On Our Behalf

Hebrews 9:15–26 – Jesus Is Better
Third Sunday of Lent – March 8th, 2026 (am)     

What a sweet time we had in the Word last Sunday with Dave Patty. Jesus, the high priest of the good things that have come (11), offered himself to God on our behalf, making a way to purify our conscience from dead works to serve, to worship (NRSV), the living God (14). That’s an amazing gift from Him, almost inconceivable. Dave gave us a couple examples of people whose consciences were damaged. One of them denied wrongdoing even though there was evident proof of it. He tried to justify himself because his motives were innocent. And he had a diligent work ethic. His conscience was seared. The other struggled quietly. While his life made him appear to be a paragon of virtue and a fruitful servant of God, even as an old man he couldn’t escape the snare of a painful childhood memory. A costly accident that left him feeling like a worthless failure. His conscience was trapped.

It was welcome news to hear that Jesus had done everything necessary to perfect the consciences of these worshipers (9), and to purify our consciences from dead works to [worship] the living God (14). But I’ve wondered if some of us might need to hear more. I talked with a few this past week who drank in that good word from last Sunday but still went away really wondering if it applied fully to them, if the sin in their past truly qualified for such liberating cleansing from Jesus. That isn’t due to any lack in His high priestly work or in Dave’s proclamation of it. It’s due simply to the stubbornness of old sin that still lingers like a relentless enemy, hurling insults and accusations that are just magnified by the intervening years of regret and shame.

If that’s you, then I’m glad you’re back this week as we move on through most of the remainder of Heb.9. The author stayed on this topic, it seems virtually anticipating the need. He adds some helpful detail I think we’ll appreciate. Jesus is presented as 15 … the mediator of a new covenant, that He inaugurated so that those who are called into saving relationship with God may receive their promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred, namely, His own, that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. What he means is that the first covenant defines our sinfulness. It shows us that we can’t meet God’s standard of righteousness. But it also can’t help us to do so. Paul explained this pretty clearly in Gal.3:22 … Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law (the first covenant) was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified (redeemed) by faith. So, it’s His death on our behalf that accomplishes our redemption. This is the level of importance God Himself put on perfecting the conscience of [His] worshipers (9), on purifying our conscience from dead works so that we might serve [Him] (14). This tells us the priority He placed on getting this job done, the lengths to which He was willing to go. Jesus brought to an end the annual ritual of the Day of Atonement as 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

But there’s yet another expression of death in today’s text that His death surpassed and displaced forever. And I think it magnifies yet further God’s absolute commitment to bringing about the purification (13) He offers. But it’s sort of hidden in the text behind some unusual translations. In some ways they’re understandable, but I think they keep us from seeing a really sweet but seldom considered aspect of the death of Jesus on our behalf that really can be quite reassuring. It comes right on the heels of v.15, at the beginning of two thought-units in today’s passage that, together, summarize and further explain the earlier sections of c.9.

The Need for the Death of the Covenant Maker – 15-22

Vv.16-17 are the key ones here. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. It sounds like the author is just giving us an illustration that amplifies our promised eternal inheritance (15). This’s what Jesus has bequeathed to us in His last will and testament. And He had to die in order for us to receive it. That surely makes sense.

But I don’t believe that’s what vv.16-17 are actually trying to tell us—this is where the meaning is a bit hidden behind an unusual translation. The word behind will in both verses is the same word that we’ve seen fourteen other times here in cc.8-9 alone, with one more near the end of c.7 and two more in c.10. It’s the Greek word διαθήκῃ, translated covenant in all those other appearances except for these two (16-17). If we read these verses as two successive statements that amplify not our promised eternal inheritance from v.15, but the new covenant, we come away with a different understanding of their meaning.

If we also notice what could look like a picky little point, it adds some credibility to this different understanding: the word death is singular in v.16, but plural in v.17.

There are actually several more little points like these, but I’ll spare you the details and just give you the bottom line. Granting that the English is a bit rough, a better way to get at the meaning is to say: 16 For where a covenant is involved, the death of the [one who ratifies it] (Carson 2002), or [covenant-victim] (Lane 242, YLT), must be [presented as evidence] (L-N). 17 For a covenant is made legally secure on the basis of the dead ones (Carson 2002).

Bottom line, it appears what we’re talking about here is the animals that were sacrificed not in the practice of the first covenant, but well before that, as the covenant was first being establish (Lane 241-5). Think of Gen.15 where God had Abram divide Gen.15:9 … a heifer, a female goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon. God passed between them alone, in the form of a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch (Gen.15:17). He was binding Himself to the covenant He cut with Abram. The idea is that the fate of these animals will be the fate of either party if they fail to honor the covenant.

If that’s what we’re seeing here, then Jesus, by His death, is also playing the part of the covenant-victim. He’s laying down His life to ratify the covenant in which the sacrifice of His life also secures for us an eternal redemption (12), cleansing us from the transgressions [condemned by the law] (15), ensuring our promised eternal inheritance (15), and, yes, purifying our consciences from dead works to [worship] Him, the living God (15).

