answer to sins against the commandments of the Mosaic law is found not in the sacrifice of animals, but in the sacrifice of Christ. The new covenant thus contains within it the answer to the failure to abide by the requirements of the old covenant (cf. 8:12; 10:17–18). And, forgiveness experienced during the OT period depended finally—although this was hardly understood at the time—upon an event that was to take place in the future. The sacrifice of Christ is the answer to sin in every era, past and present, since it alone is the means of forgiveness.
9:16–18 At this point the author takes advantage of the dual meaning of the Greek word diathēkē. Having understood it as “covenant,” he now shifts to the meaning will. This is the same thing that Paul does in Galatians 3:15–17, where, however, the argument is a little different. NIV reexpresses the terse language of the original with effective clarity. The argument is transparent: a person’s will is not valid until his or her death has occurred. But just as the death of a testator is necessary for a will to become effective, so in the case of a “covenant” a death is also necessary for it to become valid. Thus even the first (NIV rightly adds the word covenant) was inaugurated with the blood of a sacrificial victim. The next three verses demonstrate this point in some detail.
9:19–21 Our author first shows the close connection between the giving of the law by Moses and the actual sealing of the covenant through the sprinkling of blood. The ceremony described by the author is apparently that mentioned in Exodus 24:3–8, although several items in our passage are not found there, namely, the water, scarlet wool, and hyssop (NIV adds branches of). Further differences between our passage and Exodus 24 include the lack of any mention of sprinkling the scroll or of any reference to the blood of calves. If the author is not using a special source no longer available to us, then he must be bringing together material from different parts of the OT (e.g., Num. 19:18–19; Exod. 12:22; Lev. 8:15, 19; 14:4). An argument in favor of the latter suggestion is the association of Exodus 24 and Leviticus 19 in the synagogue lectionary. In Numbers 19:18, we also find reference to sprinkling the tent and its furnishings; just as in our passage, it is on the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies that the blood is sprinkled. But in Numbers 19:18, although hyssop is used, water rather than blood is sprinkled.
In any event, the point of all this is clear: the sacrifice of animals and the ritualistic sprinkling of special objects with blood were important in the establishment of the covenant between God and Israel. This is made explicit through the citation of Exodus 24:8 in verse 20. The blood of the covenant (cf. Matt. 26:28) indeed serves a ratifying function whereby both parties obligate themselves to be faithful (hence NIV’s added words to keep) to the stipulations of the covenant. Any unfaithful party was subject to the fate of the sacrificial animal. Thus the blood of the covenant confirmed the reality of the covenant and emphasized the importance of faithfulness to it.
9:22 Although it is generally true that the shedding of blood is required for ceremonial cleansing in the OT, some exceptions were allowed, and it is apparently these that our author has in mind. Thus, for example, for those unable to afford animal sacrifices, or even turtledoves or pigeons, the offering of fine flour was permitted (Lev. 5:11–13). The central importance of blood to the forgiveness of sins, however, is stressed in Leviticus 17:11, “The life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” It is probably this perspective that enables the author to write that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Blood is necessary for the ratification of a covenant, and particularly in the case of the new covenant with its promise of a definitive forgiveness of sins (cf. 9:15, 26; 10:18).
Additional Notes
9:15 For new covenant, see note on 8:8. The same expression, mediator of a new covenant, occurs again in 12:24 (where, however, the word “new” is neos rather than kainos). The word mediator has already been used in 8:6 (“mediator of a superior covenant”). Elsewhere in the NT the word describes Christ only in 1 Tim. 2:5, where there is no mention of the new covenant: “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” On the atoning significance of Christ’s death, see also 2:9, 14–15. Sets people free is a translation of the Greek word apolytrōsis. This is the only occurrence of the word in referring to redemption from sin in Hebrews (for parallels to this usage, see Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), but the related word lytrōsis occurs in 9:12 (see note there). The word translated sins (parabasis) is found in only one other place in Hebrews (2:2), where it refers to the sins committed under the Mosaic dispensation, for which due punishment was received. Only in Hebrews is the Mosaic covenant referred to as the first covenant (see note on 8:7). Surprisingly, the first covenant is never called the “old covenant” as it is in 2 Cor. 3:14, although this of course is implied by the reference to the “new covenant” (but cf. 8:13). The retroactive effect of Christ’s death, whereby those in the earlier dispensation are ultimately redeemed, may also be alluded to in Rom. 3:25 (see RSV). Those who are called refers to Christians who have heard the call and have responded in faith and obedience (see note on 3:1). The words the promised eternal inheritance are reminiscent of Paul’s Christian application of the concept of the inheritance in Rom. 8:17: “Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ.” For the importance of what God has promised in Hebrews, see note on 6:12. The word inheritance (klēronomia) occurs only here and in 11:8 in Hebrews. The word “heir,” however, and the verb “to inherit” are also found several times (1:14; 6:17). See note on 1:14.
