ὅθεν οὐδὲ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος ἐγκεκαίνισται·

othen oude e prote khoris aimatos egkekainistai*

unde ne primum quidem sine sanguine dedicatum est

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Hence neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

Hence neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

And so not even the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.

Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.

Because of this, not even the first was established without blood.

Because of this, not even the first was established without blood.

Whence neither the first was inaugurated without blood.

Whence neither the first was inaugurated without blood.

Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood.

Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood.

Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.

Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.

Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

That is why even the first promise was made with blood.

That is why even the first promise was made with blood.

That is why even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.

That is why even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.

This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.

So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.

Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal.

That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal.

Hence even the first testament was not dedicated without blood.

Hence even the first testament was not dedicated without blood.

Accordingly we find that the first Covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Accordingly we find that the first Covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood.

Therefore even the first covenant has not been dedicated without blood.

So even God's first agreement with his people needed the blood of an animal. The agreement only had authority after a death.

whence not even the first apart from blood hath been initiated,

The Old Way of Worship had to have a death to make it good. The blood of an animal was used.

Therefore, nor was the first ordained without blood.

Even the first testament—the first covenant—required blood to be put into action.

That is why blood was sprinkled as proof of Christ’s death before even the first agreement could go into effect.

Hence, not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

From which came that not even the first one was dedicated without blood.

That is why even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.

So even the [old] first covenant (God’s will) was not inaugurated and ratified and put in force without the shedding of blood.

This is why even the first agreement could not begin without blood to show death.

Even the first plan required a death to set it in motion. After Moses had read out all the terms of the plan of the law—God’s “will”—he took the blood of sacrificed animals and, in a solemn ritual, sprinkled the document and the people who were its beneficiaries. And then he attested its validity with the words, “This is the blood of the covenant commanded by God.” He did the same thing with the place of worship and its furniture. Moses said to the people, “This is the blood of the covenant God has established with you.” Practically everything in a will hinges on a death. That’s why blood, the evidence of death, is used so much in our tradition, especially regarding forgiveness of sins.

For this reason, the first covenant was not ratified without blood.

Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

For which reason also, neither was that first testament ordained without blood.

That is why even the first covenant went into effect only with the use of blood.

Wherefore neither the first testament was hallowed without blood.

That’s why even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Blood was also used to put the first agreement into effect.

Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood.

Christ is consequently the administrator of an entirely new agreement, having the power, by virtue of his death, to redeem transgressions committed under the first agreement: to enable those who obey God’s call to enjoy the promises of the eternal inheritance. For, as in the case of a will, the agreement is only valid after death. While the testator lives, a will has no legal power. And indeed we find that even the first agreement of God’s will was not put into force without the shedding of blood. For when Moses had told the people every command of the Law he took calves’ and goats’ blood with water and scarlet wool, and sprinkled both the book and all the people with a sprig of hyssop, saying: ‘This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you’.

Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

So not even the first covenant was put into effect without blood.

So even the first covenant was not put in force without [the shedding of] blood.

Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Thus not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

This is why even the first ·agreement [covenant; contract; C the same Greek word as “will” in vv. 16–17] could not ·begin [be inaugurated/put into effect] without blood [C the death of a sacrificial animal].

That is why not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood.

That’s why even the first covenant was not put into effect without the spilling of blood.

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

This is why the first covenant too was inaugurated with blood.

So even the old agreement made by God was not begun without blood.

Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Hence the Brit HaRishonah was not cut without DAHM. [Ex 24:8]

That is why even the first promise was made with blood.

So not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

That is why blood was needed to begin the first agreement between God and his people.

This is why even the first agreement could not begin without blood to show death.

Therefore not even the first covenant was ratified without blood.

This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

Hence, not even the first covenant has been inaugurated without blood.