For when every commandment of the law had been read by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

“One of these goats was bound with scarlet, and driven by the people out of the camp into the wilderness, amid cursing, and spitting, and pulling, and piercing, being thus marked with all the signs of the Lord's own passion; while the other, by being offered up for sins, and given to the priests of the temple for meat, afforded proofs of His second appearance, when (after all sins have been expiated) the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, the church, are to enjoy the flesh, as it were, of the Lord's own grace, whilst the residue go away from salvation without tasting it.”

“For why (tell me) is the book of the testament sprinkled? "For" (he says) "when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto you." Tell me then why is the book of the testament sprinkled, and also the people, except on account of the precious blood, figured from the first? Why "with hyssop"? It is close and retentive. And why the "water"? It shows forth also the cleansing by water. And why the "wool"? This also [was used], that the blood might be retained. In this place blood and water show forth the same thing, for baptism is His passion.”

“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 when Moses had spoken every precept,.... Contained in the decalogue, in the book of the covenant, everyone of the precepts in Exo 22:1 for this is to be understood of the written law, and not of the oral law the Jews talk of, which they say Moses first delivered by word of mouth to Aaron, then to his two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, then to the seventy elders of Israel, and then to the whole congregation; so that Aaron heard it four times, his sons thrice, the seventy elders twice, and all Israel once (g): but this is the written law which he spoke audibly, and in a known language, to all the people according to the law; which God gave him on the Mount: this may instruct persons concerned in the public ministry, to speak out plainly and clearly the whole counsel of God, to all to whom they are sent, according to the word of God, which is the rule of faith and practice: he took the blood of calves, and of goats; in the relation of this affair in Exo 24:5 which is referred to, only mention is made of oxen, bullocks, or heifers, here called calves, which were sacrificed for peace offerings, and not of goats; though perhaps they may be intended by the burnt offerings there spoken of, since they were sometimes used for burnt offerings, Lev 1:10. The Syriac version only reads, "he took the blood of an heifer"; and the Arabic version, "he took the blood of calves"; but all the copies, and other versions, read both. "With water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop"; neither of these are mentioned in Exo 24:1, but since sprinkling is there said to be used, and blood and water mixed together, and scarlet and hyssop were used in sprinkling, as in sprinkling the leper, and the unclean house, Lev 14:5 the apostle justly concludes the use of them here; the blood, with water, was typical of the blood and water which sprung from the side of Christ pierced on the cross, the one signifying justification by him, the other sanctification; the scarlet wool, which is originally white, but becomes scarlet by being dyed, may denote the native purity of Christ, and his bloody sufferings and death; the hyssop may signify his humility, and the purging virtue of his blood, and the sweet smelling savour of his person, righteousness, and sacrifice. The apostle calls scarlet, scarlet wool; though whenever the word is used in the Jewish laws of the Old Testament, wool is not expressed, but it is always intended; for it is a rule with the Jews (h), that "the blue, which is spoken of in every place, is wool dyed of a sky colour; purple is wool dyed red, and scarlet is wool dyed in scarlet.'' And sprinkled both the book, and all the people. In Exo 24:8 no mention is made of the sprinkling of the former, only of the latter, which the apostle either concludes from the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar, upon which the book might lie, or from tradition, or from divine revelation: some think it does not necessarily follow from the text, that the book was sprinkled; and repeating the word "he took", read the words, "and he took the book and sprinkled all the people"; but this seems not natural, but forced; and besides, all the Oriental versions are express for the sprinkling of the book: the book of the law was sprinkled, not because of any impurity in it, but to show the imperfection of it, and its insufficiency to justify men; or rather the imperfection of man's obedience to it, and to point out what the law requires in case of disobedience, even the blood and life of men; and what it would be, was it not sprinkled with blood, or satisfied by the blood of Christ, namely, an accusing, cursing, and condemning law: the people, all of them, being sprinkled with the blood, were typical of God's peculiar people, even all the elect of God, being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, called the blood of sprinkling, by which they are redeemed, and which speaks peace and pardon to them. Some have thought only the seventy elders were sprinkled, as representing the whole congregation; and others, that the twelve pillars were only sprinkled, as representing the twelve tribes of Israel; but Moses and the apostle agree, that they were the people that were sprinkled. (g) Maimon. Praefat. ad Yad Chazaka. (h) lb. Hilchot Cele Hamikdash, c. 8. sect. 13.”

“When Moses had spoken every precept - The place to which the apostle alludes is Exo 24:4-8, where the reader is requested to consult the notes. And sprinkled both the book - The sprinkling of the book is not mentioned in the place to which the apostle refers, (see above), nor did it in fact take place. The words αυτο τε το βιβλιον, and the book itself, should be referred to λαβων, having taken, and not to ερῥαντισε, he sprinkled; the verse should therefore be read thus: For after every commandment of the law had been recited by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of the calves, and of the goats, with water and scarlet wool, and the book itself, and sprinkled all the people. The rite was performed thus: Having received the blood of the calves and goats into basins, and mingled it with water to prevent it from coagulating, he then took a bunch of hyssop, and having bound it together with thread made of scarlet wool, he dipped this in the basin, and sprinkled the blood and water upon the people who were nearest to him, and who might be considered on this occasion the representatives of all the rest; for it is impossible that he should have had blood enough to have sprinkled the whole of the congregation. Some think that the blood was actually sprinkled upon the book itself, which contained the written covenant, to signify that the covenant itself was ratified by the blood.”

“For--confirming the general truth, Heb 9:16. spoken . . . according to the law--strictly adhering to every direction of "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:15). Compare Exo 24:3, "Moses told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments; and all the people answered with one voice," &c. the blood of calves--Greek, "the calves," namely, those sacrificed by the "young men" whom he sent to do so (Exo 24:5). The "peace offerings" there mentioned were "of oxen" (Septuagint, "little calves"), and the "burnt offerings" were probably (though this is not specified), as on the day of atonement, goats. The law in Exodus sanctioned formally many sacrificial practices in use by tradition, from the primitive revelation long before. with water--prescribed, though not in the twenty-fourth chapter of Exodus, yet in other purifications; for example, of the leper, and the water of separation which contained the ashes of the red heifer. scarlet wool, and hyssop--ordinarily used for purification. Scarlet or crimson, resembling blood: it was thought to be a peculiarly deep, fast dye, whence it typified sin (see on Isa 1:18). So Jesus wore a scarlet robe, the emblem of the deep-dyed sins He bore on Him, though He had none in Him. Wool was used as imbibing and retaining water; the hyssop, as a bushy, tufty plant (wrapt round with the scarlet wool), was used for sprinkling it. The wool was also a symbol of purity (Isa 1:18). The Hyssopus officinalis grows on walls, with small lancet-formed woolly leaves, an inch long, with blue and white flowers, and a knotty stalk about a foot high. sprinkled . . . the book--namely, out of which he had read "every precept": the book of the testament or covenant. This sprinkling of the book is not mentioned in the twenty-fourth chapter of Exodus. Hence BENGEL translates, "And (having taken) the book itself (so Exo 24:7), he both sprinkled all the people, and (Heb 9:21) moreover sprinkled the tabernacle." But the Greek supports English Version. Paul, by inspiration, supplies the particular specified here, not in Exo 24:7. The sprinkling of the roll (so the Greek for "book") of the covenant, or testament, as well as of the people, implies that neither can the law be fulfilled, nor the people be purged from their sins, save by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (Pe1 1:2). Compare Heb 9:23, which shows that there is something antitypical to the Bible in heaven itself (compare Rev 20:12). The Greek, "itself," distinguishes the book itself from the "precepts" in it which he "spake."”