Clough Hebrews Lesson 45

Necessity of the Better Sacrifice – 9:15-22

We left off in verse 14; we’ve been studying this passage in Hebrews 9 and we found that the first section, Hebrews 9:11-14, deals with the efficacy of the sacrifice. That means that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice does something that the Old Testament sacrifices could never do. And that’s why we finished with that very complicated verse, Hebrews 9:14, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” The conscience was the deepest part of the soul and therefore could not be reached by the Old Testament fore views of Jesus Christ. To reach the conscience the New Covenant had to be evoked with Christ’s finished work. Now up to the end of verse 14 are there any questions on anything up to that point.

Then we’ll begin at Hebrews 9:15 with the next section; from 9:15-22 the author deals with a… for lack of a better word we’ll call it the necessity of the better sacrifice. In this section, it’s one of those unique places in the New Testament where you have a chance to actually observe theology generated because in this passage, between verses 15 and 22 the man, the author of Hebrews and again we don’t know who the author of Hebrews was but whoever it was he is actually making a theological innovation at this point. He’s tying together a lot of loose ends that were floating around for some time, a lot of unanswered things that were leftovers, theological leftovers from the Old Testament era. And at this point he begins to pull them all together. So when you see in verse 15 where you see, “And for this cause He is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of His death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. [16] For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [17] For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives.”

This is a rather complicated thing and probably the best way to approach this passage is to show you that up until the man wrote this there were two concepts and to show you how difficult it is, if you look at translations you’ll notice the translators are having an awful job trying to translate this passage. There is one word and some translations I checked have at least three different translations in three verses of the same word. And that’s not because the translators don’t know what’s going on in the sense of vocabulary, it’s just that it’s very hard to follow the argument.

Here’s the problem. The Greek word, diatheke, this is the whole crux of this passage, in verse 15-22, however we handle that is going to be a function of how we handle that word. That’s the key word and that is the problem. If we could solve all the problems associated with that then we could solve the problem of interpreting. And here’s the problem and let me state the problem first so you can see why it’s difficult to follow the argument, why the translators are just falling all over themselves here to try to give clarity to the passage. This word can have two separate but related meanings. And here is a good example, and since this is the Hebrews class I like to show you, there’s lots of different problems of interpretation and we’ve gone through some of them, we’ve shown you how to handle these by going to a concordance, you don’t use the cop out that lazy Christians do when they say well, it’s just a matter of your interpretation. That’s just a cop out. You have to exercise your mind to interpret literature and this is a literary type problem.

Now here’s what happens; we’ve got one Greek word and that Greek word has been loaded with two different meanings coming from two different cultures. From the Jewish culture through the Septuagint, which in your writing you’ll see the Roman numeral LXX because there supposedly were 70 men who translated the Old Testament Hebrew into Koine Greek before Christ. So the Septuagint was kind of The Living Letters of Jesus’ day. And most of the apostles used this; most of the apostles did not quote from the Hebrew, they quoted from the Septuagint.

Now, the Septuagint had a tremendous influence on New Testament Greek, so when you look up the meaning of a Greek word you can’t always go by what the Greek word meant to the Greeks. And here’s a beautiful illustration. To the Greeks that meant a will, or a testament in the sense that somebody would die and the will was a legal doctrine that specified the disposition of property. Now that’s what it meant to the Greeks and there’s quite unambiguous evidence that this was consistently used for a will, what we would call a will. Now when we come over to the Septuagint we’ve got a problem because it’s never used this way… never used this way. In the Septuagint it is always used to translated the Hebrew word covenant, which looks like this: berith, and a covenant was made between two people that were living. Nobody is dying to make a covenant work.

So now we’ve got a problem; we’ve got one Greek word being loaded from two cultures, being loaded with two different meanings. And if you’re going to go to a lexicon and you look up diatheke, it doesn’t solve your interpretation problem at this point because it’s going to give you that meaning and then it’ll say some remark that in the Septuagint it doesn’t mean this, it means covenant between living people. And that puts the monkey on your back and you haven’t learned anything from going to your lexicon. Well, you have learned something, you’ve learned two possibilities but that’s all. So now we’re presented with a very interesting problem.

Now if you look at that passage we just read, verses 15-22, the word “diatheke” occurs in verse 15 translated in the King James as “testament.” It occurs as “testament” again in verse 15. It occurs in verse 16 as testament; in verse 16 at the end, the “testator” is the diatheke maker, the one who makes the diathekes. Verse 17, “for a testament,” diatheke again. Verse 18, diatheke or testament is understood. And verse 20, you have it again. So it’s obviously a word that occurs again and again and again and we’re going to lose the whole thing if we don’t pin down what this word is and it’s meaning.

