Title: The Necessary Link Between Covenant and Death
18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.
It’s been a few weeks, so let’s review
“Therefore” v18
Referring back to 9:15-17, specifically the last phrase “For a covenant is valid only when people are dead”
Two quick reminders:
- “Blood” and “Death” are pretty much interchangeable in this context.
- The idea of “Covenant” can be interchanged with “Testament” as in “Last Will and Testament”
Meaning: The covenant was bound in blood. A death had to occur for the promise of the covenant to go into effect.
Several weeks ago, our very own Dr. Cara Rogers asked a very good question. I’m paraphrasing, but essentially Cara asked, “What’s the difference between covenants signed in blood (the sacrificial system or the death of Christ) vs. covenant not signed in blood (God’s covenant to never again flood the earth after Noah).
Now, When Cara asked that question, I attempted an answer and Cara gave me one of these: (meme) So knew I had some work to do…which is a good thing!
But then I watched them circle…the legendary theological raptors of HBC. First I watched the raptors squirm in their seats, not being able to contain their own giddiness over such a rich theological question.
Then service ended and I watched the theological raptors circle. You’ve all seen it, the polite “Hope you have have great week!” Handshakes and hugs while they are just politely making a subtle b-line for Dr. Rogers.
By the time I got back into the sanctuary after greeting people and wishing them well as I do each week at the back door of the church, the theological raptors of HBC had descended upon their prey. They had in circled Cara and were in a very deep discussion with her.
I just chuckled, appreciative of the raptors and their work unto this day. I don’t know what that conversation was because I did not involve myself. But I thought today three weeks after Cara was attacked by the Raptors, It would be a good idea for me to offer some of my brief thoughts.
But before we do that, I know many of you want to know who the theological Raptors of the church are. Now I can’t give out that type of information, but there was a sighting recently a rare sighting that was caught on camera. Slide
(The worst thing that ever happened to you people is me getting into AI)
Again, I have no idea what the Raptors said, but I felt it my responsibility to offer some insight of my own:
PB’s thoughts:
Blood appears when:
• Justice must be satisfied
• Sin must be addressed
• Death is the covenant consequence
No blood appears when:
• God is simply promising restraint
• No substitution is required
• No atonement is in view
Blood marks covenants that deal with sin.
The rainbow marks a covenant that restrains wrath.
PB’s observation
I also think there’s a fair observation to be made here about the value God puts on humanity. We, the elect, were so precious to God that not just any blood was spilt for our redemption, but the blood of the perfect lamb.
No such blood was spilled for the Grand Canyon or for Niagara Falls, or our solar system or even the entire universe. We may never fully grasp how precious we are in God, the father’s sight.
But if we dwelt on that a little bit more frequently, we might fight sin with a bit more vigor, we might be a bit more serious about the daily disciplines of quiet times meditation, prayer and devotion…if we saw ourselves and our value through the eyes of our father who loved us and spilt Christ blood for us, we might rise to the occasion a little bit more.
It’s a great dichotomy because as Paul in 1 Tim. 1:15, “I am the chief of sinners” …yet we are also of such amazing worth that God thought us to be worthy of Christ blood…let that sink in…let that keep you up at night.
Guzik:
Clearly, death was necessary to the Old Covenant. Virtually every part of the sacrificial system under the Law of Moses was touched by blood in some way or another.
Ratification in Blood
And this concept of “ratifying” a covenant in blood, was very familiar to the Jews of Jesus’s time. So, the author, in a way is saying, “We understand the necessity of the blood, but what I want you to think about is this…WHO’S blood seals the new covenant.”
-A man’s blood (all other sacrifices were animals, this would not be lost on the original audience of Hebrews)
-But it goes even deeper. It isn’t just A Man’s blood. It is the Messiah’s blood.
-Perfect
-Obedient
-Flawless
-Approved
-Sufficient FOREVER
Pastor Chad Berry:
All of this in anchored in Genesis 3:15. The bruising of the heel is the shedding of Crist’s blood. The crushing of Satan’s head is the resurrection that conquer death.
Also remember that anytime something moves from an unclaimed status to a clean status. Blood is required. That’s another difference between the Noah covenant with the rainbow. Nothing was being cleaned. It was just a promise being made through the covenant. In the issue of all sacrifice, Old Testament or Christ in the new, something is going from being made unclean to being made clean.
CG Questions:
• If blood was required to ratify the covenant, how serious must sin actually be?
• Do I treat my sin as costly… or casual?
• What sins have I quietly downgraded in my mind?
• Do I live like forgiveness was expensive?
• Am I more shocked by God’s justice — or more amazed by His mercy?