Hebrews 9:20 · Bible study
Hebrews 9:20 Commentary: Blood of the Covenant
Greek · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why does Paul quote Exodus with 'commanded'? The old covenant's blood dedication points to Christ's better sacrifice. Detailed study with Greek exegesis.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Paul adapts Exodus 24:8, substituting 'commanded' for 'made,' to stress God's sovereign initiative in the covenant, fulfilled in Christ's blood.
- Key words: αἷμα (blood), διαθήκης (covenant/testament), ἐνετείλατο (commanded). The verb shift highlights God's authority over the arrangement.
- Main debate: Whether the verb change primarily stresses God's sovereignty or serves as a literary echo of Christ's words at the Last Supper.
- Theological theme: Covenant inauguration through blood sacrifice, pointing to the necessity and sufficiency of Christ's atonement.
- Best use: Connecting the Old Testament ritual of covenant ratification to the New Testament institution of the Lord's Supper.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
saying, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”
WEB World English Bible 2000
saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”
KJV King James Version 1769
Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
saying, `This is the blood of the covenant that God enjoined unto you,'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
saying, This [is] the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined to you.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Saying: This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Diciendo: Esta es la sangre del testamento que Dios os|strong="G4314, G5209" ha mandado.
dizendo: Este é o sangue do pacto que Deus ordenou para vós.
Ceci est le sang de l’ alliance que Dieu a ordonnée pour vous.
und sprach: “ Das ist das Blut des Testaments, das Gott euch geboten hat.”
Zeggende: Dit is het bloed des testaments, hetwelk God aan ulieden heeft geboden.
dicendo: Questo è il sangue del patto che Dio ha ordinato sia fatto con voi.
Mówiąc: Tać jest krew przymierza, które wam Bóg przykazał.
говоря: это кровь завета, который заповедал вам Бог.
「這 血 就是 神 與 你們 立 約 的憑據。」
Saying, This blood is the sign of the agreement which God has made with you.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Hebrews 9:20
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators broadly agree that Paul reshapes his quotation of Exodus 24:8 to drive home a specific theological point. He is not simply reciting the Old Testament but adapting it for his argument about Christ's superior sacrifice.
Barnes focuses on the shift from 'made' to 'commanded' (eneteilato). In a genuine covenant between equals, one party does not command the other. Paul's verb choice shows that God's arrangement with Israel was a sovereign dispensation. God prescribed the terms; Israel received them. This pushes back against any notion that the old covenant was a negotiation.
Calvin reads the verse as a model for how sacraments work. Moses did not sprinkle blood in silence. He declared, 'This is the blood of the covenant.' For Calvin, the Word must precede the sign. Without the explanation, the sacrament is a dead element. The verse therefore grounds Christian worship in the combination of promise and sign.
Clarke and J.F.B. note the echo of Christ's words at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20). Paul's wording aligns the ritual of Sinai with the institution of the Lord's Supper, showing that the blood of the old covenant was always pointing toward the blood of the new. The verse pulls the entire biblical story together: God commands a relationship, seals it with blood, and fulfills it in His Son.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Sovereign Command View: Paul's use of ἐνετείλατο (commanded) instead of 'made' highlights God's absolute authority in the covenant, which is not a negotiation between equals (Barnes, Calvin).
- Covenant Inauguration View: The focus is on the type/antitype structure: the old covenant had to be ratified by blood (Exodus 24), which foreshadows the new covenant ratified by Christ's superior blood (Gill, Matthew Henry).
- Sacramental Echo View: The specific phrasing 'This is the blood' echoes Christ's words at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20), framing the entire argument as a direct typological predecessor to Christian worship (Clarke, J. F. B., Cambridge).