The problem… can anybody see what the problem is here? Just look at how the man wrote that passage, how he wrote it and can you see first, probably the best way to think through the problem is what difference does it make whether it’s a covenant or a testament? If the word covenant just simply means a contract between living parties and a testament between the dead and the living, what do we… we’ve got a problem. [someone answers] All right, if we go with the covenant and one party to the covenant dies then the contract is null and void. But if we go to the testament, which apparently from verses 16-17 that’s what this author does have on his mind, then we have to abandon the Septuagint and that seems unusual, why does this man, who’s such a loyal advocate of the Septuagint, a man who’s so schooled in the Septuagint, who has read the Septuagint, who time and time again in this epistle brings out fine points of doctrine based on the Septuagint, why, when he gets to verses 16-17 suddenly changes horses in midstream? This has caused no end of problems and here we are faced with a problem, but like all the problems I try to encourage you, don’t be discouraged when you hit some of these problems because great jewels of revelation are encased in these problems if you are just persistent enough to dig. And when you dig you find some very interesting things.

Let’s proceed beginning with verse 15 and suspend judgment as to whether we’re talking about a contract between living parties and a contract between the living and the dead and then let’s see what we’re forced to do, what we’re forced into here.

Verse 15, “And for this cause He is the mediator of the new covenant,” or “testament, that by means of death,” now this is not translated correctly, it’s just… through death is meant here, “that through death for the redemption of the transgressions,” there shouldn’t be a comma after death there; the death relates to the redemption of the transgressions, so that “by death for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first testament, they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Now let’s take it real slow because verse 15 is where we really hit one problem right after another. So let’s break it up, start off simply and let’s relate the first thing.

“For this cause,” now what is the cause? “For this cause He is the mediator,” what do you think is the cause, why is Jesus the mediator? For what cause? Look back at verse 14, what was the assertion in verse 14 of Jesus’ work? “That He would purge,” what was the main verb, “purge your conscience from dead works.” Does anyone remember the tense of that? Was that a once and for all tense or was that continuing action tense? Continuing action in verse 14. All right, Jesus Christ continues to do something in heaven in verse 14. Then in verse 15 it says “For this cause, He is the mediator,” now let’s test ourselves. Let’s pretend he didn’t write “He is the mediator” and wrote instead He became the mediator, “for this cause Jesus became the mediator.” Now that’s not what he wrote, he didn’t put ginomai, he put the verb eimi, the Greek verb to be. Now what would happen if he emphasized this: Jesus became the mediator, what would that teach about the relationship of Jesus Christ to the covenant? “Became” would be at a point in time Jesus became. Well, that means that at one time He wasn’t, right. So that’s at least one thing, Jesus Christ was not the mediator, was not the mediator, was not the mediator, was not the mediator and then suddenly became the mediator. If He had written “became” then your attention would be focused on what part of Christ’s life: past, present or future? Past. But when he replaces and doesn’t do this, Christ is the mediator. On what part of Jesus Christ’s life is your attention focused? [someone answers] All right, His work in heaven, right now. Jesus is the mediator.

“For this cause He is the mediator of the new covenant, so whatever this covenant or testament thing is all about, it’s got something to do with Jesus Christ’s work at the Father’s right hand. And since verse 14 has just got through talking about Jesus Christ’s work at the Father’s right hand, namely His priestly intercession for our sins, then He “is the mediator” must have something to do with a presently enjoyed possession. What in verse 15 is the name for the presently enjoyed possession? There’s something, there’s a name for it, and that’s another thing that sets off this passage. What is it in verse 15 called that believers have. [someone answers] The eternal inheritance.

Now let’s look at this one, we’re going to skip around this verse and then we’ll pull it all together. “Eternal inheritance,” now what did we say last time was the flavor of this word “eternal.” It could be translated by what English word and would give a more accurate meaning? Everlasting. Why is “everlasting” a better English word than eternal? Because eternal means it goes on and on and on and on and on and on, there never was a time when it did not exist. Everlasting can mean it started at a point in time and goes on and on and on and on and on into the future. Now that, since we already derived the concept of the meaning of eternal from other places in the epistle we are on sound, solid ground at this point to interpret eternal in verse 15 as something that is brought about and lasts forever. So this is an inheritance that is given at a point in time and thereafter is certainly and always enjoyed, eternal or everlasting inheritance.

