A New Covenant that Reaches Forever

Hebrews 9:15-22

July 1, 2001

 

I can still remember the gist of the conversation as though it was yesterday. I was a high school student engaged in a discussion on salvation with a long-time classmate who believed in baptismal regeneration. With her assertion of the necessity of baptism for salvation (and a great emphasis on works), I countered by referring to the thief on the cross to whom Jesus Christ granted eternal forgiveness prior to baptism. That's when she quickly tossed Hebrews 9:16-17 before me, declaring that the thief was saved in a different timeframe and a different way because Jesus had not yet died. Without Christ's death the thief's salvation was surely of a different means altogether. Or at least that seemed to be the argument.

 

I recall how stunned I was as I gazed at those two verses in isolation. I had heard the poplar teaching of those who said God saved those in the Old Testament era differently than those of the New. I did not know what to believe, but only that something did not ring true with her comments and the Scripture. All I needed to do was to read the verse that preceded these two. Context explains precisely what the writer intended. So what did he intend to communicate in this passage?

 

He takes us back to those under the Old Covenant. How were they saved? Was it by their works? That question is answered in different ways by various theological persuasions. Our writer was not confused by any system. He explains that their salvation depended upon the death of Christ just as our salvation does. To propose any means of reconciling men to God that bypasses the eternal work of Jesus Christ through the new covenant is an illegitimate scheme for conversion! It is Jesus Christ alone, through the shedding of his blood at the cross that has reconciled sinful men to holy God.

 

Keeping the theme of the superiority of the new covenant and the supremacy of its Mediator, the writer makes an assertion then follows with two illustrations to help explain what he meant. My friend had removed the illustration from the foundation of doctrinal assertion, and thus construed a false understanding of salvation.

 

The original audience was still enamored with the ceremonies and promises of the first covenant. So our pastoral writer continues building his case and illustrating it to help them understand the finality and absolute sufficiency of salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

Ironically, the very text my friend used to make her case, when taken in context, undermines her entire theology. For just like the ancient Hebrews she was trying to add something to the sufficiency of Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection. Perhaps some among us are attempting the same thing. You just cannot believe that Christ alone has mediated the way to God for you. You argue in your mind with trusting in the death of Christ, thinking that surely you must add something, some service, some good deed, some religious gift to ensure the possibility of forgiveness. But our text counsels us that all who ever receive an eternal inheritance are saved through Jesus Christ alone. How does our text teach this? Consider our writer's clear assertion and illustrations that demonstrate Jesus Christ alone as the mediator of a new covenant sufficient for all time.

 

I. Assertion (v. 15)

 

Our writer has just explained how Jesus Christ "obtained eternal redemption" through his sacrificial offering before God. His explanation demonstrates the transitory and shadowy nature of the entire sacrificial system. Add all of the hundreds and thousands of sacrifices and the river of blood spilled upon the altar and mercy seat, and see that this process could never take away sin. The way of salvation was not found in the blood of bulls and goats or in the rituals of the priests. Psychologically the worshiper felt better but spiritually he still did not have a cleansed conscience. Externally everything was fine; but inwardly his heart lacked what Christ alone can do.

 

While the blood of bulls and goats and the sprinkling of ashes of the red heifer qualify an old covenant worshiper to reenter the fellowship of the community, only the blood of Christ can "cleanse the conscience from dead works to serve the living God." "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant." What is this covenant? O. Palmer Robertson explains, "A covenant is a bond in blood sovereignly administered. When God enters into a covenantal relationship with men, he sovereignly institutes a life-and-death bond" [The Christ of the Covenants, 4]. There are numerous covenants mentioned in Scripture alluding to a bond made between God and men, as well as covenants between men. The contrast in our text is upon what is called the "old covenant" ratified by Moses in the giving of the Law and sprinkling of the blood of the covenant, and the "new covenant" mediated by Christ in the sacrificial offering of his own blood. Our writer has already established the inadequacy of the old covenant, not because it was bad in itself, but because of the total inability of men to keep the covenant of the Law. He goes so far as to declare the old covenant "obsolete" in light of the new covenant in Christ (8:13, i.e., the old covenant as the means of salvation, not an abrogation of the moral law). Now he asserts the excellence of the new covenant.

