For a testament is of force, after men are dead: otherwise it is as yet of no strength, whilst the testator liveth.

“It was probable that many of those who were more weakly would especially distrust the promises of Christ because He had died. Paul accordingly out of a superabundance introduced this illustration, deriving it from common custom. Of what kind is it? He says, "indeed, on this very account we ought to be of good courage." On what account? Because testaments are established and obtain their force when those who have made them are not living, but dead. "And for this cause," he says, "He is the Mediator of the New Testament." A Testament is made towards the last day, [the day] of death. And a testament is of this character: It makes some heirs, and some disinherited. So in this case also: "I will that where I am," Christ says, "they also may be." (John xvii. 24.) And again of the disinherited, hear Him saying, "I pray not for" all, "but for them that believe on Me through their word." (John xvii. 20.) Again, a testament has relation both to the testator, and to the legatees; so that they have some things to receive, and some to do, So also in this case. For after having made promises innumerable, He demands also something from them, saying, "a new commandment I give unto you." (John xiii. 34.) Again, a testament ought to have witnesses. Hear Him again saying, "I am one that bear witness of Myself, and He that sent Me beareth witness of Me." (John viii. 18.) And again, "He shall testify of Me" (John xv. 26), speaking of the Comforter. The twelve Apostles too He sent, saying, "Bear ye witness before God."”

“Above, the Apostle expounded those things which were done in the old testament, and opened up their mystical exposition; here, from these things, he argues to his intended point, namely that the new testament is preferred over the old, because it can do what the old could not. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets forth the conclusion he intends; second he proves something he had presupposed, at the place, For where a testament. Again the first is divided into two. For first he concludes from what has been said that Christ is the mediator; second he shows this — that the old testament could not do this — at the place, which were under the former. He says therefore: and therefore, namely because Christ entered into the holies, having found an eternal redemption, that is, leading unto eternal things, which the old could not do; hence it is necessary that this testament be other than that one, as the new is from the old. Ier. XXXI, 31: I will strike with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, et cetera. Apoc. XXI, v. 5: behold, I make all things new. Therefore Christ is the mediator of this new testament between God and man. I Tim. II, 5: the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Now in every testament there is something which is promised, and something by which the testament is confirmed. But in the new testament heavenly and spiritual things are promised. Likewise this promise was confirmed by the death of Christ. And therefore Christ is the mediator of the new testament, that they who are called may receive the promise of eternal beatitude and of the eternal inheritance. And he says called, because this gift is not from works, but from the calling of God. Rom. VIII, 30: and whom he predestined, these he also called. I Thess. II, 12: we testified, that you should walk worthily of God, who has called you unto his kingdom and glory. Hence he says of the eternal inheritance, that is, of the eternal glory, which is our inheritance. I Pet. I, 3 s.: he has regenerated us unto a living hope, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and unfading, reserved in the heavens. Ps. CXXVI, 4: behold the inheritance of the Lord. Likewise: the Lord is the portion of my inheritance. Now we have this inheritance through the death of Christ. Hence he says, a death coming between. I Pet. III, 9: unto this you were called, that you might possess a blessing by inheritance. The effect of this death is redemption from the transgression of sin. I Petr. I, 18 s.: you were redeemed from your vain manner of life, not with corruptible things, gold or silver, but with the precious blood of an unspotted lamb. But could this redemption from sins have been effected in the old testament? And he answers that it could not, because those transgressions were under the former testament; as if to say: because they could not be removed by the power of the sacraments of the former testament. Rom. III, 9: we have charged that Jews and Greeks are all under sin. But against this, because David and many other saints had remission of sins. I respond. It must be said that as to this effect, which is entrance into heaven, no, because through the death of Christ the door of life was opened. For no one entered before the death of Christ. Zach. IX, 11: but you, by the blood of your testament, have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water. But as to the stain, in this way they did obtain it; yet not by the power of the sacraments of the old