Now let’s read it through, verse 15, skipping around the sentence, “For this cause Jesus Christ is the mediator of the new” whatever it is, “that they who are called might receive the everlasting inheritance.” Now “receive” is aorist tense; this means the reception of the eternal inheritance occurs at a point in time. “they might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Now let’s be real picky right here and this is the way you have to be if you want to expend some effort to understand this kind of a very difficult passage. As I said this epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most difficult books in the New Testament; if you can make it through Hebrews you can make it through anything else, including the book of Revelation. Revelation does not have this kind of interpretation problems. It’s just simply a problem defining symbols but this is another story.

Do you notice how he structured this eternal inheritance? What did he put before “eternal inheritance? He said “the promise of eternal inheritance.” Now what are some ways that you can take that? Let’s just think of the English for a moment, what are some ways, some possible meanings, taking the words the way they stand, that you can take that. You can take it in several ways. Anybody think of some of the different ways you can take that? Promise, “they received the promise of eternal inheritance.” What are some grammatical possibilities here? [someone answers] What’s in the future? All right, and so at a point in time they receive a promise of something they have yet to receive; in other words, it could mean, here we are at a present time, here’s the timeline, here’s the present. In the present we receive only the promise but not the eternal inheritance itself. That’s in the future. So we could just be receiving the promise of something yet to be received.

What’s another way of taking this? [someone answers] All right, they could also, in the present time, receive the eternal inheritance, namely that which was promised. So you could have the word “promise” in apposition to “eternal inheritance,” or you could have it in this sense, a promise of something yet to come. Now before we decide how we’re going to take this because we’ve got to handle this one, you see all the interpretation problems you’ve to solve to understand the Word of God and why you just can’t say God spoke to me out of this verse? God will speak to you out of the verse but God expects you to expend some brain power and understand what He has written and that takes time and effort. It’s not impossible but when you hit a passage like this you have to spend lots and lots of time to worm your way through it.

All right, we’ve got two problems, we don’t know what the word “testament” means for sure, and now we come down here, we don’t know how to take this “promise of eternal inheritance” for sure either yet. Now what do you see in the sentence just preceding “they which are called,” that would help you choose between these two options you’ve got. We’ve got two options, the promise received of something yet future, or the promise that is received, that is, the eternal inheritance. What do you see in this verse just prior to this that might give you a hint? [someone answers] Okay, what he just pointed out is if you look back up there where it says “redemption of the transgressions which were under the first covenant,” now forget the problem whether it’s covenant or testament, what is that first covenant or testament. We now that because that’s occurred before. What is that? That’s the Mosaic Law, so we’ve got a fix there, and there were transgressions under that administration. Now what are the transgressions that were committed under the Mosaic Law? The sins of the Old Testament people. So we’re talking about redemption of the sins of the Old Testament people. Now since the author has introduced the Old Testament people into the middle of verse 15, it would be nonsense for this one to be true, that is that now they just get the promise, because it would mean if they’re just getting the promise in New Testament times, for heavens sakes what wee they doing in the Old Testament without anything. Well, we know they had something back in the Old Testament, the had something. So do you see now why we’ve…it’s not just a matter of your interpretation, how you can reason through and come to a conclusion, it can’t be that one; it’s got to be that Jesus Christ “is the mediator of the new covenant that you might receive the eternal inheritance that was promised.” That’s the way you have to take that. So we’ve solved what the end of verse 15 now means and we solve it just using common sense and looking at the text and thinking a little bit.

So let’s see what we’ve got now. “For this cause,” that is to purge your conscience, “Jesus is the mediator, that they who are called might receive the promise eternal inheritance.” Now this eternal inheritance that is received, if it is the ultimate eternal inheritance, it can’t just be confined to the conscience in verse 14; surely God promised more than just a cleansed conscience. That is great but that isn’t all that’s involved. So the eternal inheritance encompasses this much material and maybe like a pie we’ve only been given that slice of it and the slice is the cleansed conscience. But what the author is saying is that at least you have some of your eternal inheritance right now; you possess it right here, today, because Jesus is the mediator of this new testament of covenant, however we’re going to decide that question. But here you’ve got something that is enjoyed.

Now let me show you that this is not just peculiar to Hebrews. Turn to Ephesians 1:14, Paul is talking about the blessings that the Christian has “in Christ,” and he says, [13] “You were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,” and it should be “Who” in verse 14, the reason the King James translators translated “which” is because pneuma, the Greek noun for spirit is neuter but since we know that the Holy Spirit is not an “it,” it’s not an ethereal cloud that floats around, the Holy Spirit is a person, it is preferable to translate that as “who.” “Who is the earnest of our inheritance,” now, what is Paul talking about. He’s talking about the same thing the author of Hebrews is talking about, that inheritance thing, but “the earnest” is the down payment.