 

1. Excellence of the new covenant

 

"For this reason" points back to the argument just stated (vv. 11-14). The blood of bulls and goats and ashes of heifer sprinkled cleanse the flesh so that ceremonially a defiled person can reenter the fellowship of the community and engage in worship. But the blood of Christ does far more! His blood, offered through the eternal Spirit, cleanses the conscience from dead works-that is, sins-to serve the living God. So the comparison is being made: the blood of bulls and goats that can suffice for external issues or the blood of Christ that obtained eternal redemption, which will the hearer trust?

 

The new covenant accomplishes what the old could never do. Quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34, the writer has already outlined the blessings of the new covenant (8:8-12). (1) Unlike the old covenant that was bilateral, meaning that both parties had to own up to certain stipulations or the covenant would be broken, the new covenant is unilateral, implying that God has taken on the entire demands of the covenant himself on behalf of us who receive its blessings. This is why it is a covenant of grace rather than law. (2) Rather than seeing the Law and trying with futility to obey its demands, the new covenant promises the indwelling Holy Spirit, who makes the will of God our love, not our chore. (3) The old covenant limited the worshiper's access to God through ceremonies, rituals, and tabernacle, but the new declares that the believer will live in conscious relationship with God-"I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (4) While the old covenant dealt with ceremonial cleanliness, the new covenant removes the guilt of sin, cleanses the conscience, and declares the believer to be forgiven of sins.

 

But who can serve to mediate such an extraordinary covenantal agreement with God? "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant." It is Christ, who through the offering of his blood mediated the way between God and us. Jesus Christ alone represents the interests of both man and God. As the God-man, Jesus Christ bridges the infinite gulf between God and man, a gulf created by our sinfulness and demanded by God's holiness. His mediatorial sacrifice brings us into relationship with God. But how far does this mediatorial work of Christ extend? Is it just for those on this side of the cross?

 

2. Scope of the new covenant

 

This is where we find our writer answering the question of how those in the Old Testament era were saved. Some have proposed that works saved them but any hint of that contradicts the biblical teaching on man's sinfulness as well as offering an inadequate view of God's justice. Others would insist that salvation was the result of being part of the nation of Israel, a covenantal people. But Paul explains, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but 'THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDENTS WILL BE NAMED'" (Rom. 9:6-7). Being of the right pedigree does not ensure you a right relationship to God. Notice how our text explains the necessity of the new covenant mediated by Christ for those under the first covenant: "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

 

You will notice that he is not including every person who claimed to be an Israelite as part of this eternal inheritance. It is for "those who have been called." The tense of the verb suggests an eternal act of God, before the world's foundation, that is carried out with certainty (perfect passive tense verb). John Piper has aptly written, "God's last will and testament is not left to chance" [www.soundofgrace.com/piper/97/1-26/97.htm]. God made certain that those whom he effectually called out of the world were redeemed through Jesus Christ. He could not accept the blood of bulls and goats as sufficient to cover the debt of these sinful men. They had not only disobeyed his Law but by virtue of the covenantal relationship, they had broken God's covenant. And to break a covenant demanded the death of the violators. The curse of covenant breaking fell upon them. So, out of the richness of mercy and grace, God the Son became a man and bore the curse and covenantal obligation of death at the cross. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, 'CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE'-in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (Gal. 3:13-14).