9:16–18 A few commentators, notably Westcott and Nairne, have argued that the word diathēkē is to be understood throughout the epistle as meaning “covenant,” including the present passage. See also J. J. Hughes, “Hebrews ix 15ff. and Galatians iii 15ff. A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure,” NovT 21 (1979), pp. 27–96. This view understands the death referred to in v. 16 to be that of a sacrificial animal rather than that of the covenant-maker. The latter is thus understood “to die” only in a symbolic way, and this is the “establishment” or “proof” upon which the covenant becomes effective. But since the natural reading of v. 17 requires the death (apparently literal, not symbolic) of the one who makes the diathēkē, and since diathēkē can mean “will,” it makes better sense to allow for a shift in the meaning of the word in vv. 16–17. Supportive of this conclusion is that the language of v. 16 is careful and accurate legal language used in certifying the death of a testator. Thus, behind NIV’s to prove is the Greek word pherō, lit., “to be brought,” in the technical sense of being “registered.” See K. Weiss, TDNT, vol. 9, p. 58; and the note of Hughes, Hebrews, pp. 371–73. We are still left in the present passage, however, with the unusual circumstance that the testator, upon whose death the will takes effect, is also the executor of the will—that is, “the mediator of a new covenant.” The uniqueness of Christ and his work is such that while it is expressed in the categories of both covenant and will, it transcends the ordinary stipulations of both. The word diatithēmi, which underlies NIV’s the one who made it, is used both of making wills, as in vv. 16 and 17, and of covenants, as in the quotation from Jer. 31:33 in 8:10 and 10:16. On this see J. Behm, TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 104–6; for the view that “covenant” and “testament” are not to be distinguished in the present passage, see K. M. Campbell, “Covenant or Testament? Heb. 9:16, 17 Reconsidered,” EQ (1972), pp. 107–11; G. D. Kilpatrick, “Diathēkē in Hebrews,” ZNW (1977), pp. 263–65. NIV’s was put into effect (v. 18) translates the Greek verb enkainizō, a verb found only here and in 10:20 in the NT. In the present passage the word is to be understood as “to inaugurate” or “to dedicate” in the sense of a consecration. See J. Behm, TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 453f.
9:19–21 Many Greek manuscripts include the words “and goats” after calves. It is difficult to decide whether these words were at some time omitted by a copyist (either accidentally or, perhaps, intentionally in order to harmonize the text with Exod. 24:5) or whether they were added, perhaps in imitation of v. 12. Probably the words are original, but the possibility remains that the shorter reading was later expanded by a copyist. Because of the uncertainty the United Bible Societies put the words in brackets. See Metzger, TCGNT, pp. 668f. Water was probably added to the blood to increase the quantity and to prevent coagulation, but the water in view may be that mixed with the ashes of a heifer and used for purification according to Num. 19:17–18. The scarlet wool was apparently used to fasten the hyssop sprig to a stick of cedar wood, thus making a utensil for ritual cleansing (cf. Lev. 14:4–7; Num. 19:6). In the citation of Exod. 24:8 (v. 20) the writer departs only slightly from the LXX (which agrees exactly with the Hebrew text), substituting this for “behold,” God for “the Lord,” and employing a different main verb, commanded, for LXX’s “made with you.” In the NT the shed blood of Jesus is explicitly associated with the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; cf. Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24). Even the ritual of the sprinkling of blood can be alluded to in reference to Christ’s blood in 1 Pet. 1:2—but this, of course, is to be understood in a figurative rather than a literal sense. Like our author, Josephus (Ant. 3.206) refers to the sprinkling of the tent and its vessels. Everything used in its ceremonies may be more literally translated “the vessels of the sacrificial ritual.” Again the word leitourgia is used (see note on 8:6).
9:22 Also among possible exceptions in our author’s mind may be cleansing by water, incense, and fire, instances of which can be found in the OT. But these exceptions only prove the rule stressed in this verse. The saying without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness may have been a proverbial saying and appears to have been a perspective shared by the rabbis. Behind the shedding of blood lies a Greek noun (haimatekchysia) that does not occur in the LXX and that is found in the NT only here. It is possible, as many commentators contend, but not necessary, that our author coined the word.
