Verse 19

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people.

There are two things considerable in the words.

1. The person made use of in the dedication of the covenant, which was Moses.

2. What he did therein; which is referred to two heads. (1) His speaking or reading the terms of the covenant, every precept out of the book. (2) His sprinkling of the book and people with blood.

1. Moses was the Internuntius between God and the people in this great transaction. On God's part he was immediately called to this employment (Exodus 3). And on the part of the people he was chosen and desired by them to transact all things between God and them, in the making and confirmation of this covenant, because they were not able to bear the effects of God's immediate presence (Exodus 19:19; Deuteronomy 5:22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). And this choice of a spokesman on their part, God did approve of, ver. 27. Hence he became in a general sense a [in non-Latin alphabet], a Mediator between God and men in the giving of the law (Galatians 3:19). Whatever therefore was done by Moses in this whole affair of the dedication of the covenant on the part of God, or of the people, was firm and unalterable, he being a public person authorized to this work. And

1. There can be no covenant between God and men, but in the hand or by virtue of a Mediator. The first covenant in the state of innocency was immediately between God and man. But since the entrance of sin, it can be so no more. For (1) man has neither meetness nor confidence to treat immediately with God. Nor (2) any credit or reputation with him, so to be admitted as an undertaker in his own person. Nor (3) any ability to perform the conditions of any covenant with God.

2. A Mediator may be either only an Internuntius, a messenger, a days-man; or also a surety and an undertaker. Of the first sort was the Mediator of the old covenant; of the latter of the New.

3. None can interpose between God and a people in any sacred office, unless he be called of God and approved of the people, as was Moses.

2dly. That which Moses did in this affair was first in way of preparation; and there are three things in the account of it. (1) What he did precisely. (2) With respect to whom. (3) According to what rule or order he did it.

1. He spoke every precept, Vul. Lat. lecto omni Mandato; having read every command; which is the sense intended. [in non-Latin alphabet], is as much in this place as recited. So it is rendered by most translators, cum recitasset, that is, when he had read in the book. For his first speaking to the people, ver. 3. is not here intended, but his reading in the audience of the people, ver. 7. He spoke what he read, that is, audibly; so it is in the story: he read it in the audience of the people, so as that they might hear and understand. It is added by the Apostle that he thus read, spoke, recited every precept or command. He took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of the people, says the text; that is, the whole book, and all that was contained in it, or every precept. And the whole is reduced by the Apostle to precepts. It was [in non-Latin alphabet] (Ephesians 2:15), a law, a system of precepts. And it is so called to intimate the nature of that covenant. It consisted principally in precepts or commandments of obedience, promising no assistance for the performance of them. The new covenant is of another nature; it is a covenant of promises. And although it has precepts also requiring obedience, yet is it wholly founded in the promise, whereby strength and assistance for the performance of that obedience are given to us. And the Apostle does well observe that Moses read every precept to the people: for all the good things they were to receive by virtue of that covenant depended on the observation of every precept. For a curse was denounced against every one that continued not in all things written in the law to do them (Deuteronomy 27:26). And we may observe;

1. A covenant that consisted in mere precepts without an exhibition of spiritual strength to enable to obedience could never save sinners. The insufficiency of this covenant to that end is that which the Apostle designs to prove in all this discourse. But thereon a double enquiry may be made. (1) Why God gave this covenant which was so insufficient to this great end? This question is proposed and answered by the Apostle (Galatians 3:19). (2) How then did any of the people yield obedience to God, if the covenant exhibited no aid nor assistance to it? The Apostle answers in the same place; that they received it by faith in the promise, which was given before, and not disannulled by this covenant.

2. In all our dealings with God, respect must be had to every one of his precepts. And the reason hereof is given by the Apostle James, namely, that the authority of God is the same in every one of them, and so may be despised in the neglect of the least as well as of the greatest (James 2:10, 11).