law, but in the faith of Christ. Thus therefore the new testament is more excellent than the old, because it is confirmed by the death of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and because it exhibits the promise. Then, when he says, For where a testament, he proves what he had presupposed, namely that the new testament is confirmed through the death of Christ. And first he proves this by the authority of human law; second by the authority of divine law, at the place, Whence neither was the first. He says therefore: it has been said that the new testament is confirmed through the intervening death of Christ, because in order for a testament to be valid, it is necessary that the death of the testator intervene; and therefore the new testament would not have force, unless the death of Christ had intervened. Hence it is said, Io. XI, 50: it is expedient for you, that one man die for the people. Now the death of the testator is necessary for two things. First, that the testament may have firmness, because since it is an expression of the last will, it can always be changed before death. Hence he says, that a testament is confirmed in the dead, that is, through death. And in this way the new testament is confirmed through the death of Christ. Matth. XXVI, 28: this is my blood of the new testament, namely its confirmer and dedicator. Second, the death of the testator is necessary in order that the testament be valid and have efficacy. Hence he says, otherwise it is not yet valid, because no one can claim anything, nor even can the heirs claim the inheritance by force of the testament, except after the death of the testator. Therefore Christ willed to interpose his death for us. Then, when he says, Whence neither was the first, he proves this same thing by the authority of divine law, namely by that which is found in the old testament. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows the agreement between the two testaments; second he shows the difference, at the place, It is necessary therefore. Concerning the first he does two things, for first he proposes; second he makes it manifest, at the place, For when...had been read. He says therefore: thus it has been said, that in order for a testament to be valid, it is necessary that the death of the testator intervene. Nor should this seem surprising, because not even the first testament was dedicated, that is, confirmed, without blood. But that blood prefigured the blood of Christ. For all these things happened to them in figure, I Cor. X, 11. Then, when he says, For...having been read, he proves the point proposed, namely that that testament was not confirmed without blood. And he proves this with respect to three things, in which there was a use of blood. First with respect to the promulgation of the law; second with respect to the consecration of the tabernacle, at the place, the tabernacle also; third with respect to the purification of the vessels, at the place, and almost all things in blood. Concerning the first it must be known that the Apostle here touches on the history which is found in Ex. XXIV, 7, where it is said, that after Moses had read before the people the commandments of the Lord, and they answering, All the things which the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient, Moses took the blood which he had ordered to be kept from the twelve calves, and sprinkled the book of the law and the people, as it were in confirmation of the testament. And therefore he says, for when every commandment had been read, etc., because it was necessary that it be read. For that reading was the promulgation of the law. For it was necessary that the law be promulgated. Taking, et cetera. Here there is a twofold literal objection. One, because in Ex. XXIV no mention is made of a goat, but of twelve calves. The second, because there also no mention is made of water and scarlet and hyssop. The response to these two is twofold. One, namely, because the Apostle had been raised in the law; hence he knew that this was the practice in purifications according to the law, that the sprinkling was done with the blood of goats and calves and water mixed with hyssop and scarlet wool, as with a sprinkler; and therefore, although this is not treated of in Exodus, nevertheless the Apostle took this from the custom of the legal rite. Or it can be said that this was the first consecration. And therefore the other sanctifications to come were contained in it, as it were, virtually; among which the chief was that which was done on the day of expiation, concerning which Lev. XVI, and another concerning the red heifer, Num. XVI. In the first, however, there was the blood of a calf and a goat; but in the second, water and scarlet wool and hyssop. Therefore, because that first one contained these two, the Apostle referred the whole to that one. He says therefore, taking the blood, etc., he sprinkled the book and all the people, saying: this is the blood of the testament, which God has commanded to you, namely, its confirmer. Eccli. XXIV, 33: Moses commanded us a law in the precepts of justice. For this blood was a figure of the