# Linking Gen 15 / Ex 24 / Heb 9



## Polanus1561 (Apr 4, 2019)

This is my rough understanding so far.

Gen 15 - If God fails in His promises, He shall be like the bloody beasts. Unconditional covenant? (I believe Abraham's call to obedience is not mentioned as his faith as accounted as righteousness Rom 4).
Ex 24 - God and Israel are bounded in a relationship - blessings and curses according to obedience. Conditional Covenant? - elect saved by faith.
Heb 9 - Christ's blood atones for the covenant breakers and ALSO in His testament (going with the last will meaning in Heb 9:16) brings forth blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.

Gaps to be filled, enlighten me please.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 4, 2019)

You're being pretty cryptic--i.e. it's not simple to discern the focus of your request.

Are these chapters "connected?" In some sense, yes. In the first two, you have ceremonies for _formal enactment _of covenant; though you can also argue that the covenant _essence_ of promise-obligation precedes the ceremonial activity. In Heb.9, you have explicit reference to the second (Sinai) ceremony, so clearly the author is directing his readers to recall the former episode.

The Gen.15 passage is unique, in that God makes it clear that he is making a unilateral promise. Whereas, in some bilateral pact, a lord and his vassal, or two more-or-less equal parties would walk through spilt blood and carcasses together, binding them on both sides to an agreement that one was worthy of death should either of them break faith. Yet, here God passes alone through the pieces and the blood to emphasize that (as Heb.6:17-18) God's oath is added to his promise for our assurance: He will (all by himself) guarantee salvation; though it be through death, he will do it.

In Ex.24:3, it is plain the children of Israel promise obedience, as loyal subjects to their King and Rescuer. Yet, we cannot describe Sinai purely in terms of a bilateral agreement. There is some "mixing" of categories. Beneath everything is the bedrock of God's unconditional promise to Abraham, a covenant that the later covenant cannot supercede or override, Gal.3:17. On the surface, there is _quid pro quo, _protection and deliverance in the future predicated on unswerving obedience.

At the level of corporate identity, Israel-as-a-unit agrees (in principle) to do as Adam, and obey God as condition of remaining in God's favor and in the Land (Garden). Fundamentally, this is an impossible commitment, both individually and corporately; which is why there is a whole sacrificial system at the heart of the Old Covenant, the design of which is to teach the Covenant of Grace. Israel cannot keep covenant for even 40days (Ex.32), cannot even get the ritual in operation before they have corrupted themselves. "You cannot serve the Lord," Jos.24:19.

Yet, the persistent proofs are never sufficient evidence to convince the people (though sometimes more, sometimes less of the individual members) that they are inveterate sinners, and can never earn their reward. If they could have been convinced, it would have been because they had all been given that "new heart" which was able to see the utter grace of their deliverance from death, and that grace was sustaining them all the way to their eternal home. And that it was grace (alone) that made thankfulness and heartfelt obedience.

Treating the Sinai-covenant like a strict covenant of works was never going to succeed. It was impossible, obviously impossible, and the very form of the religion embedded in the covenant taught them this. Unless, they perverted the lesson into a works-righteousness system; which is precisely what they proceeded to do, at least by the time of Christ.

Arguably, the failure of the people of Judah at the time of the Exile was something of the opposite extreme--a presumption on "grace," a reliance on the "form" of religion to suffice for the lack of heart-devotion to the meaning of the faith. The people believed Jehovah would never let his Temple be destroyed, so long as the sacrifices were faithfully carried out. But this view was ritualism, not true grace. The nation was trying to "purchase" divine protection, while intent on maintaining their evil habits.

So, were the blessings and curses of the Sinai covenant simply another "ritual" pointing to something else? Were they "real," given the people's acknowledged weakness? They certainly were real, because the negative sanctions were historically carried out against the nation, eventually. They were typological, pointing back to the original Fall-failure, and ahead to Final-judgment. If corporate-Israel had been obedient, real lasting blessing would have been theirs.

As it was, their half-hearted obedience over many centuries was treated by God in a very lenient fashion--another lesson in grace that was there for the taking, but which was also generally missed or perverted. But at long last, it was time to demonstrate further (again, the typology) that God will not forever endure rebels, most especially the presumptuous kind; and the secret animus of them that hate him while pretending love. If you treat the Sinai covenant like a covenant of works and conditional all the way down, don't be surprised when God honors it as such.

Heb.9 uses the symbols of the sacrificial system instituted at Sinai (which has background going all the way back to the Fall) to unpack the work of Christ, who is the fulfillment of all the symbolism of the Tabernacle/Temple, and indeed all of the ceremonies of Israelite religious life (as given in the Law, not as frequently practiced and borrowed from idol-devotions). Christ's sacrifice accomplished what the brazen-altar-sacrifices promised and anticipated. His work is: God going even unto death if need be (and was required), to keep his covenant oath to give his people eternal life.

