Hebrews 9

But Christ having come as a high priest of the coming good things that have come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, not of this creation. Wesley: an high priest of good things to come, described in v. 15; entered through a greater—more noble and perfect—tabernacle, namely his own body; not framed by man as that tabernacle was.

Both camps: the "but" is cultus fulfillment. Christ is the high priest; the tent is greater. Arminian readers preach good things sincerely come in Him for those who believe—without turning this verse into a particular-vs-general atonement quarrel about sanctuary typology.

Calvin: Christ being come sets before us the reality of the things under the Law. He alone possesses the dignity and office of high priest, but brings eternal blessings that secure a perpetuity to his priesthood. By a greater and more perfect tabernacle Calvin understands the body of Christ—the temple in which the whole majesty of God dwells—not made with hands as the material tent was.

Appearance of Christ ends the age of shadow. The greater tent is not another earthly building but the consecrated body through which He enters glory for us.

He entered the Holy Place once for all, not through the blood of goats and calves but through His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. Wesley: the holy place—heaven. For us—all that believe.

This is "for us—all that believe" as Wesley frames it—redemption secured by blood sincerely provided and received by faith. The contrast with animal blood is the main fork the text itself draws.

Calvin: not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. As soon as Christ came forth with the efficacious influence of his death, all the typical observances must necessarily have ceased. What is the value of Christ's blood if it be deemed no better than the blood of beasts?

Once and eternal shut the door on repetition. Redemption obtained is not a mere offer of a possibility but the high priest's accomplished entry. Both camps refuse any return to goats and calves.

For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify to the cleanness of the flesh. Wesley: if the ashes of a heifer consumed as a sin-offering, sprinkled on the legally unclean, purified the flesh—removed legal uncleanness and readmitted them to temple and congregation.

Both camps: a true but limited sanctifying of the flesh under the law. The argument is a fortiori toward Christ's blood. No need to invent an atonement-extent culture war where the text compares flesh-purification to conscience-purification.

Calvin: if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctify to the purifying of the flesh—this is sacramental speech, not a heathenish reduction to civil reputation. If the blood of beasts was a true symbol of purgation that cleansed in a sacramental manner, how much more shall Christ who is himself the truth perform this for consciences?

From sign to thing signified. The flesh-purifications were witnesses; they were never the final cleansing of the soul.

How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without defect to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Wesley: the merit of all his sufferings; the work of redemption being the work of the whole Trinity; offered himself infinitely more precious than any created victim; purge our conscience—our inmost soul—from dead works to serve the living God in the life of faith, in perfect love and spotless holiness.

Arminian readers preach a purification sincerely held out so that cleansed people may serve—not plunge again into filth.

Calvin: Christ's death is to be estimated not by the external act but by the power of the Spirit; that death becomes saving through the Spirit's efficacious power. He calls the Spirit eternal that we may know the reconciliation is eternal. From dead works—works that produce death or spring from death. We are washed by Christ that our purity may serve to glorify God; nothing can please God until we are purified by Christ's blood.

For the hearer: conscience purged is unto service of the living God. The living God stands over against dead works; reconciliation is the beginning of acceptable worship.

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, since a death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions under the first covenant. Wesley: for this end he is the Mediator of a new covenant, that they who are called to its engagements and benefits might receive the eternal inheritance promised to Abraham by his meritorious death—for redemption from the guilt and punishment of sins committed in the time of the old covenant.

Arminians hear calling and inheritance joined to a death that truly redeems transgressors who are brought into the covenant's benefits by faith.

Calvin: for this cause he is Mediator of the new testament; he claims not for Christ a mediation shared with others, but maintains that all others were repudiated when Christ undertook the office through death intervening. He paid the price for sins under the first covenant which the blood of beasts could not blot out. When we come to Christ we obtain a full redemption. He speaks of the called as those made partakers of this calling; righteousness and salvation are procured by Christ's blood and we become partakers by faith.

One Mediator, one death, full redemption. The called receive what the law's victims could only sign.

For where a last will and testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him who made it must be established. Wesley: by means of death; where such a covenant is, there must be the death of him by whom it is confirmed—seeing it is by his death that the benefits of it are purchased.