blood of Christ, by which the new testament was confirmed. And therefore Christ used these very words. Matth. XXVI, 28: this is the blood of the new testament, namely, confirmatory. Now it was prefigured by the blood of the goat on account of the likeness of sinful flesh, and by that of the calf on account of strength. It is mixed, however, with water, because Baptism has its efficacy from the blood of Christ; and it is sprinkled with hyssop, which cleanses the breast, by which faith is signified. Act. c. XV, 9: purifying their hearts by faith. And by the scarlet wool, which is of a red color, charity is signified. Cant. V, 10: my beloved is white and ruddy. For through faith and love of the passion of Christ the people is cleansed. The book of the law is sprinkled too, because the passion of Christ fulfilled the law. Io. XIX, 30: it is consummated. Matth. V, 17: I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Then, when he says, the tabernacle also, he sets down the consecration of the tabernacle, because he likewise sprinkled with blood the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. But against this, because the tabernacle had not yet been made, but in chapter XXV the consecration of the tabernacle is commanded. I respond. It must be said that although it is not the same blood by which the people and the tabernacle were sprinkled, nevertheless the tabernacle too was cleansed with blood. Hence it can be construed thus: he used blood, even when he sanctified the tabernacle. But against this, because in Num. and Lev. VIII it is said, that he anointed the tabernacle with oil. It is said, that he anointed the tabernacle with oil. I respond. It must be said that he is not speaking of that sanctification by which the tabernacle and its vessels were first consecrated, but of that which was done on the day of expiation. Or better, it must be said that he used blood also in the first, because it is said there that he anointed it with oil, and afterward that he sprinkled it. But oil is not a thing for sprinkling, hence it is understood that he first anointed it, and afterward sprinkled it with blood. And these two are necessary for sanctification, namely the power of the blood of Christ, and the oil of mercy, by which the tabernacle is sanctified, that is, the Church, and the vessels, that is, the ministers. Then, when he says, and almost all things according to the law are cleansed with blood, he goes on to treat of the other legal cleansings. Now there was a twofold cleansing: one from a bodily stain, such as leprosy; the other from a spiritual one, namely sin. The first could pertain to inanimate things, as is evident concerning the leprosy of houses. And the cleansing from this uncleanness was done with the blood of a slain animal, or with the water of expiation, which was made with the blood of the red heifer. And therefore he says almost all things, and not all things simply. Or almost all things, in such a way that the word "almost" qualifies the word "are cleansed," that is, they are almost cleansed, because they were not perfectly cleansed: this happens only through the sacrament of the new law. Or it can qualify the word "all." For not all things were cleansed with blood, because, as it is said, Num. XXXI, v. 23, whatever can endure fire is purged by fire; but those things which could not, are purged with the water of expiation. But for the cleansing from the stain of sin, the shedding of blood is necessary, because it was required for sacrifice. And therefore he says, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. By which it was prefigured that the remission of sin was to be brought about through the blood of Christ. Hence in the old law the remission of sins came about not by the power of the sacrament, but by the power of faith in Christ. Hence it is frequently said there, the priest shall pray for him, and it shall be forgiven.”

“For a testament is of force after men are dead,.... The necessity of Christ's death is here urged, from the nature and force of a testament or will, among men, which does not take place, and cannot be executed, till a man is dead. Otherwise it is of no strength at all whilst the testator liveth; no claim can be made by the legatees for the part they have in it, nor can any disposition be made by the executor of it; not that hereby is suggested, that the testament or will of God was uncertain and precarious till the death of Christ, and subject to change and alteration as men's wills are till they die; nor that the inheritance could not be enjoyed by the Old Testament saints; for it is certain, it was entered upon by them before the death of Christ; but the sense is, that there was a necessity of it, that the saints right unto it, upon the foot of justice, might be evident by it.”

“after--literally, "over," as we say "upon the death of the testators"; not as THOLUCK, "on the condition that slain sacrifices be there," which the Greek hardly sanctions. otherwise--"seeing that it is never availing" [ALFORD]. BENGEL and LACHMANN read with an interrogation, "Since, is it ever in force (surely not) while the testator liveth?"”