In other words, it’s a fragment cut out of a pie of eternal inheritance, taken out of that and given to us. We don’t receive the rest… by the way, can some of you name one of the things about the eternal inheritance that we have not yet received? [answers given] Resurrection body, that’s an obvious phase of the eternal inheritance. What else? Ultimate sanctification. What else? What about the universe? The new heavens and the new earth, an entirely recreated universe. There are lots of things in the eternal inheritance that we haven’t received. But that which we have received is this indwelling Holy Spirit, according to Paul here in verse 14, “the earnest of our inheritance, until” or “for the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory.” So God has given us a piece of it.

In Ephesians 4:30 you have the same thing, same concept. “Whereby you are sealed until the day of redemption,” and the concept of the seal, if you want to do a word study, some of you have enough Greek so you can do some real profitable word studies and if you want to do a word study, study the occurrences of the word “seal,” like it’s used, the verb form there, “you are sealed” and I can suggest some places to go look for it, you can get a Greek concordance, a lexicon, if you want to buy some tools and you’re in the market I would recommend somewhere after you buy a lexicon that you buy what is called Moulton and Milligan and that’s a compilation of the Greek papyri written at the time the New Testament was written and it will give you what those words were being used for in the business transaction of the world.

And here is where this seal was very much used in the first century, that when they took a cargo, and it would leave, say a port in Egypt, and it would be shipped across the Mediterranean over to the city of Rome, that when the grain left it would be inspected, and the inspectors would seal it; the Romans would put a seal on that grain shipment and the seal could not be broken without violating Roman law, until that grain got to its destination. So the seal was the security of the grain in transit. Now what doctrine is taught by that seal? Eternal security, the Holy Spirit is our seal and it says here we’re not sealed until we lose our salvation; it says in verse 30 you are “sealed unto the day of redemption,” so the seal can’t be broken; God has given us the Holy Spirit and no one can break it under penalty of His law. All right, that’s what the inheritance is about.

Now come back and look at it through the glasses of the man who writes Hebrews. He’s not talking in terms of the earnest but he is talking about the same concept that part of that eternal inheritance is now received. “That you might receive the promise,” the promise, “the promise of the eternal inheritance” and evidently the way that is used it means that this portion… this portion of the eternal inheritance that is now available was considered in the Old Testament to be the most desired portion. In other words, the most desirable thing wasn’t the resurrection body; the most desirable thing was not the rejuvenated universe; the most desirable thing was the Holy Spirit through whom we can experience the presence of Jesus Christ. So that was the most desirable thing. So he says that’s what God has given us out of our inheritance, first, before we die we receive part of our inheritance. It’s a great way to work it; we can actually enjoy part of our inheritance and that inheritance is the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Now to show you why this was such a big deal in the Old Testament turn back to Ezekiel 36:25, now this is the passage… this is the passage that Nicodemus was talking about in John 3, when Jesus came to Nicodemus, most Christians know the passage, remember he said something about what a great miracle worker You are and so on and Jesus said “unless you be born of water and the spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God,” and people have tried to get baptism in there and have tried to get the waters of physical birth in there… and these two concepts of water and spirit are given right here in Ezekiel 36, “Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you,” verse 25. That’s not talking about water baptism; they didn’t have water baptism back in Ezekiel 36:25 time. What that water is is the cleansing; the cleansing of the conscience. It’s a symbolic use of water.

Then verse 26, “A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you,” that’s the regenerate human spirit, “And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put My Spirit,” verse 27 is the third thing the Holy Spirit. Now that’s the passage that Jesus that Jesus expected Nicodemus to know, and when Nicodemus was in effect saying how can I be saved, how can I enjoy the fruit of my eternal inheritance, that Messianic kingdom that every Jew looked for, how can I enjoy that, Jesus said you’re not going to enjoy the kingdom until you’re born again, born of water and of spirit, and this is the passage He had on his mind. He expected a person knowledgeable in the Old Testament to know what He meant by water and Spirit and what He meant was the cleansing of the conscience and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and He said that’s what gets you into the kingdom of God, nothing else. So baptism wasn’t an issue in John 3 with Nicodemus. All right, this is the passage where cleansing comes out and the heart comes out and this is a passage that’s generally looking forward to the New Covenant.

Let’s go back to Hebrews and let’s see where we stand now. Let’s try again to go through verse 15, this time pick up what we’ve learned. In verse 15, “For this cause,” for what cause, for the cause of cleansing the conscience, the efficacy of Christ’s sacrificial work now in heaven. In other words, Jesus Christ died on the cross, He rose, He sat at the Father’s right hand and from that point forward, whether that was 30AD or 32 AD, whatever year it was, from that point forward here is the heavenly work of Christ and it constantly is cleansing our conscience.

