# David Dickson on the necessity of Christ’s death



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 1, 2022)

... _Argum._ 1. The New Covenant of Christ, is the New Testament of Christ: Therefore it was necessary that the death of the Testator Christ should intercede.

_Vers. 17._ For a Testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the Testator liveth.

_Argum._ 2. Confirming the former, unless Christ had died, the Covenant or Testament had not been firm, for even amongst men a Testament is not valid while the Testator is alive, but only after his death: For while he lives it may be changed, but not when he is dead: Therefore it was necessary that Christ should die.

_Vers. 18._ Whereupon, neither the first Testament was dedicated without blood.

_Argum._ 3. As the Old Testament was not dedicated unto God, without typical blood; so neither the New Testament can be dedicated or offered by way of satisfaction for sinful men, without the true blood of Christ, the true Mediator, the Antitype: Therefore it was necessary Christ should die.

_Vers. 19._ For when _Moses_ had spoken every Precept to all the people, according to the Law, he took the blood of Calves, and of Goats, with water and Scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20. Saying, This is the Blood of the Testament, which God hath enjoined unto you.

He explicates and proves this Argument out of the History, _Exod._ 24. concerning the dedication of the first Tabernacle by Blood, where _Moses_ sprinkled the Book of the Covenant, and the people, with the blood of Calves and Goats, withal expounding the signification and use of the ceremony, that that Blood was the Blood of the Covenant, or a symbol of the Covenant typically made in those ceremonies, and truly to be fulfilled in the Blood of Christ. ...

For more, see David Dickson on the necessity of Christ’s death.


----------