 

When the high priest offered the atoning sacrifice on Yom Kippur-the Day of Atonement, it was retroactive for sins committed during the past year. But what our writer is telling us is that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ extended all the way back to Moses and by implication, the Garden of Eden, "since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant." The sacrifices offered on their behalf were but shadowy representation of the final, all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ. They demonstrated their faith in God's final sacrifice as they looked beyond the blood of bulls and goats to God's provision through Christ. His sacrifice looked backward to the first covenant to satisfy the divine demand of justice in declaring sinners to be righteous. That is why Paul wrote,

Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He has passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:24-26).

 

What does this new covenant aim to accomplish?

 

3. Aim of the new covenant

 

The aim is very clear: so that "those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." Let me swing us back to the present moment. We can be somewhat entranced by all that this text describes happening for the ancient Jews who had faith in God's promised Messiah, but the intention of the writer is to not only look at the past but for those receiving the letter to see that the benefits of the new covenant are for all who believe. This is not a history lesson but an exhortation to rest your eternal hope in Jesus Christ. We find this bound up in the whole context of this section as the writer takes a backward glance at the believing Jews before them only to help those in the present audience see the sufficiency of Jesus Christ.

 

He has already explained that through Christ we have "obtained eternal redemption," never to return to the slave market of sin, never to be held captive by the devil or the world, and never to face the wrath of God against sinners. Here he calls it "the promise of the eternal inheritance." The promise assures the certainty of what is set forth. The lack of integrity in our day cheapens the whole concept of "promise." The promise made in marriage vows is broken every day. Promises made for repaying money borrowed is defaulted upon in record number. In fact, a promise is only as good as the character and ability of the one making the promise. Paul reminded Titus of the great "hope of eternal life," promised by God, and then he gave this assurance, "who cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). What God had promised the patriarchs of old was grounded in the future work of Jesus Christ at the cross! God came through on his promises; and he ever more shall come through on our behalf as well.

 

God's promise to those trusting Christ is "the eternal inheritance." This language is used to describe what the living God provides for those he adopts as his own. The ancient Jews were concerned with land and vineyards but the new covenant transcends that for an inheritance that defies description and that has no ending. Peter says it is "an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you" (I Pet. 1:4).

 

This assertion demonstrates the excellence of the new covenant that transcends anything imaginable in the old covenant. It reaches backward and forward in scope to cover all who believe. And in its aim, the new covenant provides the full riches of redemption and an inheritance that lasts forever. But all of these things are dependent upon one thing: the sufficiency of Jesus Christ in his death on our behalf. So to help us understand this, the writer presents two illustrations.

 

II. Illustrations (vv. 16-22)

 

The illustrations serve to illumine the assertion already made. Every illustration or parable or metaphor or story given by our Lord has a particular point to make on a doctrinal issue. We must be careful of over-dissecting an illustration to make it the doctrine. For instance, Paul illustrates the suddenness and unexpectedness of the return of Christ as "just like a thief in the night" (I Thess. 5:2). We have no cause to develop a theological understanding of divine thievery by this text! We just need to see it makes the point of unexpectedness. No human experience or action can adequately mirror the ways or actions of God. So we must realize that illustrations are just that: light on a subject but not the subject itself.

 

1. A will: effective upon death (vv. 16-17)

 

I make the point on illustrations because of this particular text. "For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives." You will notice that the word "covenant" is used just as in the previous verse. It is the same Greek term, diatheke, but in this case it presents problems for translators. The marginal rendering of the NASB Update has "testament" which we might know better as a "will." The NIV has "a will." The NKJV has "a testament." J. B. Phillips has "a will," while Weymouth even adds, "a legal will" to assure what is meant.

 

A will is a legal paper telling how a person desires his possessions to be distributed upon his death, and who receives these possessions. In verse 15, diatheke or covenant, is used religiously, while in verses 16-17 it is used legally. A covenant is made for the living but has stipulated a curse of death to vindicate a broken covenant. A will is activated only upon the death of the one making the will.