Now that is because Jesus Christ is doing this, this author now claims that makes Him the mediator of the New Covenant, that high priestly work in heaven is what qualifies Jesus Christ to be the mediator of the New Covenant. Why, “because by means of death for the redemption of transgressions under the first covenant,” showing that Old Testament saints, some people asked this, were Old Testament saints saved? Yes, Old Testament saints were saved but their sins were only potentially removed, not actually removed. Jehovah would accept a person who trusted in the promises in the Old Testament, if you want a chart that shows Old Testament salvation here’s the way to look it. Dr. Ryrie is the one who kind of set this thing up. If you look at the object of faith in both the Old Testament and New Testament, the object of faith was God the Son. God the Son, God the Son made known in the typology. How else was God the Son made known in the Old Testament. How did He usually appear? Angel of Jehovah, so you have the angel of Jehovah, people could trust that, Hagar, the mother of all the Arabs, she trusted in Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ appeared to her as the angel of Jehovah and Hagar is a believer. All right, the Son is also shown in the typology of the tabernacle. How else was the Son shown? [someone answers] All right, in life, by the life of David, by prophecies and so on. So the object of faith has remained unchanged from Old to New Testament.

What about the means of salvation? The means of salvation was always grace. Nobody earned salvation in the Old Testament by keeping the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments only showed failure, not success, and so if anyone was to be saved they had to be saved by grace and you get that sensation very clearly from reading the Psalms of David. David knew that his salvation hinged on grace and grace alone. All right, how was salvation appropriated in the Old Testament? By faith. In the New Testament by faith, nothing different there.

Then what did shift between the Old Testament and the New Testament? The content of what was believed, that was a little back in the Old Testament and a lot in the New Testament. That changed. Not faith, not the object of the faith, not the means of appropriation but how much they knew did change. So in the Old Testament, here’s an Old Testament saint, he’s a believer, regenerated. He has trusted in God the Son as far as he can trust. He has responded to the truth available in his era by faith and has been born again. Now this man has a pile of sin here; that sin has been set aside so that he can have a personal relationship to Jehovah but the sin has not been erased from existence, so to speak. It has not been legally removed, it’s just been kind of postponed. This is why, when Jesus Christ went into the Garden of Gethsemane that night He had such tremendous pressure upon Him. The weight of every one of God’s promises to every Old Testament believer hinged on the decision that Jesus would make that night in the garden. Had Jesus Christ rejected God’s will, all the sins that had been legally set aside and postponed in the Old Testament would have gone right back to their credit and these people would never have enjoyed their eternal inheritance. That was one of the things that lay very heavily on Jesus’ mind as he had to make a crucial decision, whether to go to the cross or to avoid the cross. Now fortunately for us and for David and for Solomon and all the rest of them, they must have cheered when the news came down that Jesus Christ decided to follow God’s will and in this verse, 15, this is the verse that states it.

“He, through death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were that first covenant,” in other words, the Old Testament saints have become eternally secure. Now it wasn’t until Jesus Christ could die that the inheritance could be called everlasting. Here’s why; let’s run through it a minute. Here’s an Old Testament saint, let’s make a scenario where Christ fails. The Old Testament saint goes on and here’s his pile of sin. All right, the pile of sin is set aside so he can enjoy a relationship with Jehovah. But as he dies, he goes to a place called Paradise, and in Paradise or Abraham’s bosom, as it’s called in the New Testament, he waits, he doesn’t go to heaven, nobody went to heaven in the Old Testament, he went to a place called Paradise and sat there and waited, and the Old Testament saints waited and waited and waited for centuries until they could get clearance to heaven. They couldn’t get clearance to heaven until that sin had not just been postponed but had been dealt with. So here you have thousands and thousands and thousands of believers waiting in Paradise, waiting to see if Jesus Christ will bring about the promises of Jehovah. And then Jesus Christ does it.

Now this is why up until the cross of Christ no Old Testament could enjoy the everlasting inheritance. It was only a promise to him, he couldn’t even get a piece of the pie. The reason, he could get promises, he could get individual blessings, he could get many things that God would give him but he couldn’t get one piece of that eternal inheritance and the reason he couldn’t, because God said okay, look David, let’s take David, so David is down there and he knew his pile, and so he realized that God would have to deal with his sins or he wasn’t going to make it. Now let’s just suppose God the Father said well, David, you know it’s going to get boring sitting in Paradise for a thousand years, so what I’m going to do, I’m going to take your eternal inheritance, David, and I’m going to give you a piece of it. I’m going to give you, say, part of the resurrection body or something like that, or I’ll give you access to heaven, I’ll give you a piece of your eternal inheritance. So David goes along for a thousand years and he enjoys this piece of his eternal inheritance. Then it comes to the crucial day when Jesus Christ goes to the cross. When Jesus Christ goes to the cross He decides no, I’m not going to do the Father’s will and so Jesus Christ blows it. Now what does the Father have to do to David? He has to take that inheritance away and therefore it’s not an “everlasting inheritance.” It was only temporarily put into his hands.