What is clear: The old covenant was solemnly dedicated with sacrificial blood, pointing to the necessity and reality of Christ's superior sacrifice that establishes the new covenant.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The meaning of διαθήκη (testament vs covenant) | Paul leverages both meanings. The word covers a 'last will' that takes effect at death and a 'covenant' that establishes a relationship. | Some, like Matthew Henry, emphasize the 'testament' idea to stress the inheritance through death. Others maintain that 'covenant' is the primary meaning, with the 'will' metaphor serving as a supporting illustration for the necessity of death. |
| Why Paul changed 'made' to 'commanded' | The change is deliberate and holds theological weight. | Barnes and Calvin argue it highlights God's unilateral authority (a sovereign dispensation, not a pact). J.F.B. and the Cambridge Bible suggest the wording may primarily echo Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper. |
| The role of the Word in the sacrament | Both the word and the sign are essential for a proper Christian sacrament. | Calvin argued the Word is the soul of the sacrament; without the explanatory Word, the element is dead. Other traditions hold that grace is communicated through the sacrament itself, with the Word providing the interpretive context rather than the efficient cause. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The ceremony Paul describes took place at Mount Sinai, recorded in Exodus 24. After receiving the law, Moses built an altar, sacrificed burnt offerings and peace offerings, and collected the blood in basins. He read the Book of the Covenant aloud to the people, who pledged their obedience. Then Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, 'Look, this is the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has made with you concerning all these words' (Exodus 24:8).
Paul's quotation departs from both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint. The Hebrew uses karat ('cut' or 'made'), and the Septuagint uses dietheto ('covenanted'). Paul replaces these with eneteilato ('commanded'). As Barnes argues, this shift is deliberate. It removes any hint of mutuality. God did not enter into a compact with Israel as one equal with another. He issued a sovereign decree that established the terms of the relationship. The covenant was a gift that carried obligation.
The immediate context of Hebrews 9 colors the quotation further. Paul has just compared the covenant to a will or testament (diatheke) that only takes effect upon the death of the testator (vv. 16, 17). The blood of the old covenant, shed over animals, foreshadows the death of Christ. When Paul quotes Moses saying 'This is the blood of the covenant,' he is connecting that ancient moment to the present reality of the cross. The Cambridge Bible suggests that Paul's wording also echoes Christ's words at the Last Supper, stitching the old and new covenants together with the same phrase.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Hebrews 9:20. The text is well-established across the manuscript tradition. Paul's departure from the Hebrew and Septuagint wording is not a scribal correction but a deliberate theological adaptation of the Exodus source material.
Reception History
Calvin's reading of this verse deeply shaped Reformed sacramental theology. He used the joining of the spoken word and the sprinkled blood to argue that the Lord's Supper loses its meaning without the proclamation of the Gospel. Later commentators such as Barnes and Gill focused on the word 'commanded' to argue for the sovereign, unilateral character of God's covenant grace. In evangelical preaching, the verse is commonly linked to the Words of Institution at Communion, reinforcing the typological connection between Sinai and the cross. Across traditions, Hebrews 9:20 has served as a key text for understanding how the old covenant ceremonies prefigure Christ's once-for-all sacrifice.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Word Must Precede the Sign. Moses spoke before he sprinkled. The promise made the ritual meaningful. Without the Word, the blood is just blood. This guards the church against empty ritualism.
- God Commands, He Does Not Negotiate. The covenant is a sovereign dispensation. Salvation does not originate in human decision or bargaining. It begins with God's command, which is both an order and an invitation.
- The Blood Speaks of a Better Covenant. The blood of bulls and goats could never remove sin (Hebrews 10:4). But this ceremony trains the eye to look for the One whose blood actually cleanses the conscience and secures an eternal inheritance.
Five-point outline
- The Covenant Is Initiated by God. The verb 'commanded' places God as the source of the relationship.
- The Covenant Requires a Sacrifice. The sprinkling of blood shows that approaching God costs something.
- The Word Is Joined to the Sign. The ritual is not magical. It is attached to a promise that must be heard and believed.
- The Old Points to the New. The old covenant ceremony is a type. It was never meant to stand alone.
- Christ's Blood Ratifies the Eternal Inheritance. The testator had to die. Jesus died. The will is now in force. Those who are called receive the promise.
Illustration hooks
- A will. A document has no power until its author dies. The old covenant animals died in the place of the testator. Christ died in person. The inheritance is now open.
- A royal proclamation. A king does not bargain with his subjects. He announces the terms. The covenant is a declaration of grace and law from the throne.
