Hebrews 9:22 · Bible study
Hebrews 9:22 Commentary: Without Blood, No Remission
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore Hebrews 9:22: the necessity of blood for forgiveness, the meaning of 'almost all things,' and reconciling Old Testament exceptions.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The Mosaic law teaches that forgiveness of sins requires the shedding of blood, though there are limited exceptions (“almost”).
- Key words: σχεδὸν (almost), αἱματεκχυσίας (blood-shedding), ἄφεσις (remission/forgiveness), γίνεται (takes place/occurs).
- Main debate: How to reconcile the absolute-sounding second clause with Old Testament instances of forgiveness without animal blood (e.g., David’s repentance, grain offering for the poor).
- Theological theme: The necessity of substitutionary atonement, sin requires a life for a life, fulfilled in Christ.
- Best use: A cornerstone for teaching the purpose of Christ’s suffering and the seriousness of sin.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
WEB World English Bible 2000
According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.
KJV King James Version 1769
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
and almost all things are purified with blood according to the law, and without blood-shedding there is no remission.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y casi todo es purificado según la ley con sangre; y sin derramamiento de sangre no se hace remisión.
Segundo a Lei, quase todas as coisas são purificadas com sangue, e sem derramamento de sangue não há perdão de pecados.
Et presque tout, d’ après la loi, est purifié avec du sang, et sans effusion de sang il n’ y a pas de pardon.
Und es wird fast alles mit Blut gereinigt nach dem Gesetz; und ohne Blut vergießen geschieht keine Vergebung.
En alle dingen worden bijna door bloed gereinigd naar de wet, en zonder bloedstorting geschiedt geen vergeving.
E secondo la legge, quasi ogni cosa è purificata con sangue; e senza spargimento di sangue non c’è remissione.
A niemal wszystko według zakonu krwią oczyszczone bywa, a bez rozlania krwi nie bywa odpuszczenie grzechów.
Да и все почти по закону очищается кровью, и без пролития крови не бывает прощения.
按著 律法，凡物 差不多 都是用 血 潔淨的；若不 流血，罪就 不 得 赦免了。
And by the law almost all things are made clean with blood, and without blood there is no forgiveness.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Hebrews 9:22
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that this verse states a foundational Old Testament principle: remission of sins does not happen apart from the shedding of blood. The word σχεδὸν (almost) is critical. As Vincent notes, it modifies both clauses, not all things were purified with blood, and the rule about remission is also given with this qualification. Barnes and Calvin point out that things like metals and garments were purified by fire or water (Numbers 31:22-24). Yet when the matter is forgiveness of sin, the principle holds universally. Clarke adds that even the exceptional grain offering for the poor (Leviticus 5:11-13) was permitted only within a system where blood atonement was the norm; the offering derived its meaning from the blood sacrifices it replaced. The writer does not explain why blood is necessary; the Cambridge Bible states he simply presents it as a revealed fact. This verse does not stand alone, it concludes the argument that the first covenant was inaugurated with blood (v. 18-21), and it introduces the superior blood of Christ (v. 23-26). The combined testimony of these scholars is that the text affirms a divine pattern: where sin is to be forgiven, a life must be given.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Strict literal reading: If 'no remission' is taken absolutely, then any Old Testament forgiveness must have been implicitly based on blood (either animal or the future blood of Christ). This view relies on a typological reading of the whole Old Testament.
- General principle with exceptions: The word 'almost' (σχεδόν) and the explicit Old Testament examples of grain offerings and David's repentance show that God sometimes forgave without animal blood, but as an act of mercy within a system that normally required blood. This reading prioritizes the narrative and legal texts of the Old Testament.