2dly. To whom did Moses thus read every precept? It was, says the Apostle, to all the people. In the story it is said indefinitely, in the audience of the people; as afterwards, he sprinkled the people. The Apostle adds the note of universality in both places; to all the people. For whereas these things were transacted with the representatives of the people (for it was naturally impossible that the one half of the individuals of them should hear Moses reading), they were all equally concerned in what was said and done. Yet I do believe that after Moses first told the people, that is, the elders of them, all the words of the law, ver. 3. there was means used by the elders and officers to communicate the things, yes to repeat the words to all the people, that they might be enabled to give their rational consent to them. And we may observe;

The first eminent use of the writing of the Book of the Law, that is, of any part of the Scripture, (for this Book was the first that was written,) was that it might be read to the people. He gave not this Book to be shut up by the Priests; to be concealed from the people, as containing mysteries unlawful to be divulged, or impossible to be understood. Such conceits befell not the minds of men, until the power and ends of religion being lost, some got an opportunity to order the concerns of it to their own worldly interest and advantage.

This Book was both written and read in the language which the people understood and commonly spake. And a rule was herein prescribed to the Church in all ages; if so be the example of the wisdom and care of God towards his Church may be a rule to us.

God never required the observance of any rites or duties of worship, without a previous warranty from his Word. The people took not on them, they were not obliged to obedience with respect to any positive institutions, until Moses had read to them every precept out of the Book.

The writing of this Book was an eminent privilege, now first granted to the Church, leading to a more perfect and stable condition, then formerly it had enjoyed. Hitherto it had lived on oral instructions, from traditions, and by new immediate revelations; the evident defects whereof were now removed, and a standard of divine truth and instruction set up and fixed among them.

3dly. There is the rule whereby Moses proceeded herein, or the warranty he had for what he did: According to the Law. He read every precept according to the Law. It cannot be the Law in general that the Apostle intends, for the greatest part of that doctrine which is so called, was not yet given or written; nor does it in any place contain any precept to this purpose. Therefore it is a particular law, rule or command, that is intended. According to the ordinance or appointment of God. Such was the command that God gave to Moses for the framing of the Tabernacle; See you make all things according to the pattern shewed you in the Mount. Particularly it seems to be the agreement between God and the people, that Moses should be the Internuntius, the interpreter between them. According to this rule, order or divine constitution, Moses read all the words from God out of the Book to the people. Or it may be the Law may here be taken for the whole design of God in giving of the Law; so as that according to the Law, is no more but, according to the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God in giving of the Law, with all things that belong to its order and use. And it is good for us to look for God's especial warranty, for what we undertake to do in his service.

The second thing in the words is, what Moses did immediately and directly towards the dedication or consecration of this Covenant. And there are three things to this purpose mentioned. (1) What he made use of. (2) How he used it. (3) With respect to what and whom.

The first is expressed in these words. He took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet-wool and hyssop. He took the blood of the beasts that were offered for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings (ver. 5, 6). To this end, in their slaying he took all their blood in basons; and made an equal division of it. The one half he sprinkled on the Altar; and the other half he sprinkled on the people. That which was sprinkled on the Altar, was God's part; and the other was put on the people. Both the mutual stipulation of God and the congregation in this Covenant, and the equality of it, or the equity of its terms, were denoted hereby. And herein lies the principal force of the Apostle's argument in these words: blood was used in the dedication of the first Covenant. This was the blood of the beasts offered in sacrifice to God. Therefore both death, and death by blood-shedding, was required to the confirmation of a Covenant. So also therefore must the new Covenant be confirmed, but with blood and a sacrifice far more precious than they were.

This distribution of blood, that half of it was on the Altar, and half of it on the people; the one to make atonement, the other to purify or sanctify; was to teach the two-fold efficacy of the blood of Christ, in making atonement for sin to our justification, and the purifying of our natures in sanctification.

With this blood he took the things mentioned with respect to its use, which was sprinkling. The manner of it was in part declared before. The blood being put into basons, and having water mixed with it to keep it fluid and aspersible, he took a bunch or bundle of hyssop bound up with scarlet wool, and dipping it into the basons sprinkled the blood, until it was all spent in that service.