Christ and His Work: The Final Answer to Sin
This section summarizes the argument of the preceding sections in a succinct and climactic manner. The repetition of the main points is deliberate (compare v. 24 with v. 11, and vv. 25–26 with v. 12) and indicates their importance to the author. Here, indeed, we are at the very heart of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The stress is on what Christ has already done, once-and-for-all, rather than on what remains to occur. And yet the author can affirm the second advent of Christ as the event that will round out the salvation experienced by those who have received the good news.
9:23–24 It was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be cleansed with these sacrifices (lit., “by these things”), namely, the rites described in the preceding section (vv. 19–22; cf. v. 13). This was God’s will for the Mosaic dispensation. And it was his intention that the levitical sacrifices foreshadow the sacrifice of Christ. For the heavenly things, the ultimate reality wherein final and complete atonement is accomplished, better sacrifices than these are necessary. The plural sacrifices here is caused by the generic contrast with the sacrifices of the old covenant. But from the present passage, as well as many others, we know that our author could easily have used the singular “sacrifice.” It is the “once-for-all” sacrifice of Christ that is the new covenant’s counterpart to the sacrifices of the old covenant. Christ himself is the reality to which the copies pointed. His sacrificial work thus was presented, so to speak, in heaven itself, and there he now continues in his high priestly ministry of intercession in God’s presence (cf. 6:20; 7:25; Rom. 8:34). This is what is meant by the statement that Christ did not enter a man-made (lit., “handmade”) sanctuary. This was but a copy (“anti-type”) of the true one (lit., “of the true things”). But in Christ the anticipated reality has come.
9:25–26 NIV’s did he enter heaven is added to the original for clarity (cf. v. 24). By its very nature the work of the high priest involved the annually repeated sacrifice and entry into the Holy of Holies to make atonement (NIV correctly adds the word Most to the simple Holy Place of the text). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest accomplished his duties using blood that is not his own (lit., “of another”). But since in the supreme act of atonement Jesus took his own blood, and not that “of another,” it is impossible for him to repeat the act of atonement. For this would entail his repeated dying, and one might say even from the creation of the world, since atonement was needed from the time of the entry of sin into the world. But the central tenet of Christianity is that in the already inaugurated eschatological era, at the end of the ages (Barclay: “the consummation of history”), Christ has appeared once for all for the final removal of sin by the sacrifice of himself. It is precisely here that the contrast between Christ’s high priestly work and that of the levitical high priest is most startling and revealing. It is important to note the close connection that exists between the once-and-for-all character of Christ’s sacrifice and the fact that Christ’s sacrificial work depends upon his own blood (cf. 7:27; 9:12). Where sin has been definitively canceled, as it has in Christ, the aeons have reached a turning point (cf. 1:2; 1 Cor. 10:11).
9:27–28 The author here draws a parallel between the experience of man (i.e., humankind) and that of Christ. In both instances, death can occur only once but is not the end of the story. After death human beings face judgment; after his death, Christ will return to bring salvation, i.e., to deliver his people from judgment. Whereas on the one hand judgment is a threat facing all, on the other, those who depend upon Christ’s atoning work receive deliverance from judgment with the result that salvation is finally and fully experienced by those who are waiting for him (cf. Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 4:8). Thus, in keeping with the finality of Christ’s sacrifice, the purpose of the second appearance of Christ does not have to do with the problem of sin but with the consummation of the eschatological age begun in his first advent. The possibility of eschatological salvation depends squarely upon the reality of Christ’s atonement for sin. Thus Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people. This last clause probably constitutes a conscious allusion to Isaiah 53:12, whence the expression many derives (see note). Christ was offered once and with that sacrificial work now accomplished, his future work will involve only the salvation and vindication of his people.
Additional Notes
9:23–24 The Greek word translated copies (hypodeigmata) occurs in a similar way in 8:5 (see note there). The same word, however, does not underlie copy in v. 24, where the Greek word is antitypos (which occurs in the rest of the NT only in 1 Pet. 3:21). “Anti-type” here refers to that which corresponds to the original as an impression to the die. The “anti-type” is thus contrasted with the “true things.” Elsewhere (as in 1 Pet. 3:21) the opposite is the case, namely, that “anti-type” is the reality to which a “type” points. For heavenly things, the author uses the word epouranios (see note on 3:1). Again, the “things” referred to here are not to be understood literally but as a way the author uses to speak of spiritual realities. (See discussion on 8:2, 5.) For this reason the “heavenly things” are here synonymous with the “true things” (cf. 8:2). The description of the earthly sanctuary as man-made stands in deliberate contrast to the description of the heavenly sanctuary as “not man-made” in v. 11. The verb for “purify” or “cleanse” (katharizō) is applied both to the conscience (in 9:14 and 10:2) and to ceremonial purification (as in 9:22 and here). See F. Hauck, TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 423–31. But do the heavenly things themselves need to be purified? Again, there is no need to understand this literally. Our author is drawing a contrast between the old and new that involves the use of parallel language for things that are similar but not equivalent. The point in the present passage is that just as sacrifices were necessary in the old covenant context (the copies), so also the reality of the new covenant (“the true things”) demands a superior—indeed, a definitive—sacrifice. And this is what Christ has accomplished for us. The verb for appear (emphanizō) occurs in Hebrews only here and in 11:14. On the question of the background of this passage and 8:5, see L. D. Hurst, “How ‘Platonic’ are Hebrews viii:5 and ix:23f.?” JTS 34 (1983), pp. 156–68.