Also, if that’s what we’re seeing, then the next few verses should help us along. And they do. They favor this understanding of vv.16-17, speaking directly to the point of how a covenant is rightly established. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, drawing together images of purification from several different passages, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, from Exo.24:8, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” This is the blood shed to ratify that first covenant, to inaugurate it. The purpose of… vv.18-20 is to show that the covenant at Sinai… was ratified… “on the basis of the dead bodies [of slain animals]” (Lane 245).

Jesus is playing every role here to make sure that nothing goes wrong in the implementation of His great salvation. And all of that is aiming in the direction, as we’ve seen, of purifying our consciences to enable our [worship] of [Him].

The Need for the True to Replace the Copy – 23-26

As we move into this second section, we can’t miss the fact that everything about the sacrifice (23) of Christ and the place of His appearing (24) is better than what came before. In a passage that seems crafted to tie off the ideas in 8:1-7, we’re seeing layer upon layer of perfection—Jesus Himself, His sacrifice, entering… into heaven itself, now to appear in the actual, direct presence of God (24). Even so, it’s the expressed and repeated aim that draws our attention, the intended outcome.

All aspects of the glorious work of Christ that are on display here, accomplishing what the old covenant couldn’t—He appears in the presence of God to demonstrate that His work was fully acceptable—how are we to understand all that? It was all done on our behalf (24); he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin, our sin, by the sacrifice of himself (26).

Conclusion

We need to hold onto this! We need to remember it every time our sin ensnares us again, or just seems too big for God to remove, or too evil for Jesus to cleanse. We need to remember that Jesus is much greater a Savior than we are a sinner. We need to pause and ponder the fact that there is no sin so great, none, that it won’t be cleansed and removed by confessing it to God and turning away from it by faith in Jesus—Jesus Who has gone to such unfathomable lengths to provide for our forgiveness (24, 26), our cleansing (13)—to purify our conscience (14).

Take a moment to think through your life and see if any familiar old sin still hangs around, accusing and condemning you. Take a moment and see if there is any old sin that’s grown so familiar you just work around it, making excuses for it, telling yourself and others that it’s just who you are. Jesus has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin, your sin and mine, if we’ll lay it all on Him and not turn away. He’s appeared… to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (26). Surely that is sufficient to get the job done, agreed?

After you’ve taken a few moments to talk with Him about these things, we’ll come to His Table together to remember His death.

Appendix: This material repeats much of what is included above, but folds it in with a fuller treatment of this issue with a level of detail that wouldn’t work well in a sermon. Thus, here is my fuller response to the question, why should we read Hebrews 9:16-17 as connecting Jesus’ death to that of a covenant victim, slain to establish a covenant?

As was stated above, in these two verses it sounds like the author is just giving us an illustration that amplifies our promised eternal inheritance (15). This’s what Jesus has bequeathed to us in His last will and testament. And He had to die in order for us to receive that inheritance. That surely makes sense. But I don’t believe that’s what vv.16-17 are actually trying to tell us—this is where the meaning is a bit hidden behind an unusual translation.

First, the word behind will in both verses (16, 17) is the same word that we’ve seen fourteen other times just here in cc.8-9, with one more near the end of c.7 and two more in c.10. The original word is διαθήκῃ, translated in each other appearance as covenant. In short, there appears to be no good reason to change it to will in these two verses (cf. NASV). Evidently it did begin to be used in this way sometime later, but not yet (Carson 2002). It’s probably rendered will because we might expect to read something about a will (16) so closely on the heels of hearing about an inheritance (15) (Bruce 221-2). But let’s keep following this trail before we stop to draw any conclusions.

Second, the one who made it (16, 17), which refers to the covenant maker, or perhaps ratifier (Carson 2002), is actually translated as the covenant-victim in YLT.

Third, must be established is not a bad translation. But a bit more strictly literal might be, must be brought forward (Carson 2002) or presented as evidence (L-N). So, v.16 might best read: 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the [covenant-victim] must be [presented as evidence].

Fourth, in v.17 the word death is actually plural; it was singular back in v.16, but not here in v.17. A simple little point like that is actually one of the primary things that makes you look more closely. The YLT rendering of v.17 is: 17 for a covenant over dead victims is steadfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim [lives]. D. A. Carson suggests that the clearest wording would be, in admittedly rough English: 17 For a covenant is made legally secure on the basis of the dead ones.