The death ratifies the covenant. The new covenant's benefits are not released by moral improvement alone but by the death of the covenant-maker. Both camps preach a costly mercy.

Calvin: where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the testator. The Apostle, alluding to the Greek word's range of meaning, holds that the promises should not otherwise have been ratified had they not been sealed by the death of Christ. God in establishing the covenant of the law made use of blood; that covenant bore likeness to a testament, ratified by death.

There is no inheritance without blood. The argument from wills presses the necessity of Christ's death for covenant efficacy.

For a will is in force where there has been death, for it is never in force while the one who made it is alive. Wesley notes the passage's difficulty in older English renderings, yet the pastoral point stands: death brings the covenant's purchased benefits into force.

Both camps: as long as we treat the covenant-maker as merely a living teacher, we miss the will's power. Cross first; then inheritance.

Calvin: a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength while the testator lives. What rightly belongs to a testament is that it begins to take effect after death. The covenant of God made with blood may be fitly compared to a testament.

Christ's death is not an optional seal on an already complete moral program. Inheritance waits on the death that establishes it.

Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood. Wesley: neither was the first—the Jewish covenant—originally transacted without the blood of an appointed sacrifice.

Held in common: from the beginning, covenant with God meant blood. The first covenant already preached, in shadow, that access and inauguration cost life. Classical Arminians and Reformed alike refuse a bloodless Christianity.

Calvin: whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. Men were even then reminded that it could not be valid and efficacious except death intervened. Though the blood of beasts was shed, he denies that it availed to confine an everlasting covenant.

Inauguration by blood was pedagogical necessity. The old dedication pointed beyond itself to the blood that truly establishes the everlasting covenant.

When Moses had declared every commandment, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled the book and all the people. Wesley: circumstances known from Moses; the book which contained all he had said; blood mixed with water—perhaps also to typify that blood and water of John 19:34.

Both camps: word and blood together. Sprinkling reaches book and people. The gospel pattern is already here—promise spoken, blood applied.

Calvin: Moses, having spoken every precept, took blood with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled book and people. Before the explanation of the Law no symbol was added; a symbol is an appendage to the word. The people were taught that God could not be sought for salvation except faith looked to intervening blood.

For the hearer: sacrament without word is dead; word without blood cannot cleanse. Moses' sprinkling catechizes the church to look to Christ.

Saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." Wesley: this is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined me to deliver unto you—by this it is established.

Common to both: covenant blood is God's command, not human invention. Both camps hear the line that will echo in the Lord's Supper. The blood establishes what God enjoins.

Calvin: if that was the blood of the testament, then neither testament without blood nor blood without testament avails. Both must be united. The promises of God are profitable when confirmed by the blood of Christ; when the Gospel is preached, his sacred blood distills together with the voice.

"This is the blood" binds word and sacrifice. Faith receives a covenant God Himself commanded and sealed.

In the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. Wesley: he ordered the tabernacle when it was made, and all its vessels, to be sprinkled with blood.

Both camps: even holy furniture needs blood. Worship itself is unclean until sprinkled. The point is cultus consecration pointing to Christ's cleansing of our approach to God.

Calvin: moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. All kinds of worship are faulty and impure until Christ cleanses them by the sprinkling of his blood. Where Christ does not appear with his blood, we have nothing to do with God.

Vessels and tent preach our need. Ministry without the blood is not safe nearness to the Holy One.

Under the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission. Wesley: almost all things—for some were purified by water or fire—are according to the law purified with blood; and according to the law there is no forgiveness without shedding of blood. All this pointed to the blood of Christ effectually cleansing from all sin, and intimated there can be no purification from it by any other means.

Shared and non-negotiable: no blood, no forgiveness. Classical Arminians and Reformed preach substitutionary atonement here without distraction. This is the chapter's pastoral center.

Calvin: almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Uncleanness was imputed until expiated by sacrifice. As without Christ there is no purity nor salvation, so nothing without blood can be pure or saving. Men cannot appear before God until He is pacified; there is but one way of pacification—expiation by blood—when we flee by faith to the death of Christ.

Forgiveness is blood-bought or it is imaginary. Both camps stand shoulder to shoulder against any gospel that omits the shed blood of Christ.