9:25–26 Since it is into the Holy of Holies that the high priest enters yearly to make atonement for the sins of the people, NIV is correct in specifying the Most Holy Place, although the Greek word (hagia) is the same as in the preceding verse, where NIV translates sanctuary. KJV, ASV, and RSV, however, retain the translation “the Holy Place.” The use of the present tense enters may well reflect the existence of the temple and its cultus at the time of the writing of the letter (but see note on 9:6–7). The verb offer (prospherō) is used repeatedly by our author. See note on 5:1. For blood, see note on 9:7. The word for “of another” occurs elsewhere in Hebrews only in 11:9, 34, where it has the connotation of “foreign.” The same contrast between the once for all character of Christ’s priestly work and the repeated (again and again) sacrifices of the levitical priesthood is found in 10:11f. (cf. 7:27). The word suffer (paschō) here, as in 13:12, is to be understood as “die,” as the context clearly indicates. It would have been possible for Christ to suffer repeatedly, but not to die repeatedly (everyone dies only “once,” v. 27). See W. Michaelis, TDNT, vol. 5 pp. 916–19.
The phrase since the creation (lit., “foundation”) of the world occurs also in 4:3 and is common in the NT. According to 1 Pet. 1:20, in a context that refers to the redeeming blood of Christ, “he was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.” See F. Hauck, TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 620f. For the very great importance of the concept of once for all, see note on 7:27 (cf. 9:12). To do away with sin may connote the “annulment” or “cancellation” of sin. Athetēsis is the same word used in 7:18 (NIV “set aside”). (See note on 7:18.) The word for sacrifice (thysia) occurs frequently in Hebrews in describing the sacrificial ritual of the old covenant, but only here and in 10:12 is it used to refer to the sacrifice of Christ (cf. 9:23). See J. Swetnam, “Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observations and Surmises on Hebrews 9, 26,” CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 227–34.
9:27–28 For destined to die, see Gen. 3:19. The noun “judgment” (krisis) is found only here and in 10:27 in Hebrews (the verb is found in 10:30 and 13:4; cf. 6:2), although the idea is often present (e.g., 2:3; 4:1, 13). See W. Schneider, NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 362–67. Yet again we encounter the important words once (hapax) and sacrificed (i.e., offered [prospherō] in sacrifice). For the former, see, in the immediate context, vv. 12, 26, 27, 28; 10:10; for the latter, see vv. 14, 25, 28 (cf. 10:14). The verb that NIV translates take away (anapherō) also means “to bear,” as does the Hebrew verb in Isa. 53:12. Cf. BAGD, p. 63: “he took upon himself the sins of many.” In a very similar passage, 1 Peter also makes use of the language of Isaiah: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24; cf. 3:18). Many is explained by the language of Isa. 53:12 and is probably to be understood as a Hebraic way of referring to all. Earlier in this epistle we have read that he died “for everyone” (2:9). Thus the “many” of Mark 10:45 is probably also to be explained in an inclusive sense as referring to all (see 2 Cor. 5:14f. and 1 Tim. 2:6). Compare too the “many” of Rom. 5:15 and 19 with the “all” of 5:18. See J. Jeremias, TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 540–45. NIV’s not to bear sin is an expansive translation of the literal “without sin” (chōris hamartias). The same expression occurs in 4:15, where it refers to Christ’s sinlessness. Here, however, the sense is different. Thus BAGD, p. 891: “without any relation to sin, i.e., not with the purpose of atoning for it.” Waiting (apekdechomai) occurs only here in Hebrews. For salvation (sōtēria), see note on 2:3. The idea of appearing a second time, after the accomplishment of atonement in the presence of God, is reminiscent of the reappearance of the high priest after he had accomplished his task in the Holy of Holies. The apprehensiveness of the crowd while the high priest was out of sight, followed by their great joy at his reappearance, receives eloquent witness in contemporary sources (e.g., Sirach 50:5–10). Only by means of an acceptable offering was salvation assured.
