Wherefore neither hath the first (testament, A.V or, covenant) been dedicated without blood. Here the blood of slain victims, which had been essential for the first inauguration of the old διαθήκη, is referred to as expressing the principle of Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, viz. that there must be death for a διαθήκη to take effect. Whichever view we take of the intended import of the word, the reference is equally apposite in support of the introductory proposition of Hebrews 9:15; which is to the effect that Christ's death ( θανάτου γενμένου), fulfilling the symbolism of the old inaugurating sacrifices, qualified him as Mediator of a new διαθήκη.
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water anti scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant (A.V. testament) which God enjoined unto you (strictly, to you-ward; i.e. enjoined to me for you). The reference is to Exodus 24:3-9, where the account is given of the inauguration of the covenant between God and the Israelites through Moses. He "came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do." And then he wrote all the words of the LORD in a book, and builded an altar under the mount, and sacrifices were offered, and half of the blood was sprinkled on the altar, and the words were read from the book, and again the people undertook to observe them, and the other half of the blood was sprinkled on the people, and so the covenant was ratified. The essential part of the whole ceremony being the "blood-shedding," it is of no importance for the general argument that the account in Exodus is not exactly followed. The variations from it are these: