*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Saying, This is the blood of the testament, [1] etc. If that was the blood of the testament, then neither the testament was without blood ratified, nor the blood without the testament available for expiation. It is hence necessary that both should be united; and we see that before the explanation of the Law, no symbol was added, for what would a sacrament be except the word preceded it? Hence a symbol is a kind of appendage to the word. And mark, this word was not whispered like a magic incantation, but pronounced with a clear voice, as it was destined for the people, according to what the words of the covenant express, which God hath enjoined unto you. [2] Perverted, then, are the sacraments, and it is a wicked corruption when there is no explanation of the commandment given, which is as it were the very soul of the sacrament. Hence the Papists, who take away the true understanding of things from signs, retain only dead elements. This passage reminds us that the promises of God are then only profitable to us when they are confirmed by the blood of Christ. For what Paul testifies in 2-Corinthians 1:20, that all God's promises are yea and amen in Christ -- this happens when his blood like a seal is engraven on our hearts, or when we not only hear God speaking, but also see Christ offering himself as a pledge for those things which are spoken. If this thought only came to our minds, that what we read is not written so much with ink as with the blood of Christ, that when the Gospel is preached, his sacred blood distills together with the voice, there would be far greater attention as well as reverence on our part. A symbol of this was the sprinkling mentioned by Moses! At the same time there is more stated here than what is expressed by Moses; for he does not mention that the book and the people were sprinkled, nor does he name the goats, nor the scarlet wool, nor the hyssop. As to the book, that it was sprinkled cannot be clearly shown, yet the probability is that it was, for Moses is said to have produced it after he had sacrificed; and he did this when he bound the people to God by a solemn compact. With regard to the rest, the Apostle seems to have blended together various kinds of expiations, the reason for which was the same. Nor indeed was there anything unsuitable in this, since he was speaking of the general subject Or purgation under the Old Testament, which was done by means of blood. Now as to the sprinkling made by hyssop and scarlet wool, it is evident that it represented the mystical sprinkling made by the Spirit. We know that the hyssop possesses a singular power to cleanse and to purify; so Christ employs his Spirit to sprinkle us in order to wash us by his own blood when he leads us to true repentance, when he purifies us from the depraved lusts of our flesh, when he imbues us with the precious gift of his own righteousness. For it was not in vain that God had instituted this rite. David also alluded to this when he said, "Thou wilt sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed." (Psalm 51:7.) These remarks will be sufficient for those who wish to be soberminded in their speculations.
1 - Both Calvin and our verse retain the word "testament" as derived from verse 17; but as that verse and the preceding are to be viewed as parenthetic, the word "covenant" is the term used by Moses. The latter is the word adopted by Beza, Doddridge, Macknight, and Stuart, "This is the blood of the covenant," etc. -- Ed.
2 - The Apostle here follows neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint. The Hebrew is "which the Lord (Jehovah) hath made with you;" and the Septuagint, "Which the Lord hath covenanted (dietheto) with you." And instead of "Behold the blood of the covenant," (the same in both) we have here, "This is the blood of the covenant." But though the words are different, yet the meaning is essentially the same, -- the main things regarded by the Apostles in their quotations. -- Ed
Saying, This is the blood of the testament - Of the covenant; see notes on Hebrews 9:16-17. That is, this is the blood by which the covenant is ratified. It was the means used to confirm it; the sacred and solemn form by which it was made sure. When this was done, the covenant between God and the people was confirmed - as a covenant between man and man is when it is sealed.
Which God hath enjoined unto you - In Exodus 24:8, "which God hath made with you." The language used by Paul, "which God hath enjoined" - ἐνετείλατο eneteilato - "commanded" - shows that he did not regard this as strictly of the nature of a "covenant," or "compact." When a compact is made between parties, one does not "enjoin" or "command" the other, but it is a mutual "agreement." In the transactions between God and man, though called בּרית beriyt, or διαθήκη diathēkē, the idea of a "covenant" or "compact" is so far excluded that God never loses his right to "command" or "enjoin." It is not a transaction between equals, or an "agreement;" it is a solemn "arrangement" on the part of God which he proposes to mankind, and which he enjoins them to embrace; which they are not indeed at liberty to disregard, but which when embraced is appropriately ratified by some solemn act on their part; compare notes on Hebrews 8:6.
This is the blood of the testament - (covenant.) Our Lord refers to the conduct of Moses here, and partly quotes his words in the institution of the eucharist: This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matthew 26:28. And by thus using the words and applying them, he shows that his sacrificial blood was intended by the blood shed and sprinkled on this occasion, and that by it alone the remission of sins is obtained.
Saying, this is the blood of the testament,.... The first testament or covenant; this proves what the apostle had asserted in Hebrews 9:18 that it was dedicated with blood, or confirmed by it; compare with this Matthew 26:28
which God hath enjoined unto you; the people of Israel, to observe, and which they promised to do; see Exodus 24:7.
Exodus 24:8, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words." The change is here made to accord with Christ's inauguration of the new testament, or covenant, as recorded in Luke 22:20, "This cup (is) the new Testament in My blood, which is shed for you": the only Gospel in which the "is" has to be supplied. Luke was Paul's companion, which accounts for the correspondence, as here too "is" has to be supplied.
testament--(See on Hebrews 9:16-17). The Greek "diathece" means both "testament" and "covenant": the term "covenant" better suits the old dispensation, though the idea testament is included, for the old was one in its typical relation to the new dispensation, to which the term "testament" is better suited. Christ has sealed the testament with His blood, of which the Lord's Supper is the sacramental sign. The testator was represented by the animals slain in the old dispensation. In both dispensations the inheritance was bequeathed: in the new by One who has come in person and died; in the old by the same one, only typically and ceremonially present. See ALFORD'S excellent Note.
enjoined unto you--commissioned me to ratify in relation to you. In the old dispensation the condition to be fulfilled on the people's part is implied in the words, Exodus 24:8, "(Lord made with you) concerning all these words." But here Paul omits this clause, as he includes the fulfilment of this condition of obedience to "all these words" in the new covenant, as part of God's promise, in Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 8:12, whereby Christ fulfils all for our justification, and will enable us by putting His Spirit in us to fulfil all in our now progressive, and finally complete, sanctification.
Saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined me to deliver unto you - By this it is established. Exodus 24:8.
*More commentary available at chapter level.