Abel and the Blood
Hebrews 12:24 is an interesting verse to interpret. The text says: “to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” The context involves a comparison of what Christians possess to what those of Moses’ day had. Israel came to a literal mountain that burned with fire, but Christians come to mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:18-22). We have also come to the Mediator of a better covenant—to Jesus. On the Day of Atonement, under the Law of Moses, the blood of the sacrifice (of a bull and a goat) was sprinkled on the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14-15). This action made atonement for the Holy Place, “because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins…” (v. 16).
Most commentators seem to think that Christ’s blood (shed on the cross) is being compared to Abel’s blood (shed by his brother Cain). Calvin pointed out that the difference in the two is that Abel’s blood cried out for vengeance, but Christ’s blood was shed for mercy. Everyone likes the comparison, but is that what the author of Hebrews had in mind? Why would it be? Cain was not offering a sacrifice when he murdered his brother; it was an act of jealousy and vengeance. Of course, Jesus was put to death for the same reason, but only His blood could atone for sin.
What is being compared is not Abel’s personal blood, but the blood he shed in his offering to God—the blood of the animals he sacrificed to God. “Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat.” God respected Abel and His offering (Gen. 4:4). We know that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin (Heb. 10:4), but it typified the sacrifice of Jesus, just as those offered on the Day of atonement. The point of Hebrews 12:24 is that what Jesus offered is a better sacrifice than what Abel offered. His blood has the power to actually wash sins away, whereas the Israelites were conscious of their sins each year (Heb. 10:1-3).
This explanation fits the context far better, considering the comparison. Under the first covenant, animal sacrifices were offered. Moses mediated between God and Israel, and Aaron offered the sacrifices. But Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant, which is far better. Animal sacrifices no longer need be offered; Jesus “offered one sacrifice for sins forever” (Heb. 10:12). He entered “the Most Holy Place once for all” (Heb. 9:12). But why use Abel for the comparison instead of mentioning the high priest under the law? The reason may be the fact that Abel was the first one recorded who offered up a blood sacrifice for sins. Since he did so by faith, God must have commanded it (Heb. 11:4; Rom. 10:17). The point, then, in Hebrews 12:24 is that when Christ offered His own blood, it was better than that which Abel offered in the beginning.