No one--not Abraham, not Noah, not Moses or Aaron, not David, not Peter or John--no one from Adam on down has kept the covenant of Works; except for Jesus. In that, we all of us ordinary children are _covenant breakers._ For believers and only them, the Lord has taken in himself the penalty due us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Apr 6, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You're being pretty cryptic--i.e. it's not simple to discern the focus of your request.
> 
> Are these chapters "connected?" In some sense, yes. In the first two, you have ceremonies for _formal enactment _of covenant; though you can also argue that the covenant _essence_ of promise-obligation precedes the ceremonial activity. In Heb.9, you have explicit reference to the second (Sinai) ceremony, so clearly the author is directing his readers to recall the former episode.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply.
I understand a 2fold result of Christ blood. It relates to the 2fold use of blood in Ex 24. (self malediction and cleansing).

I understand that the cleansing relates to the New Covenant and the self malediction relates to the old?

Was the New Covenant ratified under the same Gen 15/Ex 24 self malediction aspect?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 6, 2019)

If I understand you correctly
--you already recognize how it is the NC relates to cleansing-by-covenant
--you already recognize how it is the OC contains the aspect of judgment, specifically you identify the nature of the judgment as calling harm down on the self for breach

These things make sense to you, and from your previous sentence I note that you perceive in the OC, that it is not without a cleansing (perhaps "sanctifying" gets at it better) aspect. This is borne out by the observations found in Heb.9:19-22.

So, the question remains: does the sanctifying NC also contain the aspect of judgment? Or more specifically, is there some party calling down harm upon self for breach?

I think the answer is simpler in the more general presentation of the question. If you prefer the second, more specific answer, then a more nuanced reply is needed.

In simple, there is an aspect of judgment to the NC, and it is bound up in the death of Christ. His death upon the very foundation of the covenant--inflicting terrible harm upon himself--is the guarantee that no other harm is possible for those who are "in him." To be "in Christ" is to possess the substance of the covenant of grace through union with the Mediator. Under these conditions, it does not depend upon any beneficiary of the covenant to make any promises, which he might break and draw down judgment. Gen.15 contains an example of a beneficiary, Abraham, who does not promise any contribution to the covenant guarantee, and therefore owes no self-maledectory curse.

*************************

There is, however, the matter of public engagement; and the matter of earthly and imperfect administration. In the case of the NC, one method of dealing with these matters is to skip them entirely. Under this regard, visible aspects of the NC (e.g. attendance on its worship, participation in its ordinances, appointments to its service, labors in its name) pass through no institution of administration; the member engages directly with the Spirit for all matters of administration. Public activity of or at a gathering (visible church) are not NC administration, only managements of earthly affairs. Genuine engagement of the NC member in any of the activities is likewise perfectly administered. There is no need, under this regard, for a "more nuanced" reply--there are no NC judgments remaining, only self-inflicted earthly wounds.

*************************

What about those who adhere to the view that earthly institutional covenant-administration is necessary, unavoidable, expected, taught in Scripture, etc.? For those of the Presbyterian/Reformed persuasion, this is the view held. Our contention is, that under the earthly and imperfect administration of the NC in its visible signs and symbols, outward labors and gatherings, audible proclamation of the Word, etc., here one treats the matter of public engagement with the NC. And under this regard, the NC ministry through the church engages in administrative justice on behalf of NC members.

The subjects of its discipline are those to whom the church has administered the sign of initiation (baptism), and later on and repeatedly administered the sign of confirmation or reaffirmation of one's faith (communion). Precisely because these signs are taken (in our tradition) with an _oath _or a _promise--_explicitly or implicitly--the signs include judgments. The sacrament of communion, as Paul teaches in 1Cor.11:27-32 explicitly, has judgments connected with it. The way Paul speaks, for the genuine NC member this _chastening judgment _by the Lord finds completion short of ultimate destruction, "that we may not be condemned with the world."

But what about those who aren't, and never are genuine? What about those who remain forever apart from Christ and so lack the substance of the NC, but who have been publicly engaged with the NC, have been imperfectly received (by those without omniscience) into its earthly administration, and have participated in its oaths? Paul writes warnings to the NC church in Corinth (2.10:6, etc.) not to sin after the manner of the OC church. The writer to the Hebrews is even more pointed, 6:4-8 & 10:26-29. In the first instance, his terminology appears to touch on both the signs and the preaching of NC adminsitration, indicating that apostasy from these things incurs the very judgment that was borne by the Son of God for those united to him in the substance of the NC. The second instance compares judgment under the OC administration to that which awaits the end of the NC age.

Here's why I wrote that a nuanced answer is needed to answer the more pointed version of the question. Has the person who swears/promises to believe and obey his Lord and Savior (public and personal declaration of union), and who bears or uses the signs of belonging to the NC, and who is under the institutional visible administration of that covenant--has he invoked even unwittingly "even worse punishment" for later or secretly denying what he presently owns? If one takes up the forms of NC engagement, but not genuinely under the terms of it; but instead with a rebellious spirit, or under terms that were basically Covenant of Works terms, then the judgment of the CoW is still against him. And to that judgment is added the perfidy of contempt for the Covenant of Grace he said he believed was needful for life. The signs, then, of the covenant which were appointed to testify of life and grace and mercy in Christ become witnesses against him, joining the rest of the witnesses to damn him mercilessly, eternally.


----------

