Maybe you have heard the phrase, “Christ is at the center of all the Bible.” Or, “the whole of Scripture points to Jesus Christ.” How about, “The Bible is a love-story of God chasing His creation.” Did you know that Jesus is the one who started this type of Jesus-centric thinking? It’s true. We actually see Jesus making this point the very day of his resurrection in his discussion with two men on the road to Emmaus:
“Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:26-27).
Someone will will be quick to think, “OK, but the story is so terribly long and complex, where do I start?” Let’s start by first examining how the Old Covenant and New Covenant relate to each other and then build forward until we will eventually see how this impacts to story of Creator and creation today.
To start, think of the Bible as a love story between two people. While there will be numerous details and other characters involved all of the incidental material will exist to point to the relationship between the two lovers. This is exactly the dynamic that the Bible contains as it relates to God and the people of His creation. And, it all starts with a promise…
The ceremony for the making of the promise (or, as it was known in the Old Testament, “covenant-making”) between God and Israel in Exodus 24, provides for us a backdrop on the meaning of the future of Christ’s atonement by providing us with some unique features. While some the information may seem laborious at first, it intentionally creates a vacuum in which the New Covenant fills. Therefore, pay particular attention to the dynamics involved to get a sense of building grandeur and the amazing grace that is yet to come because of Jesus.
First, the dynamic of personal participation.
In other covenants there is a representative person who enters the covenant and by doing so takes with him all of those he represents. For example, this is what Noah and Abraham did. However, in Exodus 24 we have a covenant with the nation, not with Moses. Moses has a role something like that of master of ceremonies. He directs what is done, but he does not enter into the covenant himself other than being a member of the people making the promise. It is vital to notice that twice the people took obligations on themselves; based on their responsibility/ability to act in accordance with the expectations (10 Commandments) of the Lord:
Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken, we will do” (v.3). Then, Moses, “set before them all these words that the Lord had commanded him. All the people answered together and said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do.” And Moses reported the words of the people to the Lord. (vv.7-8)
A second unusual feature is an extension of the first – putting the blood on the people.
Nowhere are we given an explanation of the meaning of the ceremony with the blood within the story, but the general use of blood in connection with the sacrifice points to cleansing from sin and defilement. There is no reason to doubt that when blood was put on people this was the idea. The whole of the people were being cleansed from sin and at the same time was being consecrated for its new role as the people of God. It is much like our view of a bride being prepared on her wedding day for the adoring husband.
Notice how Moses responds to the people with the blood of the sacrifices:
The first “half of the blood and [Moses] put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar” (v. 6). The remaining blood was taken and Moses”threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (v. 8).
It is significant to realize that within this Covenant, the blood was put on the people and not on the chosen representatives (see v1-2). The promise of fidelity and devotion were being made by the people to their God. The devotion of the people was to be expected and promised to the God who had delivered them from Egypt.
The third and usual feature for of this covenant was that the people promised to obey God’s law.
It is not said that they were asked to do this or that this was a condition of the covenant. When Moses told them “all the Lord’s words and laws”, they “responded with one voice,” everything the Lord has said we will do.” It is after this event that Moses wrote down what the Lord said (v.4a). It is after the blood had been thrown against the altar that Moses reads, “the book of the covenant” and they respond by saying, “we will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.” Curiously, Exodus says nothing about what God would do in response. In the other covenants with God it is always what God says he will do that is a significant thing. It is unusual to have a promise in which one party does not specifically promise anything. For sure, it is reasonable and proper to imply that obedience will bring blessing, but it is important to realize that within this promise the people of Israel are the ones bound to obligation. The people’s repeated promise to keep God’s covenant is the focus of the passage and is the ingredient in the love story that remains to be seen. God’s faithfulness has been on display through the Exodus and for generations starting with Abraham (beginning in Gen. 12). Some have understood this to mean that this covenant between Israel and the Lord was based on works. The idea is that Israel agreed to do certain things for God and in response God agreed to do certain things for Israel. This is not the way passage reads. The covenant between God and Israel proceeded from God’s choice of the nation beginning with Abraham. It was God’s choice that was the first and dominant factor, as is made clear in an earlier reference to the covenant:
“You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now, therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all people, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” (Exodus 19:4-6).
In Part II, we will see how the love story between God and His people could never flourish precisely because the people of God were more in love with themselves. One would think that this weakness would create a divide that would be insurmountable. But we will see that it serves as a dark backdrop for a love scene that is the greatest that the world has ever known!
Good post, but I have two questions:
1) How would you reconcile your understanding of the significance of the sprinkling of the blood on the people with Hebrews 10:4 (“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”)?
2) Isn’t God’s response or promise that he would make Israel his treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation?
Response to question #1
First, I would treat this passage as a stand-alone under the Old Covenant. I would want to know all the dynamics related to the exchange between God and His covenant people and see how that unfolds in the Old Testament. The activity expressed in this passage is only a murky shadow of what was to come in the New Covenant. However, to the adherents of this promise before God, it was the only way they could deal with their personal failings before a holy God. Today, we realize that the only hope of true and complete forgiveness is found in the blood of Jesus. We will talk about this in later blog entries because this is where all the good stuff is! However, we only truly see the blessing of the New Covenant when we realize the limitations and weaknesses of the Old Covenant.
Bonus coverage…
It would seem that the significance of the blood being put on the people finds its significance in the phrase, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Ex. 24:8), which accompanied the putting of the blood on the people. In the Old Testament blood was put on people in only two ceremonies: the consecration of a priest to his high office in the cleansing of the person who had been cured of leprosy (see Lev.8:23-24 and Lev.14:14). As I stated previously, it is interesting to note that nowhere, to my knowledge, are we given an explanation of the meaning of this ceremony with the blood. However, the general use of blood in connection with sacrifice points to cleansing from sin and defilement. There is no reason to doubt that when blood was put on people in this way that they understood this idea. In the cases of the priest and the cleansing of the leper there is also the thought of a dedication to a new life among the people of God. All this seems inform our understanding of Exodus 24. The whole of the people were being cleansed from the sin and defilement and at the same time were being consecrated for their new role as the people of God under specific obligations expressed within the covenant.
