# Clarifying Ex 24:8



## Polanus1561 (Jun 2, 2019)

I understand that Christ blood was to ratify the new covenant, a greater blood than the animals in Gen 15 and Ex 24.

I also understand that Christ blood had another role (so there is a dual role) in that it was shed for covenant breakers:
- Israel in verse 7. broke their promise of keeping the covenant. Verse 8 implies they accepted that their blood needed to be shed if they broke the covenant.
- For us Gentiles, did Christ die for us as covenant breakers? Which covenant in particular?
- OR, eliminating the above 2, Christ shedding of blood should not be phrased as for 'covenant breakers' but for sinners needing forgiveness in general.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 2, 2019)

John Yap said:


> but for sinners needing forgiveness in general.




Christ’s blood was shed for the remission of sins. 

Is there something in particular you are thinking? Or is there a bigger context?



John Yap said:


> - For us Gentiles, did Christ die for us as covenant breakers? Which covenant in particular?



All men are “covenant breakers” by way of Adam.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 3, 2019)

I think a key concept in the significance of Christ's blood as our atonement price and of blood generally in the old Testament (and New) is Lev. 17:11 -- the life of the flesh is in the blood. I had been wondering if this may also be why women had so much more ceremonial uncleanness than men, and partly why giving birth to a girl meant a longer time of uncleanness than giving birth to a boy (because of their 'fountain of blood': blood being the essence of the defiled, 'terminally ill' life -- so of death -- as well as the essence of cleansed life in Christ). I don't know how that relates to the question about covenant, but I think it's important that the conception of blood as defiled and in need of cleansing is not just legal but also organic for all of us sinners. Israel was being taught what it took for any human to come into the presence of God. (Sorry for my clumsy phrasing ... I am sure this is not very technically theologically rightly worded ... )

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 3, 2019)

Christ shed his blood and _died_, undertaking the wrath of God against sin for sinners ("in the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die"), exhausting an eternal penalty in a condign way. He answered for the covenant of works.

Israel's failure (the first of which took place in the very shadow of the smoking mountain, when they broke the covenant inside 40days with their golden calf) is a type of the original fall, as their promise to obey is reminiscent of the perfect estate. Jesus shed blood does not "answer" to Israel's failure under the Old Covenant, and the death they deserved; but answers the requirements of the original covenant of works.

In point of fact, Jesus "rescues" the Old Covenant, in that he is the One True Israelite, the only One who keeps that covenant, and so inherits all that it promised. The individual failures are all cut off, to the last man; this was the horror of those who heard Peter's Pentecost sermon. But the end of that message is that there is a way back: through reunion with the Son who inherits.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 3, 2019)

John Yap said:


> I understand that Christ blood was to ratify the new covenant, a greater blood than the animals in Gen 15 and Ex 24.
> 
> I also understand that Christ blood had another role (so there is a dual role) in that it was shed for covenant breakers:
> - Israel in verse 7. broke their promise of keeping the covenant. Verse 8 implies they accepted that their blood needed to be shed if they broke the covenant.
> ...



I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, but perhaps you are confusing covenants proper with covenant administrations? For instance, Christ's blood was not shed because Israel broke the Mosaic covenant, but because mankind broke the Covenant of Works, first in Adam and to which we added our own transgressions. How exactly you interpret Exodus 24 depends, perhaps, on your view of republication, but the blood of the sacrifices as a sacrament of the Mosaic administration of the Covenant of Grace signifies not particularly and properly the sanctions of the Mosaic economy, as if additional blood needed to be shed for an additional covenant after the Fall, but the penalty due to the transgression of the Covenant of Works and Christ taking our stead in it.

Edit: Looks like Bruce beat me to it and answered the question, as usual, more clearly than I could have.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jun 3, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, but perhaps you are confusing covenants proper with covenant administrations? For instance, Christ's blood was not shed because Israel broke the Mosaic covenant, but because mankind broke the Covenant of Works, first in Adam and to which we added our own transgressions. How exactly you interpret Exodus 24 depends, perhaps, on your view of republication, but the blood of the sacrifices as a sacrament of the Mosaic administration of the Covenant of Grace signifies not particularly and properly the sanctions of the Mosaic economy, as if additional blood needed to be shed for an additional covenant after the Fall, but the penalty due to the transgression of the Covenant of Works and Christ taking our stead in it.
> 
> Edit: Looks like Bruce beat me to it and answered the question, as usual, more clearly than I could have.



I thank you for your answer anyway, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the holding of a republication view factors in this question: I got the idea when Poole says :
"Now this sprinkling of the blood upon the people did signify, 1. Their ratification of the covenant on their parts, and their secret wishing of the effusion of their own blood if they did not keep it...."
Christ dying for Israel's republicated CoW begs the question, what about us Gentiles?


In v.7, are we to suppose Israel should not have pledged their obedience (which they quickly showed they could not be obedient)?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jun 3, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Christ shed his blood and _died_, undertaking the wrath of God against sin for sinners ("in the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die"), exhausting an eternal penalty in a condign way. He answered for the covenant of works.
> 
> Israel's failure (the first of which took place in the very shadow of the smoking mountain, when they broke the covenant inside 40days with their golden calf) is a type of the original fall, as their promise to obey is reminiscent of the perfect estate. Jesus shed blood does not "answer" to Israel's failure under the Old Covenant, and the death they deserved; but answers the requirements of the original covenant of works.
> 
> In point of fact, Jesus "rescues" the Old Covenant, in that he is the One True Israelite, the only One who keeps that covenant, and so inherits all that it promised. The individual failures are all cut off, to the last man; this was the horror of those who heard Peter's Pentecost sermon. But the end of that message is that there is a way back: through reunion with the Son who inherits.



Bruce would you say Christ's blood has a dual purpose?
1. Instituting a new covenant. 
2. Paying the 'shedding of blood' debt due to us breaking the Adamic CoW, for all of us who were covenant breakers - Him being our Federal Head.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 3, 2019)

John Yap said:


> Bruce would you say Christ's blood has a dual purpose?
> 1. Instituting a new covenant.
> 2. Paying the 'shedding of blood' debt due to us breaking the Adamic CoW, for all of us who were covenant breakers - Him being our Federal Head.


I suppose you could look at it that way. Jesus' death cannot be severed from the demand of the CoW, without undermining the justice of God, without jeopardizing our redemption.

The older divines (who were not relating their analysis to ANE treaty/covenant studies, which were a product of later archaeology) further reckoned the death of Jesus in a _testamentary _way, besides the sense that his death and shed blood were on account of sinners and the CoW. As I understand, they regarded the "new covenant/testament in [Jesus'] blood" by his death being the reason his people should inherit (via the testament) from him all the blessings of the covenant that he accrued. The ANE-treaty also provides a renewal or succession-motif, so we don't have to lose the inheritance concept when adding fresh archaeological awareness.

With the ANE-related analysis worked in, among his many services Jesus takes on the role of the sacrificial blood that is shed, over which the promise is ratified/ensured. The point of the covenant of grace (ceremonial expression in Gen.15) is that God does everything to ensure it works out, nothing is left to another or to chance. God will find a way to die, if need be, to guarantee it. In fact, he makes his own blood the very foundation of it (the symbols of Gen.15 are just that: type).


----------