Bottom line, it appears what we’re talking about here is the animals that are sacrificed not as part of the practice of the first covenant—the Day of Atonement sacrifices and all those that happened in continual succession throughout the rest of the year to maintain the covenant. Jesus’ superiority over all that has already been addressed, His displacement of it. Here we’re talking about the animals that were sacrificed to establish the covenant. Think of Gen.15 where God had Abram divide Gen.15:9 … a heifer, a female goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon. God passed between them alone, binding Himself to the covenant He cut with Abram. I believe this is what we’re supposed to hear in Heb.9:16-17 William Lane explains it well. For the ratification of a covenant it was necessary or the death of the ratifier to be represented symbolically. The writer’s choice of the term φέρεσθαι, “to be introduced,” “to be brought forward,” was probably influenced by the cultic use of φέρειν in the LXX, where it is associated with the representative act of offering a sacrifice. The offerer is represented in and by the sacrifice he brings. In terms of OT covenant procedure, the death of sacrificial animals was brought forward on behalf of the one ratifying the covenant. The assertion in v.16 is clarified and amplified in v.17: it was necessary to bring forward the death of the covenant-ratifier because a covenant was not in force until this had been done. The Argument continues to be based on general covenant practice. Until the oath of allegiance had been sworn and validated by the action of cutting the animal in two and walking between the pieces (cf. Gen.15:10, 17; Jer.34:18), the covenant remained merely tentative. It was legally confirmed (βεβαία) on the basis of the dismembered bodies of the sacrificial victims. In its context, the unusual formulation ἐπὶ νεκροῖς, “on the basis of dead bodies,” refers to the bodies of representative animals used in the self-maledictory rite of covenant ratification. … The formation accurately reflects the legal situation that a covenant is never secured until the ratifier has bound himself to his oath by means of a representative death (Lane 243).

If that’s what we’re seeing here, then Jesus, by His death, is also playing the part of the covenant-victim. He’s laying down His life to ratify the covenant in which the sacrifice of His life also secures for us an eternal redemption (12), cleansing us from the transgressions [condemned by the law] (15), ensuring our promised eternal inheritance (15), and, yes, purifying our consciences from dead works to [worship] Him, the living God (15).

Also, if this is what we’re seeing, then the next few verses should help us along. And they do. They favor this understanding of vv.16-17, speaking directly to the point of how a covenant is rightly established. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared 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, 20 saying, from Exo.24:8, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” This is the blood shed to ratify that first covenant, to inaugurate it, enact it. Again, William Lane helps us understand. The purpose of… vv.18-20 is to show that the covenant at Sinai… was ratified… “on the basis of the dead bodies [of slain animals]” (Lane 245).

 __________________

Resources

Anders, Max, gen. ed. 1999. Holman New Testament Commentary. Hebrews & James, by Thomas D. Lea. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

Arnold, Clinton E., gen. ed. 2002. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary. Vol. 4, Hebrews to Revelation. Hebrews, by George H. Guthrie, 2-82. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Barclay, William. 1976. The Daily Study Bible Series. The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised Edition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Beale, G. K., & D. A. Carson, eds. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Hebrews, by George H. Guthrie, 919-995. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Bruce, F. F. 1990. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Calvin, John. 1553. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, trans. by, John Owen. Logos.

Carson, D. A. 2002. Hebrews Part 6. Hebrews 9: Jjesus’ Sacrifice Better Than the Temple Sacrifices. The Gospel Coalition.org. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/sermon/part-4-jesus-priesthood-is-better-than-aaron-s-hebrews-7-also-4-5/.

                  , R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham, eds. 1994. New Bible Commentary 21st Century Edition. Hebrews, by David Peterson, 1321-1353. Leicester, Eng.: InterVarsity.

Clendenen, Ray E., gen. ed., David S. Dockery, NT ed. 2010. The New American Commentary. Vol. 35, Hebrews, by David L. Allen. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

Conner, Nick. n.d. Unpublished exegesis paper on Hebrews 9:20.

Dever, Mark. 2005. The Message of the New Testament. Ch. 19, The Message of Hebrews: Sticking with the Best, 413-425. Wheaton: Crossway.

Fee, Gordon D., gen. ed. 1990. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised Edition, by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Grudem, Wayne, ed. 2008. ESV Study Bible. Study notes on Hebrews, by David W. Chapman. Wheaton: Crossway.

Guthrie, George. 1998. The NIV Application Commentary. Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Hubbard, David A., & Glenn W. Barker, gen. eds. Ralph P. Martin, NT ed. 1991. Word Biblical Commentary. Vols. 47a, Hebrews 1-8; Vol.47b, Hebrews 9-13, by William L. Lane. Dallas: Word.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. 1979. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Longman III, Tremper, & David E. Garland, eds. 2006. Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 13, Hebrews-Revelation. Hebrews, by R. T. France, 17-195. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Louw, Johannes P., & Eugene A. Nida [l-n]. 1989. Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, second edition. New York: United Bible Societies.

Morris, Leon, gen. ed. 1983. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Vol. 15, Hebrews, by Donald Guthrie. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Owen, John. 1855. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 7 Vols. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter.

NEXT SUNDAY: To Save Those Eagerly Waiting for Him, Hebrews 9:27–28