HEBREWS HEB 9
Christ and the new atonement Hebrews 9:1-28
We have already noted that Chs. 8-10 explain what Christ does as our High Priest: He mediates a new covenant (ch. 8), provides a new and complete atonement (ch 9) and is Himself the final and acceptable sacrifice for our sins (ch.10). All three ideas, of course, overlap in the three chapters.
So in Ch. 9 the idea of the covenant continues, but the concept of Christ’s atonement as the basis of that covenant dominates the section.
1. Under the old covenant there was no adequate forgiveness or atonement (1-10)
a. Verses 1-5 sketch out the general layout and contents of the old Tabernacle.
You can compare this with Exodus 25-27. But all these details are not central to the main point he wants to make (5b).
b. What is the main point he is making (6-10)?
Verses 7,8 are the crux. What event does v.7 refer to?
Leviticus 16 spells it out; see particularly vs. 12-16.
Who performed this rite – initially and subsequently? How often was it performed (Heb 9:7)?
And what did the High Priest have to take with him (7)? Whose blood? For what purpose (7)?
Under this arrangement who were prevented from entering into God’s presence in the Most Holy Place (8)?
What were the sacrifices unable to achieve (9)?
What did those sacrifices provide (10,13)?
What did the point forward to (10)?
2. Under the new covenant Christ offers an adequate sacrifice (11-28)
a. Verses 11-15 present a series of contrasts with vs. 1-10
i. Who is this wholly adequate High Priest? What is the contrast?
ii. Where does Christ make His offering to God (11,12)? We’ve already met this concept in 8:1,2,4,5. What is the contrast?
iii. What is the offering/sacrifice (12)? What is the contrast?
iv. What does Christ’s offering achieve (14)? What is the contrast?
v. What is the purpose of cleansing (14,6,15)?
vi. In view of the above facts, why is the new covenant better than the first one?
b. A death is necessary before a covenant can be effective.
Note: one word is used in Greek for a ‘covenant’ and a ‘will’; and so it is translated ‘will’ in vs. 16,17 by RSV, GNB, NIV.
i. Who has to die before a will is effective (18-21)? See Exodus 24:3-8.
God made this covenant with Israel, but who died?
So why was it not permanently effective?
But what principle did it establish (22)?
Why was Christ’s offering (as the one who mediated the new covenant) wholly effective (12)?
How does this fulfil the illustration of the will in vs. 16,17?
c. So Christ’s offering is a better sacrifice (22-28).
Summarise from these verses why it is better.
Why was His ‘once only’ act as High Priest sufficient (26)?
What is the ultimate effect of the ‘once for all’ offering (27,28)?