John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 9:18

"Wherefore even the first [covenant] hath not been dedicated without blood." — Hebrews 9:18 (ASV)

Whereupon neither the first, etc. From this it appears that the fact is what is mainly emphasized, and that it is not a question about the specific word, though the Apostle adapted a word that came to his attention in the language in which he wrote for his own purpose. This is as if someone, while speaking of God’s covenant, which is often called μαρτυρία (a testimony) in Greek, were to recommend it, among other things, under that title.

Undoubtedly, that is a testimony (μαρτυρία) to which angels from heaven have borne witness, and for which there have been so many illustrious witnesses on earth—all the holy Prophets, Apostles, and a vast number of martyrs—and for which, at last, the Son of God himself became a guarantor.

No one in such a discussion would consider anything of that sort unreasonable. And yet the Hebrew word תעודה does not carry such a meaning as 'covenant'; but since nothing is put forward except what is consistent with the matter itself, excessive attention should not be paid to the precise meaning of a word.

The Apostle then says that the old testament or covenant was dedicated with blood. From this he concludes that people were reminded even then that it could not be valid and efficacious unless death intervened. For though the blood of animals was then shed, yet he denies that it was sufficient to ratify an everlasting covenant.

So that this may appear more clearly, we must note the custom of sprinkling, which he quotes from Moses. He first teaches us that the covenant was dedicated or consecrated—not because it had anything profane in itself. But since there is nothing so holy that people by their uncleanness do not defile it unless God prevents this by making a renewal of all things, therefore, the dedication was made on account of people, who alone needed it.

He afterwards adds that the tabernacle and all the vessels, and also the very book of the law, were sprinkled. By this rite the people were then taught that God could not be sought or looked to for salvation, nor rightly worshipped, unless faith in every case looked to an intervening blood.

For the majesty of God is justly to be dreaded by us, and the way to His presence is nothing to us but a dangerous labyrinth until we know that He is appeased toward us through the blood of Christ, and that this blood affords us free access. All kinds of worship are then faulty and impure until Christ cleanses them by the sprinkling of His blood.

For the tabernacle was a kind of visible image of God; and as the vessels for ministry were designated for His service, so they were symbols of true worship.

But since none of these brought salvation to the people, we therefore reasonably conclude that where Christ does not appear with His blood, we have nothing to do with God. So doctrine itself, however unchangeable God's will may be, cannot be efficacious for our benefit unless it is dedicated by blood, as is plainly set forth in this verse.

I know that others offer a different interpretation; for they consider the tabernacle to be the body of the Church, and the vessels to be the faithful, whose ministry God uses. But what I have stated is much more appropriate. For whenever God was to be called upon, they turned themselves toward the sanctuary; and it was a common way of speaking to say that they stood before the Lord when they appeared in the temple.