God's Last Will and Testament?

Reading Scripture carefully leads to the discovery of really weird things. Every once in a while, you will read something, even something familiar, and discover something not only new, but bizarre. Like this statement the writer of Hebrews makes about the “covenant”:

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

Hebrews 9:15-17 NASB (emphasis mine)

If you have ever read this before, did it ever strike you as odd that the first covenant was only valid once God died? It doesn’t say that? Read it again, look at what I’ve made bold. There was a covenant mediated by Moses, so there must, of necessity, be the death of the one who made it, right? So, how is it that the covenant of Moses wasn’t a “treaty” or “contract” between Yahweh and His people? How is it that this “covenant” was a “will”?

Well, for the covenant mediated by Moses to be a “will”, either God was the One who dies so the people can inherit, or the people die so God can inherit. The typical wording used throughout Scripture is that the people “inherit” the Promised Land, the land Yahweh promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That would mean that God dies, under the Mosaic Covenant. I don’t remember that ever being a part of the covenant made at Sinai.

So, is that what Nicodemus is saying? Is that what the writer of Hebrews, this man who has already shaken comfortable understanding, exploded traditions, and dismantled paradigms, means by these verses? Is he saying that God died when He made the covenant at Sinai? Well, not literally, but figuratively in the sacrifices, did they represent the people or God?

All along, the writer of Hebrews has been focusing on the ministry of the priesthood, specifically, the high priesthood of the Mosaic Covenant. In that ministry, one of the odd elements is the amount of blood used over everything, including the priest. He wears these linen clothes, and then they are sprinkled with blood. Gold items used in the tabernacle, beautifully made, also sprinkled with blood. Nice new stiff white outfit, now with blood spatters all over it. Lovely.

It’s the blood. We say that about Jesus’ death, and how He purifies us from all unrighteousness. It’s the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from sin. And here, the writer of Hebrews is explaining why that is true.

Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU.” And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

Hebrews 9:18-21 NASB

When I’ve read Exodus 24 in the past, I’ve studied it at what I thought was a thorough level. But when I read that Moses had the people sacrifice peace offerings to God, and sprinkled the blood on the altars, the people, and the book (verses 3 through 8), it never occurred to me that it represented the death of God. I always assumed it represented the death of the people.

Basically, if the covenant at Sinai was a “will”, who dies, and who inherits? Since the references have been to the people inheriting the promised land (Ex. 32:13, 33:54), then doesn’t that mean that God dies for it to go into effect?

Don’t panic. I figured you might be by this time. Don’t. Remember what Nicodemus is doing here: he’s supporting an argument for the intercessory ministry of Jesus on our behalf with the Father. Nicodemus has supported his assertion by replacing the priestly sacrifices under the law of Moses with Jesus’ self-sacrifice. So, in his argument, God dies (i.e. Jesus dies, but is resurrected), and the (new) covenant is established through His death, like a “will”.

The confusion is arising because Nicodemus is also trying to connect sacrifices with the ratification of the covenant. And the covenant at Sinai was ratified with sacrifices, and blood was sprinkled over everything, just as he claims. So, how does the self-sacrifice of Jesus, once-for-all-time, relate to the sacrifices at the ratification? That was different from the sin offerings because it sanctified rather than justified (as in forgiveness).

On the other hand, you could say that there really isn’t much distinction between sanctification and justification because sin is what makes people “unholy” in the first place. So, my questions may be taking the connection further than Nicodemus may intend. That’s why I didn’t want you to panic. The truth remains that we have a relationship with our Creator through His efforts alone in the death of Jesus.

So, it may not change anything to ask whether the first covenant was a “will”, but it may be an interesting rabbit to chase. What would it mean if the sacrifices ratifying the first covenant with Moses represented God rather than the people. And before you get all hot and bothered about such thinking disrespecting God, read Genesis 15. God moving between the carcasses He is subjecting Himself to the promise, so the sacrifice represents Him, not Abraham. If He’s okay with it, don’t be afraid to walk the same path, but only do so to explore the depths of the love of our Creator for His creatures, you and everyone else.

Okay, my view through the knothole was really more questions than answers, but there you are. What’s your view through your knothole?

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. Copyright by The Lockman Foundation

Advertisement

Intercession

Last week I wrote an entry about Jesus as hour High Priest. In it, I claimed that the qualification of Jesus to be our High Priest is that he made intercession for us. That is an interesting qualification, if you think about it. I’ve been reading through Numbers recently, in a “chronological Bible”, and I find it fascinating how much animal sacrifice was supposed to go on regularly for the people. Daily, monthly, festivals, annually, all the time. Since they ate many of those sacrifices, the Temple would have been one of the best restaurants in Jerusalem.

But what were those sacrifices for? What did they accomplish in the covenant relationship between Israel and Yahweh? That’s not as easy or simple a question as it sounds, because it depends on what you read in the law. Basically though, in one way or the other, these sacrifices are made on behalf of the people. So, in a very practical sense, they are a form of intercession. Therefore, the role of priests, as administers of the sacrifices of the people of Israel to Yahweh, was intercession on behalf of the people.

The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Hebrews 7:23-25 NASB

The Greek word for “intercession” in the above passage is “entygchano” (Strong’s G1793), which not terribly common in the Christian Scriptures. When it’s used with the Greek preposition “over” (Strong’s G5228), then “entygchano” means to “intercede on behalf of another”, and specifically to intercede to our Creator on behalf of His human creatures.

As common a theme of prayer as that is, you’d think that this word would be more common in the Christian Scriptures, but it’s only used this way three times (2X in Rom 8, and once here in Heb 7). There is actually a compound word made up of both the Greek word for intercession, and the preposition “under” used in Romans 8:26, but that word only occurs there in all of the Christian Scriptures. So, four times total, even so, still more rare than the common practice would suggest. Why is that?

