Hebrews 9:15-22
A timeless, oft-quoted verse: …without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (v. 22b)
Something new hit me when I read this morning’s passage in my NASB translation: …a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant… (v. 15b) Jesus is the “death that has taken place”. In doing so, the verse says that He REDEEMED violations that occurred under the first covenant. Does that mean that under the old covenant, sins/violations were not redeemed, never fully forgiven, but only “covered”? Like our parents might have said when meting out justice, “It’s OK for now, I’ll deal with you later.” So those daily sacrifices only “covered” their sins? And even that once-a-year entry by the high priest into the Holy of Holies, the same…? A covering, but not full forgiveness? I commented a few days ago about the contrast between the death of an animal covering sins (animal for man) and Jesus’ death fully redeeming sins (man for man). Wondering…
For where there is a covenant, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when people are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. (vv. 16-17, NASB) The word “covenant” is translated “will” in the ESV and “testament” in the NKJV. Thinking of this “will” translation and applying it for today, basically beneficiaries have nothing under the will until the death of the one who made the will. And the same was true back then. Unless the father gave something during his lifetime (e.g., the parable of “The Prodigal Son”), the children did not inherit anything until the father died. Only with the death is the will in force. Verse 18 goes on to say, Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. In these three verses (16-18) the writer is drawing a parallel between our physical death and our spiritual death (sin). Only with Jesus’ death could we find full forgiveness of our sins.
Slava Bohu!