How does the sprinkled blood speak a better word than the blood of Abel?

Explanation:

The author of Hebrew states that the sprinkling of Jesus’ blood speaks better than the blood of Abel. What does it mean that Jesus’ blood speaks better than Abel’s blood? To find out we turn to Gen 4 where we read that Cain and Abel were brothers, and Cain murdered Abel because of jealousy. In Genesis 4:10 we read that God confronts Cain, asking what he has done, before stating that the blood of Abel cries out to him. In other words, the blood of Abel cries out for justice, which implies punishment and condemnation.⁶

So we know that the blood of Abel cries out for condemnation. What about the blood of Jesus? The author of Hebrews has already explained that the blood of Jesus purifies us from a guilty conscience (Hebrews 9:14) and sanctifies us before God (Hebrews 10:14) by forgiving our sins (Hebrews 10:18). Thus, the blood of Jesus is better than the blood of Abel because, rather than calling for punishment and condemnation, Jesus’ blood calls for forgiveness and reconciliation.

Counterargument:

The problem with this interpretation is that the text from Hebrews does not mention the blood of Abel. In fact, it says that the sprinkling of blood speaks better than Abel. There is no indication that the sprinkling of blood speaks better than the blood of Abel, but only that it speaks better than Abel.⁷ We know that the first recorded sacrifice in the Old Testament is the sacrifice of Abel. Therefore, most likely Hebrews 11:24 states that Jesus’ blood is a better sacrifice than the sacrifices of Abel because the sacrifices in the old covenant were only copies (Hebrews 9:24).

Response to counterargument:

The simple fact is that when the author states that Jesus’ sprinkled blood is better than Abel, this is shorthand for the blood of Abel.⁸ In fact, both the ESV and the NIV translate the prepositional phrase as than the blood of Abel. This is not surprising because we do not normally think of Abel as implementing the sacrificial system. Rather, the theology of the Old Testament points to Moses and Aaron as the leaders God used to establish the tabernacle, laws, and sacrificial systems.

Explanation:

The author has been explaining the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice and now he writes that we have come to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than Abel. When the author writes that the sprinkled blood speaks better, the participle form of to speak is in the dative case.^9,10 This means that if it is being used adjectivally, it modifies something in the dative case. In fact, the noun mediator and blood are both in the dative case. Thus, the author means to suggest that Jesus as mediator and his sprinkled blood speak better than the blood of Abel.¹¹

Counterargument:

It is possible that the participle is being used adjectivally but it is also possible that it is being used as a substantive (see Interpretation 2, argument 2, explanation).

Response to counterargument:

Since the participle lacks an article and is in the dative case, it is more likely that it is being used adjectivally (Interpretation 2, argument 2, counterargument).

Possible weaknesses:

The one problem with this view is that it does not help with Hebrews 12:25. In Hebrews 12:25 the author warns his audience not to refuse the one who is speaking, and he uses the same participle of the verb for to speak. This suggests that the subject speaking in Hebrews 12:25 is the same as the subject in Hebrews 12:24. If this is the case, either the author personifies the blood as a person in Hebrews 12:25 or the subject is something other than the blood. At the same time, this weakness is not insurmountable because the dative case points to both the noun blood and mediator, so in this sense, Jesus and his blood is speaking a better word than the blood of Abel. Such an understanding allows Jesus to be the subject of Hebrews 12:25.

Explanation:

In order to understand what the author means when he says that something is speaking better than Abel, we need to understand the verse in context. When we read Hebrews 12:25 we find the author warning his audience not to refuse the one who is speaking. Thus, in both Hebrews 12:24 and Hebrews 12:25 we have the participle form of to speak. This should lead us to suspect that whoever or whatever is speaking is the same in both verses.¹⁶ Does Hebrews 12:25 allow for the notion that it is the blood of Abel that is speaking? In fact, no, because the rest of Hebrews 12:25 explains that the one speaking in the verse is one who warns from heaven. Thus, the one speaking is God himself. Since it makes the most sense for the speaker of Hebrews 12:25 to be the same as the speaker in Hebrews 12:24, we should assume that the one speaking in Hebrews 12:24 is also God.

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it is hard to see what the author means by saying that God speaks a better word than Abel. The author has been encouraging the congregation to persevere because Jesus’ sacrifice has ushered in a new covenant. No longer do we tremble with fear before God in the same way that Moses did (Hebrews 12:20–21) because we have been invited into God’s presence through the blood of Christ. It is hard to see what the author could mean by suddenly stating, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, and to one who speaks better than Abel. Such a translation is grammatically correct but on this reading, it is hard to see how Abel would fit into the author’s flow of thought. On the other hand, if the author means that Jesus’ blood speaks better than Abel’s blood, the introduction of Abel fits the context well. The fact is, Abel’s blood is representative of a call to God for justice against sin, and this call condemns every one of us, because all have sinned. Thus, because there was no mediator between God and man, Moses was rightly terrified when he approached the mountain. Now, because Jesus’ blood is better than Abel’s, we can approach the throne of God in full assurance of faith, sprinkled clean by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22).

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews uses κρεῖττον (better) thirteen times, and in ten of the thirteen times he uses it to modify a noun or a participle. In each case the substantive follows κρεῖττον (better). Since the participle is a substantive, we should assume that κρεῖττον modifies λαλοῦντα (to speak).¹⁷ Thus, it is not the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than Abel but the one who speaks that speaks a better word than Abel. Who is the one who speaks? God is the one who speaks.¹⁸

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this view. First, when a participle is used as a substantive, it normally has an article.¹⁹ Since the participle does not have an article it is likely being used adjectivally to modify the noun sprinkled blood. In other words, it is the sprinkled blood that speaks.²⁰ This explains why there is no article in front of the participle λαλουντι, because the participle is adjectival, and not substantive. It also explains why the participle is in the dative case. The reason is because μεσίτῃ (mediator) and αἵματι (blood) are also in the dative.^21,22 Thus, it is Jesus’ blood as mediator that is speaking.

Second, if the participle is adjectival, this explains the placement of κρεῖττον (better). If κρεῖττον normally modifies what follows it, then it makes sense for it to modify the whole adjectival phrase the sprinkled blood that speaks. The sprinkled blood speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.^23,24

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it is based solely on the grammar without taking the literary context into consideration. This is a problem because the grammar can rightly be taken in different ways without violating any rules. In this case the interpretation does not make much sense given the context. For this reason, it is better to find an interpretation that suits the grammar and the context.