You can’t have the inheritance permanently put into the hand until that sin is dealt with. That is why verse 15 is talking about, it is not until Jesus Christ finishes the work that the inheritance can be enjoyed, even a piece of it. They could enjoy temporary promises but until Christ’s finished work, all of it was temporary, even paradise was temporary. The only time something permanent could be given, with a non-withdrawal clause, was when the basis, legally, for the work had been secured. Now once Jesus Christ dies, now at the time that Jesus Christ dies, at that point David can receive an everlasting inheritance.

Now, just to see if you got the point, how does an everlasting inheritance differ from a non-everlasting inheritance? What’s the distinction quality? In other words, what is an everlasting inheritance? How does it differ from a non-everlasting inheritance? Why is that word “everlasting” a very, very important word. Why couldn’t any Old Testament saint before Christ enjoy an everlasting inheritance? [someone answers] Well, David could have gotten the beginning back in a thousand BC, he could have had a beginning to it, but why couldn’t it ever have been called an everlasting inheritance. [someone answers] All right, but maybe you’re straining too hard, it’s just the obvious of the word “everlasting.” It’s secure, that’s what the word means. So when you see this word “eternal” in verse 15 I don’t want you to just read through it, hold it there, maybe make a note in your notes or something, that word “eternal” means you can’t get it revoked. That’s the force of the word. In other words, no Old Testament saint could ever have an eternal inheritance and the reason he couldn’t was because it could theoretically be revoked, couldn’t it? If Jesus didn’t do His job couldn’t it have been revoked. Of course it could. After Jesus finishes the work, can it ever be revoked once given? No. So you’ve got a tremendous truth in this one word, “eternal inheritance,” it is given and can’t be revoked. That’s the point.

Well, that’s just one problem in verse 15, now let’s go to something else. Can you imagine, this was a synagogue address and this man probably spent, oh, maybe 1.2 seconds on verse 15, and it shows you the tremendous comprehension and we have Christians, oh you get too fat studying the Word at Lubbock Bible Church. You never get too fat spiritually, people who say that are the biggest ignoramuses in Christianity.

In Hebrews 9:15, let’s go over the middle part and we’ll pull it together. “For this cause,” that is, the enjoying, the actual enjoying of legal forgiveness, it’s been accomplished, you don’t have to come to God and wonder, like a student I was talking to, I don’t think God can forgive me from… dot, dot, dot, dot. Why? Does Jesus Christ forgive you selectively, does He pick which sins He’s going to forgive you and then not forgive you for the other ones? If that’s the case how do we have a complete salvation package. Well, I never though of it that way. Well, this is what forgiveness means. So, “for this cause,” for a complete cleansing of the conscience, Jesus is the mediator of this New Testament, that all the sins of the past are wiped out, and then, “they who are called,” those are the believers, might receive the real thing, not just the promise of it but “received that which was promised.” The best way to translate verse 15, you can just kind of note this in your notes or something is.. .it’s ambiguous the way it’s translated there, you can read it and get two different things out of it, and so to make it not ambiguous you can edit the words to read, “that they who are called might receive the promise, eternal inheritance.” And that way it’ll fix it for you so you won’t stray off into that other thing; the promise, eternal inheritance.

Now we come to Hebrews 9:16-17, that’s very clear, what he’s talking about there, “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.” Now if we are looking back at this word, diatheke, that word has two meanings, a contract or a will. Now in verse 16 and 17 obviously what is he talking about? How is he using diatheke there? It’s a will, so it’s the second meaning, there’s no question about it, that’s what he’s trying to do in verse 16 and 17, so we know how diatheke should be translated in verses 16-17, it means will. [17, “For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives.”