What is clear: The verse affirms that under the Mosaic law, the divinely appointed means for obtaining forgiveness of sins was through the shedding of blood in sacrifice, and that this pattern points to the necessity of Christ's sacrifice for complete remission.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The meaning of 'almost all things' (σχεδὸν πάντα) | The word signals that not every purification under the law was performed with blood; some used water, fire, or ash. | Whether 'almost' also qualifies the second clause about remission. Some (Vincent) argue it does, meaning the writer makes a general statement with known exceptions. Others (Calvin, Barnes) hold that while ceremonial purifications could be water or fire, forgiveness of sin specifically always required blood, so 'almost' does not relax the second claim. |
| Old Testament forgiveness without animal blood | All recognize that the Old Testament records cases where forgiveness was declared without an animal sacrifice (David in Psalm 51, the grain offering in Leviticus 5:11-13 for the poor). | Some see these as genuine exceptions within a system that normally requires blood, but still grounded in God's mercy. Others (Clarke, Gill) maintain that the grain offering was still an act of substitution pointing to blood, and that David's forgiveness was anticipated through the coming sacrifice of Christ. |
| The necessity of the cross | The verse is taken as evidence that Christ's blood was necessary for final forgiveness; the old covenant's blood prefigures it. | Christians agree that Christ's death was necessary, but differ on whether the verse proves a specific atonement theory (penal substitution vs. Christus Victor). The supplied commentators (Barnes, Calvin) lean toward a substitutionary view. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The immediate context is Hebrews 9:16-22, where the author argues that a testament (or covenant) requires the death of the testator. He then recalls Moses' actions at Sinai (Exodus 24:6-8): when the law was given, Moses sprinkled blood on the book and on the people, declaring, “This is the blood of the covenant.” The tabernacle and its vessels were also purified with blood. This ceremony established the principle that the covenant relationship with God could only be inaugurated through a sacrificial death.
The phrase “almost all things” recognizes the few exceptions in the Law. Vessels could be purified by fire (Numbers 31:23), and some washings involved water alone. The Day of Atonement rituals and the red heifer ceremony (Numbers 19) show the prominence of blood, but also the use of water and fire for certain purifications. However, these were purifications of things, not forgiveness of sins. When the Old Testament speaks of forgiveness, it is almost always connected to blood sacrifice, either directly through the offering or through the system that the offering represented.
Jewish tradition itself had a maxim: “There is no expiation except by blood” (Yoma 5:1, cited by Clarke and Gill). This reflects the common understanding in Second Temple Judaism. The author of Hebrews writes to Jewish Christians who might be tempted to return to the temple system. He uses their own Scriptural principles to show that the old system was incomplete and pointed forward. The phrase “without shedding of blood” (χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας) uses a rare Greek word for blood-shedding, found only here in the New Testament, emphasizing the violent death of the victim.
Forgiveness (ἄφεσις) carries the sense of release or remission of a debt. This word, common in Luke and Acts, appears here to stress that sin is a debt that must be canceled. The Old Testament sacrificial system provided a temporary remedy, but it could not take away sins permanently (Hebrews 10:4). The verse thus sets the stage for the author's main point: if the shadow required blood, the reality requires the blood of Christ. Without his sacrifice, there is no lasting remission.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Hebrews 9:22. The Greek text is stable across the major manuscripts. The phrase χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας (without shedding of blood) is unique to this verse in the New Testament, and its form is undisputed.
Reception History
This verse has been a key text in discussions of the atonement throughout church history. Early writers like John Chrysostom (quoted by Calvin) used it to argue that the Old Testament sacrifices pointed to something greater. During the Reformation, both Catholic and Protestant interpreters agreed on the necessity of Christ's blood, but Protestants (as seen in Calvin, Wesley, and later Barnes) emphasized that this verse rules out any human work as a substitute for the cross. Modern evangelical and reformed scholarship (Gill, Vincent, the Cambridge Bible) continues to examine the tension between the absolute statement and the Old Testament exceptions, often concluding that the verse states a general principle about the means of forgiveness established by God. Jewish tradition itself, as Clarke and Gill note, had a parallel maxim: 'There is no expiation except by blood.' This shows the verse was grounded in a shared Jewish understanding, which the writer uses to argue for the superiority of Christ's sacrifice.
Preaching This Verse
Three-Point Outline
- The Principle Established, Under the Law, God ordained that blood be the means of purification. This is not a human invention but a divine pattern. Sin leads to death; blood symbolizes life poured out (Leviticus 17:11).
- The Provision of “Almost”, God allowed exceptions for the poor and for ceremonial impurities. These exceptions show God’s mercy within the system, but they do not negate the general rule. The exceptions still pointed to the need for blood ultimately.
- The Final Fulfillment in Christ, Jesus offered his own blood once for all. He did not just cover sin; he removed it. The old covenant’s blood rituals are fulfilled and superseded by his perfect sacrifice.
Five-Point Outline
- The centrality of blood in the Old Testament sacrificial system.
- The meaning of “almost”, exceptions that prove the rule.
- The poverty provision (Leviticus 5:11-13), a test case of mercy without contradiction.
- The connection to the new covenant: Christ’s blood as the once-for-all sacrifice.
- The assurance this gives: if God accepted animal blood as a shadow, how much more will he accept the blood of his Son for our forgiveness.
Illustration Hooks
- Debt cancellation, When a debt is forgiven, someone must absorb the loss. Blood represents the life that pays the debt sin accumulated.