Because the more common way to refer to intercession is “to pray for” someone. Suddenly the common quality becomes obvious, that phrase is used all over, by nearly every Christian author. But now the question becomes, why is “entygchano”, a technical term, different than “praying for someone”? And that question helps us understand the role of Jesus as High Priest.

Jesus is not sacrificing, daily, for the sins of His disciples. He sacrificed Himself, once, and that was all that was needed:

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Hebrews 7:26,27 NASB

Therefore, intercession done by our Savior is not the daily regular sacrifice, even though He “always lives to make intercession for them.” Something else is meant when Jesus intercedes for us as our High Priest. What is it? What does Jesus do in the role as High Priest which intercedes for us?

To answer that, I refer you back to my prior entry, “Why A High Priest” (see the first sentence of this entry). Basically, Jesus offered up “prayers and supplications” on our behalf. It wasn’t presiding over the death and burning of animals, but more the role Moses played in going before God on behalf of the people (see this repeatedly in Exodus and Numbers). Jesus is more a “priest” in the sense of Moses than that of Aaron. Although, Moses’ role is more often thought of as prophet, and Jesus is our Messiah of that type as well.

I believe it’s the right time to state the obvious conclusion. Jesus is our King, Prophet, and High Priest, because each of those designations is simply a different way of saying the same thing. We have needs which categorically fall into each of those roles. Jesus fulfills each and every one of those needs, as He completely fulfills each and every one of those roles. So, once again, through the venue of obfuscating elucidations, we have ended up with a simple answer. Perhaps I should have led with that…

Passion Week XIXb

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.”  And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” (Luke 22:17-20 NASB)

Luke preserves what is possibly the most detail of the Passover meal behind what has become “Communion” among Jesus Followers.  Of course, that “detail” really amounts to an additional cup at the beginning of his description.  I used a book, “Keeping Passover” by Ira Steingroot to examine the elements of the Passover mean and try and get at which cup was which, and where Jesus broke the bread symbolizing His body.  It’s a good book, but I’m still not sure (but that’s not Ira’s fault).

In the book, Steingroot reduces the elements of the meal down to a basic outline.  From there, any Haggadah can be used or built to form a supper.  It was that reduction outline in which I hoped to find the cups and bread referred to by Luke.  It was inconclusive.  And so, again, I want to emphasize that traditions about the Passover since the destruction of the Temple are very different.  The book was really helpful in seeing that Jesus could have used different elements to make different points about Himself (although Steingroot does not correlate the Passover to Jesus at all).

I believe the key in understanding Luke’s presentation is that the “bread” happens very much in the “middle” of the feast, and the cup representing His blood, toward the end.  The first cup mentioned in Luke could either be the first cup (benediction?).  But Luke refers to it as the “cup of thanksgiving”.  It could also be the second cup, which Steingroot doesn’t name in the outline. In either case, these precede the practice of breaking and hiding a piece of the “afikoman” (middle of three matzoh in a 3-chamber pouch).  The breaking and hiding has meaning for followers of Jesus in that His body was broken, and His body buried.  And then the finding of the afikoman refers to Jesus’ resurrection.

After this celebration of the first cup and the bread, a second cup is shared.  This is the one Jesus uses to refer to His blood, inaugurating a new covenant.  This cup could the third cup (cup of Elijah), or the fourth cup which completes the feast.  Luke refers to the cup, “after they had eaten,” but that still could be the cup of Elijah since nothing is consumed after that one either.  It’s really easy to devolve into a discussion about how it could be one or the other, but I don’t think that’s the point.

Mark and Matthew both skip swaths of detail about the Passover meal and which elements Jesus used.  I think that was on purpose.  In both cases, their audience was Jewish.  And I think by skipping those details, they both make it possible to celebrate the memorial apart from Passover.  Otherwise the Jewish believers would have to wait until once a year, and travel to Jerusalem for the feast.  The point was to remember often the inauguration of this new covenant relationship with God.  Luke’s audience may well have been in a different set of circumstances. They were most likely mostly Gentile, so adding some sort of Jewish influence added character necessary to remind them that this was, in fact, a Jewish Festival to begin with.  His inclusion of detail added depth unnecessary to Matthew and Mark.

So the point is not which cup or which time they ate the unleavened bread.  The point is that, for us Gentiles, this communion is built off of a celebration of God’s redemption of His people from bondage.  That, for me, is the point.  It’s rooted in a deep tradition illustrating the character of our Redeemer-King.  Jesus’ new covenant is in keeping with the character of God who redeems His people.  The grace of this new covenant isn’t new.  It’s consistent.  This is a new covenant, not a new god.  This is a new path to the same God. The relationship is somewhat different because of the different path, not because God is somehow different.

But what is different?  Jesus shatters the old with His blood.  It’s an uncomfortable truth that God has stated that the “life is in the blood” over and over.  From Noah’s covenant through the split pieces of sacrifice and Abraham’s covenant, to the altar of the tabernacle and, eventually, the temple; blood has been the price of life.  And so Jesus’ blood becomes the final price paid to end all payments.  The life is still in the blood, that hasn’t changed since Abel.  So, my life is not in my blood, or that of an animal acceptable to God; but through the sacrifice God Himself provides in His Son, Jesus.

I know that’s not exactly earth-shattering or newsworthy perhaps.  It is very comforting for me though.  I don’t have to be anything to be accepted.  I can be anything He wants because I’m already accepted.

What’s your view through your knothole this morning?