 

This is the main point the writer wants to make: the benefits of the new covenant are made through the death of Christ. In this case, Christ is pictured as the one making the will, providing an eternal inheritance, and as Mediator serves as Executor of the will, but it is only made available through his death. In other words, none of the promises of God regarding an eternal inheritance for those who believe are valid apart from the death of Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ died and arose 2000 years ago and people needed salvation before his death. This is where the illustration breaks down; but it serves its purpose in showing the "necessity" of Christ's death to provide all the benefits of redemption.

 

Another point in this illustration is that a will is unilateral. That is, you have no say over how a will benefiting you might be drafted. That is the prerogative of the one making the will. So also the new covenant is a unilateral agreement. There are no points of negotiation or leverage in the new covenant. As Piper states, "It is a sovereign expression of God's will, not a negotiated agreement" (Ibid.).

 

So this illustration is not meant to imply that there were other ways to God before the death of Jesus Christ (as my friend was thinking). Jesus declared himself alone as the way to God (John 14:6). The Apostles echoed this truth before the Jewish religious leaders (Acts 4:12). But it does insist upon Christ's death being necessary not only for our salvation but also for those stretching all the way back to the Garden of Eden. At the cross Jesus Christ crushed the "serpent's" head in fulfillment of the divine promise (Gen. 3:15). In Jesus Christ, Abraham's seed, dying and raised from the dead "all the families of the earth" are blessed (Gen. 12:3). In Christ, the crucified and resurrected son of David, God has established the Davidic throne forever (II Sam. 7:13). In Christ the curse of death upon the old covenant was borne and a new covenant enacted (Jer. 31:31-34). But why is there all the insistence upon blood?

 

2. The first covenant: necessity of ratification by sacrificial blood (vv. 18-22)

 

This illustration takes us back to the first covenant's inauguration by the sprinkling of blood. "Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU.' And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." We are not accustomed to the language of covenants in our day. Sometimes we do speak of "the marriage covenant," that has the traditional refrain, "till death do us part." But if it was a covenant similar to those made during the previous centuries the marriage ceremony would read, "the one who parts his death demand." 

 

An ancient covenant was "inaugurated" with blood. The reason was to demonstrate the seriousness and inviolability of the covenantal agreement. Anytime a covenant was ratified the blood of animals would be shed, often with the covenanters passing through the bloody halves of the slain animals to heighten the awareness of the covenanters that to break the covenant would demand their own death. Kent Hughes reflects on this period and writes, "Everything of significance was doused with blood.... It was not a pretty sight, except in its supreme symbolism" [Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul, 236]. So when the first covenant was inaugurated Moses sprinkled both the book of the covenant and the people with blood (vv. 18-20), showing that a breach of the covenant stipulations demanded death of the covenant-breakers. The same was true of the establishment of the tabernacle and all the vessels of covenant ritual, all were sprinkled with blood. The only exception, and thus the "one may almost say," for a blood sacrifice due to covenant violations were for those who were too poor to present a goat or even a dove. They would offer a cereal offering as a sacrifice (Lev. 5:11ff). The covenant violator deserved death. And so we find the substitution of an animal sacrifice for covenant violators was only a foreshadowing of the final, ultimate substitutionary sacrifice, Jesus Christ. With the death of every animal sacrifice there were reminders of the seriousness of sin and the high cost of forgiveness.

 

That is the point of this illustration. Sin requires death. Forgiveness is only at the price of the blood of the substitute. Forgiveness is not found in ritual or ceremony but in the bloody death of one taking the place of the sinner before the justice of God. As Jesus Christ died in our place before God's justice, he mediated the way to God. 

 

Conclusion

 

Do you realize the price of forgiveness? And do you realize effectiveness of Jesus Christ's death on your behalf? Jesus Christ alone is sufficient as the mediator of the new covenant so that we may receive the eternal inheritance. The work of Christ at the cross reaches from the Garden of Eden to eternity. Have you trusted in Him?

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by South Woods Baptist Church.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy:

Copyright South Woods Baptist Church. Website: www.southwoodsbc.org. Used by permission as granted on web site. Questions, comments, and suggestions about our site can be sent here.