Then in verse 18 he goes on to show how this covenant, the old covenant, was dedicated, not without blood. [18, “Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.”] Now the key word to handle, see what we’re trying to do is the word “will” is a pagan use of the word and the word “contract” is the Old Testament use of this word, and what we’re trying to decide is why all of a sudden, in verses 16-17 does he start using the pagan concept of diatheke. Something’s wrong here, what’s going on, he must have something in mind, he deliberately makes this shift. All right, it can be seen in verse 18 what is on his mind. The word “whereupon,” whereupon what? IN other words, for what reason. Verses 18, 19 and 20, what’s it talking about? [someone answers] He’s talking about sacrifices but what covenant? The Mosaic Covenant, he’s talking about what Moses did when he had spoken every precept to the people according to the Law, he took the blood and he sprinkled it saying this is the blood of the testament which God has enjoined to you.

All right, now this is what is on the mans’ mind, and here is the big breakthrough that this man sees, and with one swoop this man suddenly turns on the light in a room that was kind of gray before. Here’s the problem: All during the Old Testament, let’s look at them, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant or the Covenant of Moses, and let’s go to these verses, I want to show you something about all these covenants. There was a mystery problem with all these covenants and the man has just solved the mystery.

Turn first to the Noahic Covenant in Genesis 8:20, let’s see what happened here. When the Noahic Covenant came into existence, what did Noah do? “Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” And then notice the reaction in verse 21, “And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in His heart,” the covenant was confirmed. You see that, in verse 21 the covenant is confirmed by the sacrifices of verse 20.

Now turn to Genesis 15:17, see what happens here; here’s the Abrahamic Covenant, “It came to pass that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp passed between those pieces,” now the pieces are pieces of animals that have died, and God is swearing the allegiance of the Abrahamic Covenant. Just notice this.

Now turn to one more passage, Exodus 24, we’ve seen the Noahic Covenant, it was a sacrifice; we’ve seen the Abrahamic Covenant, it was a sacrifice. In Exodus 24:3, “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words that the Lord has said we will do. [4] And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar….” Verse 5, “And he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. [6] And Mosses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. [7] And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people, and they said, All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” By the way, do you know what he did in verse 7? He read the entire Law to them. Now you just go home and read Deuteronomy to yourself with a stop watch and figure out how long… and Deuteronomy is just part of the original Law, and that’s what Moses did. He expected people to have the ability to concentrate for two or three hours at a time while he read them God’s commandments. And these people, you see, didn’t have notes, no paper, no ball point pens, it was all up here. Verse 8, “And then Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words.” And the covenant is sealed.

Now here’s what this man thought. The man who wrote Hebrews noticed that the word was translated “contract,” berith, the Hebrew word berith. It was translated into Greek as diatheke; diatheke meant will, and suddenly it dawned on this man, those weren’t contracts in the Old Testament, those were wills, somebody died every time God invoked one. Those contracts didn’t become operational until there was a sacrifice and after Jesus Christ died it suddenly dawned on this man, why of course, now I see what was going on with the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant. Every time before those contracts would go into operation God had us go through all this big deal with the ritual and the sacrifice. Now I see, because he’s just in Hebrews 9 and earlier he’s identified Christ as the sacrifice, now he makes this breakthrough and he says why of course, Jesus is the sacrifice fulfillment, therefore it is Christ’s death that brings into operation the New Covenant. And it is Jesus Christ’s death on the cross that is looked forward to in every one of those contracts. They weren’t contracts between the living and the living, they were contracts between the living and the dead. Jesus Christ would die and after death, then His people received their grace.

So let’s turn back to Hebrews 9 and see how… it’s very easy once you see this point to move on and finish out the passage. He’s made the breakthrough and for the author of Hebrews he has not told us something vital about the Old Testament. Those were not contracts in the commonly used sense of the word, they were all testaments. Now isn’t it ironic, you could say ironic or kind of by an accident, isn’t interesting that what are these called? The Old Testament and the New Testament, and now after studying this passage you should have renewed appreciation, that’s exactly what this is. This is the old will and this is the new will and “testament” is precisely the right word for it, the Old and the New Testaments.

Now there’s one more thing and that’s in verse 20 and this is one of those fine points about Scripture, we’ll examine verse 20 and see the interesting point made and then summarize what we’ve done. In Hebrews 9:20 we have a quotation from Exodus 24 that we just read. I want to go back to that Exodus 24 passage to show you something, and as you read Exodus 24 see if you can notice where the author of Hebrews has changed one word when he quoted it. Exodus 24:8, [“And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words.”] look at that part that he quotes in Hebrews 9:20 and see if you can see the one word that he shifted. He’s quoting Moses but he doesn’t quote him exactly. Does anybody see what it is? How does Moses start? “Behold,” and in Hebrews 9:20 “this is,” now that might seem a little different.