- A wedding ring without the vows. A ring is just metal unless words of promise are spoken over it. The Word makes the sign meaningful, just as the spoken promise makes the Lord's Supper what it is.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why does Paul change the words of the Old Testament? Is that allowed?
- What does this verse have to do with taking Communion?
- If the old covenant was commanded, does that mean God forced Israel into the relationship?
Leading a Discussion
This verse pulls us back to Sinai and forward to the cross. Moses stood before a people who had just heard the law, and he sealed their agreement with blood. Paul borrows that moment to show that every covenant God makes with His people is grounded in sacrifice. The word 'commanded' is the key: God initiates, provides, and seals. There is no room for human earning, only grateful receiving.
Discussion questions
- Read Exodus 24:3, 8. What did the people promise? What did Moses do with the blood? How do you think the people felt during this ceremony?
- Compare Exodus 24:8 with Hebrews 9:20. What words did Paul change? Why do you think he made those changes?
- Barnes says the word 'commanded' removes the idea that the covenant was a contract between equals. Does that change how you view your relationship with God?
- If God commands the covenant, what does that imply about human responsibility and God's grace?
- Calvin insisted that the word must accompany the sign. How does this shape your understanding of the Lord's Supper?
- How does the 'testament' language in verses 16, 17 help explain why Christ had to die?
- What assurance does this verse give you that God keeps His promises?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Exodus 24:8 | Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Look, this is the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has made with you concerning all these words.” |
| Deuteronomy 29:12 | that you may enter into the covenant of Yahweh your God, and into his oath, which Yahweh your God makes with you today, |
| Joshua 9:6 | They went to Joshua at the camp at Gilgal, and said to him and to the men of Israel, “We have come from a far country. Now therefore make a covenant with us.” |
| Zechariah 9:11 | As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant, I have set free your prisoners from the pit in which is no water. |
| Matthew 26:28 | for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. |
| Hebrews 13:20 | Now may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an eternal covenant, our Lord Jesus, |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke notes that Jesus deliberately echoes Moses' words when instituting the Lord's Supper. By quoting the language of the old covenant, Jesus identifies His own shed blood as the reality that the earlier blood sacrifices only symbolized. Remission of sins comes through Christ's blood alone.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes highlights Paul's careful choice of the word "enjoined" rather than "agreed" when describing the covenant sealed with blood. This shows the relationship is not a mutual compact between equals; God retains the right to command, while humanity is called to embrace what He solemnly arranges and ratifies.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator rejects the idea that the writer of Exodus borrowed Jesus' words from the Last Supper, arguing that such a reference would not have been left unmentioned. He then clarifies the text to mean God commanded the covenant specifically for the people, delivered through Moses.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note stresses that this covenant is not a mutual contract but a testament God alone has ordained. Christ’s blood seals what God decreed, making it certain for those to whom it is appointed.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill draws a direct link between the covenant inauguration in Exodus 24 and the phrase in Hebrews. He points out that the people’s promise to obey, combined with the blood sprinkled by Moses, confirms that the first covenant was established and validated through blood.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB highlights that the Greek word "diathece" means both "covenant" and "testament." Here Christ's blood seals the new testament, with the old covenant's animal sacrifices only typifying this. Paul omits the condition of obedience from the old covenant because in the new, Christ fulfills it for our justification and works in us through the Spirit.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange reads the Greek word diatheke here in its specific legal sense of a last will and testament, not a covenant, because the surrounding context is about an inheritance. He argues that a testator's death is legally required for a will to take effect, and this illustrates why Christ's death was practically necessary to deliver the promised blessings of salvation.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry draws a careful distinction: the gospel is not only a covenant but specifically a testament, a last will that only takes effect when the testator dies. This explains why Christ's death was absolutely necessary, not merely symbolic—the promised inheritance could not be received until the testator had died and the will became legally binding.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley emphasizes that the blood Moses presented was not merely a symbol but the very means by which God established the covenant. The declaration "This is the blood of the covenant" means the agreement between God and his people was ratified and made binding through that blood.