We live within the tension that there was a progressive unfolding of the purpose and understanding in the relationship between the Old and New Covenant. Although we have Jeremiah speaking of a New Covenant yet to come sometime in the future, we do not see how truly insufficient the Old Covenant was until we see Jesus speak of the cup as being “the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). Paul then adds to our understanding when he quoted these words of Jesus about the cup as “the new covenant in My blood” in 1 Cor. 11:25 as an expression of hope until His return. Finally, we see the definitive treatment of the dynamic of the New Covenant in the letter of Hebrews in which the blood of Christ is vastly superior in every way to the Old Testament Covenant. It is not until this final teaching do we fully see a completed picture of the atonement of Jesus Christ in full color as the basis for the promise of the New Covenant.
Response to question #2
Previous to the giving of this ceremony God had shown that he had made the children of Israel his treasured possession. I think we see within the choosing of Abraham, the redemption of Jacob, and in the rescuing of the children of Jacob (then Israel); God being determined to bless his chosen people. Nevertheless, it seems that a natural reading of this particular passage indicates that the people were entering into an obligation to act in a certain way that excluded a specific obligation on their God in return. This does not mean that the obligation that the children of Israel committed to would not lead to the blessing of God, it most certainly would bring His blessing. It simply means that within the covenant framework of this particular ceremony God is not bound to act in a certain way as part of the terms of the agreement. The Ten Commandments (the most likely elucidation of the “contract”) was what the people were committing to. God would then bless in response to their actions but there are no binding terms within this covenant ceremony in regard to what God is bound to do. Am I reading this wrong?
RE: Question #1
Hebrews 9:16-21 explains that the blood of the sacrifice in Exodus 24 was required in order to inaugurate the covenant, since “where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it” (Heb 9:16). I would therefore infer that the sprinkling of the blood on the people and on the book of the covenant was a ritual which met this requirement of covenant inauguration. The death of the sacrificed animals (Exodus 24:5) was apparently considered a substitute for the death of those making the covenant, namely the people and God (represented by the book of the covenant), and this substitution was ritually signified by the sprinkling of blood on them. Hebrew 9:22 may suggest that cleansing was a secondary significance of the blood at this event, but in a more general sense. However, I think that we need to be careful to distinguish between the “cleansing” effected by animal sacrifice and the “cleansing” effected by Christ’s sacrifice (e.g. Heb 9:13-14), which is what prompted my question in the first place.
RE: Question #2
I agree that God had already demonstrated that Israel was his chosen, redeemed people, but I would disagree that they were already his “treasured possession” in the sense intended in Exodus 19:5-6. First, the meaning of “treasured possession” is clarified by the expression “kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” and is used elsewhere of the king’s treasure. Was Israel a kingdom of priests and a holy nation at this time? Second, Exodus 19:5-6 is a conditional statement with an “If… then…” structure. Israel’s status as God’s treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation is conditioned on their obedience to the covenant. God is promising a certain general response to their obedience.
The exact contents of the “book of the covenant” used in the ceremony in Exodus 24 is not certain, but the literary structure of the book of Exodus and comparison of this section with other treaties from the ANE suggests that the “book of the covenant” should be understood as at least Exodus 20:1-23:33, and possibly also the encompassing narrative in Exodus 19 and 24. In any case, Exodus 24:3 states that “all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances” are a part of the covenant ceremony. Since Exodus 21:1 labels 21:1-23:33 “ordinances,” we know that these verses are included. Note, therefore, that God does commit himself to specific obligations within this covenant. He promises to come and bless them (20:24), to hear and answer the cry of the afflicted widow and orphan (22:22-24), to hear the cries of the neighbor whose cloak is not returned (22:27), not to acquit the guilty (23:7), to send an angel ahead of them to bring them into their land (23:20-21), to be an enemy to Israel’s enemies and to destroy the people in the land (23:22-23, 27-31), to bless Israel’s bread and water, to remove sickness and prevent miscarriages (23:25-26), and to establish Israel’s boundaries (23:31).
Jason, thanks for the push-back. I am sure those who read this blog will find your insights helpful.
Question: Are not the blessings of the covenant with God based on Israel’s keeping of the covenant of God? In other words, I would not use the idea of obligation on God’s behalf since the Children of Israel broke their promise. The only reason for God’s continual loving-kindness (see Part II) was due to His choosing based on the general promise of Gen. 12:1-3. I see this as being precisely how the Old Testament creates a vacuum for the need of a New Covenant? Thoughts?
I would agree that the blessings of the covenant are conditioned on Israel’s keeping of the covenant. This is made explicit in Exodus 19:5-6 and 23:22, and is probably implicit in the use of the ANE suzerain-vassal treaty format.
At the same time, I think that it is fair to say that God obligated himself to certain actions within the covenant. By this I mean that God (the suzerain) was required to do what he said he would do in the written covenant as long as the covenant was active and the vassal (i.e. Israel) was in good standing with the covenant.
I think you are right to see the need for the New Covenant as arising from God’s commitment to fulfill his promise in Gen 12 despite Israel’s failure to keep the Sinai/Moab covenant.
Jason, thanks for lending your insight and learning to the discussion. Anyone who knows what the ANE suzerain-vassal treaty format is will always be a friend of mine.
Dan, I am glad to be able to contribute to the discussion, and I am thankful for the many helpful insights which you yourself have given to me over the years!