- Transaction cost, The “almost” reminds us that God is both merciful and just. He can grant exceptions, but the principle of cost remains. The cross shows the ultimate cost.
- Emergency room analogy, A life-threatening wound requires a blood transfusion. Sin is a life-threatening condition; only the blood of Christ can restore life.
Questions Your Congregation Is Asking
- Does this mean God is angry and needs to be appeased by blood?
- What about people before Christ who were forgiven without knowing about Jesus?
- How does this affect our understanding of repentance and forgiveness today?
Leading a Discussion
This verse can seem stark. But it sits in a rich biblical context where God’s justice and mercy meet. Use these questions to help your group see both the seriousness of sin and the wonder of the cross.
Discussion Questions
- Observation: Read Hebrews 9:16-22. What events from the Old Testament does the author point to? Why does he mention blood repeatedly?
- Interpretation: The word “almost” (σχεδὸν) modifies the entire statement. Why do you think the author includes this word? What exceptions come to mind from the Law (Leviticus 5:11-13, Numbers 31:22-24)?
- Interpretation: The Greek for “remission” (ἄφεσις) means release or cancellation of a debt. How does this shape how you think about forgiveness?
- Connection: How does this verse connect to the death of Christ described in verses 24-28? What does “better sacrifices” (v.23) mean?
- Application: Some people today think forgiveness is automatic or free without cost. How does this verse challenge that view? How does it offer comfort instead?
- Application: If you struggle to feel forgiven, what does this verse tell you about God’s provision? How can you rest in Christ’s blood rather than your own efforts?
- Prayer: Close by thanking God that the blood of Christ is sufficient. Ask for a deeper appreciation of what it cost to secure your remission.
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)
| Leviticus 4:20 | He shall do this with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so he shall do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven. |
| Leviticus 4:26 | All its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin, and he will be forgiven. |
| Leviticus 4:35 | He shall remove all its fat, like the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings. The priest shall burn them on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. The priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin that he has sinned, and he will be forgiven. |
| Leviticus 5:10 | He shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin which he has sinned, and he shall be forgiven. |
| Leviticus 5:12 | He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. It is a sin offering. |
| Leviticus 5:18 | He shall bring a ram without defect from of the flock, according to your estimation, for a trespass offering, to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the thing in which he sinned and didn’t know it, and he will be forgiven. |
| Leviticus 6:7 | The priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh, and he will be forgiven concerning whatever he does to become guilty.” |
| Leviticus 14:6 | As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. |
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 the apostle's careful word "almost" because some things were purified by water or fire, but everything first required consecration by blood. He then draws on a Jewish maxim, "There is no expiation but by blood," to argue that the law itself prefigured the absolute necessity of Christ's sacrificial death as the substitute for the sinner's forfeited life.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes highlights a crucial distinction: while water and fire could purify ceremonial impurities, the stain of sin itself could only be removed by blood. He insists that no forgiveness of sin has ever occurred, past or present, apart from the shedding of atoning blood, a principle that underlies the entire plan of salvation.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin clarifies that the word "almost" in this passage does not suggest any imperfection in the law's rites, but simply indicates how universally blood was used in purification. He argues that even cleansings with water or fire still derived their power from blood sacrifice, because without blood there is no remission of sin. This points directly to Christ, who alone provides the pardon sinners need to approach God.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator highlights that the original Greek word for "almost" appears only twice elsewhere in the New Testament, signaling genuine exceptions to purification by blood. He also defends the rendering "shedding of blood" over "pouring out," noting the writer simply presents this as a revealed fact without constructing a theory about why blood is necessary.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note stresses that under the Law, almost every purification required blood, establishing a firm principle: no forgiveness happens without the shedding of blood. This point drives home the absolute necessity of sacrifice for remission, showing that the Law itself taught this fundamental truth.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill clarifies that the phrase "almost all things" means some items were cleansed by water or fire, not that the purging was incomplete. He insists that without bloodshed there is no forgiveness, grounding this in Jewish teaching that atonement requires blood poured on the altar, and ultimately in Christ's necessary sacrifice.
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.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent points out that the Greek word sxedon (almost) modifies the entire statement about cleansing by blood, not just the first part. The Authorized Version mistranslates this, making the teaching seem absolute when the text actually allows for Old Testament exceptions where remission occurred without bloodshed.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that under the law almost everything was purified with blood, pointing ahead to Christ’s blood as the only means that actually cleanses from sin. The Old Testament ritual taught that forgiveness requires bloodshed, and this principle finds its full reality in Christ alone.