Hebrews 12:24

_ _ new — not the usual term (kaine) applied to the Christian covenant (Hebrews 9:15), which would mean new as different from, and superseding the old; but Greek, “nea,” “recent,” “lately established,” having the “freshness of youth,” as opposed to age. The mention of Jesus, the Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2), and Himself perfected through sufferings and death, in His resurrection and ascension (Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 5:9), is naturally suggested by the mention of “the just made perfect” at their resurrection (compare Hebrews 7:22). Paul uses “Jesus,” dwelling here on Him as the Person realized as our loving friend, not merely in His official character as the Christ.

_ _ and to the blood of sprinkling — here enumerated as distinct from “Jesus.” Bengel reasonably argues as follows: His blood was entirely “poured out” of His body by the various ways in which it was shed, His bloody sweat, the crown of thorns, the scourging, the nails, and after death the spear, just as the blood was entirely poured out and extravasated from the animal sacrifices of the law. It was incorruptible (1 Peter 1:18, 1 Peter 1:19). No Scripture states it was again put into the Lord’s body. At His ascension, as our great High Priest, He entered the heavenly holiest place “BY His own blood” (not after shedding His blood, nor with the blood in His body, but), carrying it separately from his body (compare the type, Hebrews 9:7, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 13:11). Paul does not say, by the efficacy of His blood, but, “by His own proper blood” (Hebrews 9:12); not MATERIAL blood, but “the blood of Him who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot unto God” (Hebrews 9:14). So in Hebrews 10:29, the Son of God and the blood of the covenant wherewith he (the professor) was sanctified, are mentioned separately. Also in Hebrews 13:12, Hebrews 13:20; also compare Hebrews 10:19, with Hebrews 10:21. So in the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:24-26), the body and blood are separately represented. The blood itself, therefore, continues still in heaven before God, the perpetual ransom price of “the eternal covenant” (Hebrews 13:20). Once for all Christ sprinkled the blood peculiarly for us at His ascension (Hebrews 9:12). But it is called “the blood of sprinkling,” on account also of its continued use in heaven, and in the consciences of the saints on earth (Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:22; Isaiah 52:15). This sprinkling is analogous to the sprinkled blood of the Passover. Compare Revelation 5:6, “In the midst of the throne, a Lamb as it had been slain.” His glorified body does not require meat, nor the circulation of the blood. His blood introduced into heaven took away the dragon’s right to accuse. Thus Rome’s theory of concomitancy of the blood with the body, the excuse for giving only the bread to the laity, falls to the ground. The mention of “the blood of sprinkling” naturally follows the mention of the “covenant,” which could not be consecrated without blood (Hebrews 9:18, Hebrews 9:22).

_ _ speaketh better things than that of Abel — namely, than the sprinkling (the best manuscripts read the article masculine, which refers to “sprinkling,” not to “blood,” which last is neuter) of blood by Abel in his sacrifice spake. This comparison between two things of the same kind (namely, Christ’s sacrifice, and Abel’s sacrifice) is more natural, than between two things different in kind and in results (namely, Christ’s sacrifice, and Abel’s own blood [Alford], which was not a sacrifice at all); compare Hebrews 11:4; Genesis 4:4. This accords with the whole tenor of the Epistle, and of this passage in particular (Hebrews 12:18-22), which is to show the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice and the new covenant, to the Old Testament sacrifices (of which Abel’s is the first recorded; it, moreover, was testified to by God as acceptable to Him above Cain’s), compare Hebrews 9:1-10:39. The word “better” implies superiority to something that is good: but Abel’s own blood was not at all good for the purpose for which Christ’s blood was efficacious; nay, it cried for vengeance. So Archbishop Magee, Hammond, and Knatchbull. Bengel takes “the blood of Abel” as put for all the blood shed on earth crying for vengeance, and greatly increasing the other cries raised by sin in the world; counteracted by the blood of Christ calmly speaking in heaven for us, and from heaven to us. I prefer Magee’s view. Be this as it may, to deny that Christ’s atonement is truly a propitiation, overthrows Christ’s priesthood, makes the sacrifices of Moses’ law an unmeaning mummery, and represents Cain’s sacrifice as good as that of Abel.