This rite or way of sprinkling was chosen of God as an expressive token or sign of the effectual communication of the benefits of the Covenant to them that were sprinkled. Hence the communication of the benefits of the death of Christ to sanctification is called the sprinkling of his blood (1 Peter 1:2). And our Apostle comprises all the effects of it to that end, under the name of the blood of sprinkling (chap. 12:24). And I fear that those who have used the expression with some contempt, when applied by themselves to the sign of the communication of the benefits of the death of Christ in Baptism, have not observed that reverence of holy things, that is required of us. For this symbol of sprinkling was that which God himself chose and appointed, as a meet and apt token of the communication of Covenant-Mercy, that is, of his grace in Christ Jesus to our souls.

The blood of the Covenant will not benefit or advantage us without an especial and particular application of it to our own souls and consciences. If it be not as well sprinkled upon us, as it was offered to God, it will not avail us. The blood of Christ was not divided as was that of these sacrifices, the one half being on the Altar, the other on the people; but the efficacy of the whole produced both these effects, yet so, as that the one will not profit us without the other. We shall have no benefit of the atonement made at the Altar, unless we have its efficacy on our own souls to their purification. And this we cannot have unless it be sprinkled on us; unless particular application be made of it to us by the Holy Ghost, in and by an especial act of faith in our selves.

3. The object of this act of sprinkling was the book itself and all the people. The same blood was on the book wherein the covenant was recorded, and the people that entered into it.

But whereas this sprinkling was for purifying and purging, it may be enquired, to what end the book itself was sprinkled, which was holy and undefiled? I answer; there were two things necessary to the dedication of the covenant with all that belonged to it. (1) Atonement. (2) Purification; and in both these respects it was necessary that the book itself should be sprinkled. (1) As we observed before, it was sprinkled as it lay upon the altar, where atonement was made; and this was plainly to signify that atonement was to be made by blood, for sins committed against that book or the law contained in it. Without this that book would have been to the people like that given to Ezekiel, that was written within and without, and there was written therein lamentations and mourning and woe (Ezekiel 2:10). Nothing but curse and death could they expect from it. But the sprinkling of it with blood as it lay upon the altar, was a testimony and assurance, that atonement should be made by blood, for the sins against it, which was the life of the things. (2) The book in itself was pure and holy; and so are all God's institutions; but to us every thing is unclean that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. So afterwards the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were purified every year with blood, because of the uncleannesses of the people in their transgressions (Leviticus 16). Therefore on both these accounts, it was necessary that the book itself should be sprinkled.

The blood thus sprinkled was mingled with water. The natural reason of it was, as we observed, to keep it fluid and aspersible. But there was a mystery in it also. That the blood of Christ was typified by this blood of the sacrifices used in the dedication of the Old Covenant, it is the Apostle's design to declare. And it is probable that this mixture of it with water might represent that blood and water which came out of his side when it was pierced. For the mystery thereof was very great. Hence that Apostle which saw it and bare record of it in particular (John 19:34, 35) affirms likewise that he came by water and blood; and not by blood only (1 John 5:6). He came not only to make atonement for us with his blood, that we might be justified; but to sprinkle us with the efficacy of his blood in the communication of the Spirit of sanctification compared to water.

For the sprinkler itself composed of scarlet wool and hyssop, I doubt not but that the human nature of Christ, whereby and through which all grace is communicated to us, (for of his fullness we receive, and grace for grace) was signified by it. But the analogy and similitude between them are not so evident, as they are with respect to some other types. The hyssop was an humble plant, the meanest of them, yet of a sweet savour (1 Kings 4:33). So was the Lord Christ among men in the days of his flesh, in comparison of the tall cedars of the earth. Hence was his complaint; that he was as a worm and no man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people (Psalms 22:6). And the scarlet wool might represent him as red in the blood of his sacrifice. But I will not press these things, of whose interpretation we have not a certain rule.

Secondly; the principal truth asserted is confirmed by what Moses said, as well as what he did.