Let me say a few things about this difference, you’re going to see something very interesting. And pay attention to this little point because this is the answer that you often get hit with, hey, the Bible can’t be inerrant because verse 20 isn’t an exact quote of Moses. But verse 20 is a quote of the sense of Moses and that’s all that is needed to substantiate inerrancy. Inerrancy does not mean that when a quotation is made it has to be a direct quotation. What are the two kinds of quotation in the English language. [someone answers] How do recognize a direct quotation? With quotation marks. How do you recognize an indirect quotation in the English language. [someone answers] Usually you have “that.”

Now the point is in the Greek there is no way to distinguish direct and indirect quotes. In some places you can but as a general rule you can’t. Therefore this means that when you have quotations in the New Testament you cannot prove that the author intended to directly quote. Until you can prove that the author did intend to directly quote word for word and then you see a mistake, then three’s a problem. But you can’t prove and no critic ever has proved that when the authors quote people of the Old Testament they ever intend to quote them literally. There is a freedom and a liberty that the Holy Spirit gives these men to quote the sense.

Now we’re not through with “this is.” “This is,” now as you read verse 20 and you realize that he wiped out the word “behold,” and he replaced it with “this is,” and he goes on, “This is the blood of the testament,” is that phrase ever repeated around here once in a while? Where? Communion. Now let’s look at the communion passages when Christ was at the last supper. Matthew 26:28, when Jesus Christ got up in the last supper every word that came out of Jesus Christ’s mouth taught doctrine. Jesus never wasted a minute; every time He opened His mouth…doctrine! And when Jesus Christ got up in that supper there were a lot of ignorant believers right next to him, within feet. And these men never caught on to what He was saying until years later…years later, so if it takes you time to catch on, feel you’re in good company, so it took time for the apostles to catch on. These people sat there and watched Jesus break the bread and then they watched Him reach for the cup of redemption, which was the third cup, and when Jesus picked up the cup He uttered a set of words, “This is the blood of the New Testament,” those words were meant to be a quotation from Exodus and what Jesus was saying is this is the testamental character of the New Covenant.

And the author of Hebrews has just made the discovery, and so when he quotes for us in Hebrews 9 he deliberately drops the “Behold” out, replaces it with “This is,” to draw our attention back to communion. Back to the words that Christ used in the last supper. Let’s turn back to Hebrews 9 and look at this. You see what he’s doing; in Hebrews 9:20 he twists, ever so slightly, the quotation from Moses. And by this little twist he’s saying look Christians, do you see the similarity? When Jesus Christ picked up that cup and He said “this is” the blood He was thereby proclaiming that this new contract is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic, the fulfillment of the Sinaitic, the fulfillment of the Davidic, all of it wrapped it up in one when He said “this is” the blood.

Let’s look further, “This is the blood of the testament which God has made” or “urged upon you.” That’s Moses, Jesus says “This is the blood of the New Testament which is shed…” which I make for the remission of sins. Do you see the way Jesus uses quotes what he was claiming. This is one of those little things that you have to think about it for a minute, and remember, these men spent years thinking about it so in five minutes we can’t get all of it. But what had happened here is Jesus was claiming to be equal to Jehovah at the moment He said this. “This is My blood,” … “This is MY blood.” Now in the Old Testament it was Jehovah’s ordained sacrifices and when Jesus has the audacity to pick up that third cup and say “This is My blood” He is saying this, I am Jehovah and this is the sacrifice that establishes the covenant I make with you. See, it’s a clear proclamation of Christ’s deity, He’s acting as the Jehovah of the Old Testament. During such an innocent thing that probably every person in the room, every person in the room in the last supper probably did not get the point. It was only years later when they began to think, what did He say? “This is My blood,” that it dawned on them who Jesus was and what He was saying. Now they knew who Jesus was but I mean through this verse.

Very quickly summarizing Hebrews 9:21-22, “Moreover,” Moses “sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. [22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission.” So the conclusion of this passage, why was it necessary for Jesus Christ to die on the cross, ascend to be at the Father’s right hand, act as a priest who would continue to cleanse our conscience? Cleanse…conscience? Because when Jesus Christ ascended to the throne and had shed His blood, at that point the New Covenant springs into effect and now God is free to give us a piece of that pie. And no one can ever take it away from us, it is an irreversible act of history. Satan can come against you with all the onslaughts he wants to and all the principalities and the powers of darkness can trick you into thinking that you haven’t got security and even while you think you don’t have security, you’ve got it. They can’t erase it and the powers of hell are helpless against it now. Satan has been defeated; the only thing that Satan can do to hurt you is to make you think you don’t have what you really have but He can’t take it away, He can’t stop it, it’s too late for Satan. All he can do is fog up the issue so you don’t see where you’re going but that is all right; in one sense you still don’t lose your security.

Father, we thank You……