| COVENANTS - A BOND IN BLOOD O. Palmer Robertson HIS GLORY REIGNS B. Childress March 21, 2008 The phase "bond-in-blood" or bond of life and death expresses the ultimacy of the commitment between God and man in the covenantal context. By initiating covenants, God never enters into a casual or informal relationship with man. Instead, the implications of his bonds extend to the ultimate issues of life and death. The basic terminology describing the inauguration of a covenantal relationship vivifies the life-and-death intensity of the divine covenants. The phrase translated "to make a covenant" in the Old Testament literally read "to cut a covenant." This phrase "to cut a covenant" does not appear just at one stage in the history of the biblical covenants. Much to the contrary, it occurs prominently across the entire spread of the Old Testament. The law, the prophets, and the writings all contain the phrase repeatedly. It might be supposed that the passage of time would have dulled the vivid imagery of "cutting a covenant." Yet the evidence of an abiding awareness of the full import of the phrase appears in some of Scripture's most ancient texts as well as in passages associated with the very end of Israel's presence in the land of Palestine. The original record of the inauguration of the Abrahamic covenant, laden as it is with internal signs of antiquity, first introduces the concept of "cutting a covenant" to the biblical reader (Genesis 15). At the other extremity of Israel's history, Jeremiah's prophetic warning to Zedekiah at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem literally bristles with allusions to a "cut-covenant" theology (Jeremiah 34). A further indication of the permeating significance of this phrase is found in the fact that it is related to all three of the basic covenantal types. It is employed to describe covenants inaugurated by man with man; covenants inaugurated by God with man; and covenants inaugurated by man with God. Particularly striking is the fact that the verb "to cut" may stand by itself and still clearly mean "to cut a covenant." This usage indicates just how essentially the concept of "cutting" had come to be related to the covenant idea in Scripture. This relating of a "cutting" process to the establishment of a covenant manifests itself throughout the ancient languages and cultures of the Middle East. Not only in Israel, but in many of the surrounding cultures, the binding character of a covenant is related to a terminology of "cutting." Not only the terminology, but the rituals commonly associated with the establishment of covenants reflect quite dramatically a "cutting" process. As the covenant is made, animals are "cut" in ritual ceremony. The most obvious example of this procedure in Scripture is found in Genesis 15, at the time of the making of the Abrahamic covenant. First Abraham divides a series of animals and lays the pieces over against one another. Then a symbolic representation of God passes between the divided pieces of animals. The result is the "making" or "cutting" of a covenant. What is the meaning of this division of animals at the point of covenantal inauguration? Both biblical and extra-biblical evidence combine to confirm a specific significance for this ritual. The animal-division symbolizes a "pledge to the death" at the point of covenant commitment. The dismembered animals represent the curse that the covenant-maker calls down on himself if he should violate the commitment which he has made. This interpretation finds strong support in the words of the prophet Jeremiah. As he recalls Israel's disloyalty to their covenant commitments, he reminds them of the ritual by which, "...they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof " Jeremiah 34:18. By their transgression, they have called down on themselves the curses of the covenant. Therefore they may expect dismemberment of their own bodies. Their carcasses "...and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth." Jeremiah 34:20. It is in this context of covenant inauguration that the biblical phrase "to cut a covenant" is to be understood. Integral to the very terminology which describes the establishment of a covenantal relationship is the concept of a pledge to life and death. A covenant is indeed a "bond-in-blood." or a bond of life and death. This phrase "bond in blood" accords ideally with the biblical emphasis that, "without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22. Blood is of significance in Scripture because it represents life, not because it is crude or bloody. The life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) and so the shedding of blood represents a judgment on life. The biblical imagery of blood-sacrifice emphasizes the inter-relation of life and blood. The pouring out of life-blood signifies the only way of relief from covenant-obligations once incurred. A covenant is a "bond-in-blood," committing the participants to loyalty on pain of death. Once the covenant relationship has been entered, nothing less than the shedding of blood may relieve the obligations incurred in the event of covenantal violation. Covenant - Testament It is just at this point that the effort to relate the "covenant" idea in Israel's life and experience to the concept of a "last will and testament" must be rejected. It is simply impossible to do justice to the biblical concept of "covenant" and at the same time to introduce an idea of "last will and testament." The major point of confusion in these two concepts of "covenant" and "testament" arises from the fact that both a "covenant" and a "testament" relate to "death." Death is essential both to activate a last will and testament and to inaugurate a covenant. Because of this similarity, the two concepts have been confused. The two ideas of covenant and testament actually diverge radically in their significance. The similarity is only formal in nature. Both " covenant" and "testament" relate closely to "death." But death stands in relationship to each of these concepts in two very different manners. In the case of a "covenant," death stands at the beginning of a relationship between two parties, symbolizing the potential curse-factor in the covenant. In the case of a "testament," death stands at the end of a relationship between two parties, actualizing an inheritance. The death of the covenant-maker appears in two distinct stages. First it appears in the form of a symbolic representation of the curse, anticipating possible covenantal violation. Later the party who violates the covenant actually experiences death as a consequence of his earlier commitment. The death of the testator does not come in two stages. No symbolic representation of death accompanies the making of a will. The testator does not die as a consequence of the violation of his last will and testament. The provisions of the "last will and testament" inherently presume death to be inevitable, and all its stipulations build on that fact. But the provisions of a covenant offer the options of life or death. The representation of death is essential to the inauguration of a covenant. The consecrating animal must be slain to effect a covenant. But it is not at all necessary that a party to the covenant actually die. Only in the event of covenant violation does actual death of the covenant-maker occur. It is in the context of covenantal death, not testamentary death, that the death of Jesus Christ is to be understood. Christ's death was a substitutionary sacrifice. Christ died as a substitute for the covenant-breaker. Substitution is essential for the understanding of the death of Christ. Yet death in substitution for another has no place whatsoever in the making of a last will and testament. The testator dies in his own place, not in the place of another. No other death may substitute for the death of the testator himself. But Christ died in the place of the sinner. Because of covenantal violations, men were condemned to die. Christ took on himself the curses of the covenant and died in the place of the sinner. His death was covenantal, not testamentary. Certainly it is true that the Christian is presented in Scripture as the heir of God. But he is heir by the process of adoption into the family of the never-dying God, not by the process of testamentary disposition. On the popular level, it has been assumed that the Lord's Supper was the occasion of Christ's making his last will and testament. But it must be remembered that it was a convenantal meal that was being celebrated on this occasion. In the context of the covenantal meal of the Passover, Jesus introduced the provisions of the new covenant meal. Clearly, his intention was to proclaim himself as the Passover Lamb, who was taking on himself the curses of the covenant. His death was substitutionary; his blood was "poured out" for his people. His words were not those of testamentary disposition, but those of covenant fulfillment and inauguration. The Old Testament concept of the covenant must not be re-interpreted in terms of a "last will and testament." The total perspective of the Old Testament people concerning their relation to God was consistently convenantal. A complete redirection of their thinking simply cannot be accomplished. Even on a more modest scale, the concept of "testament" cannot be substituted for covenant in the "Old Testament" Scriptures. The presence of provisions in the ancient Near Eastern treaty forms relating to succession arrangements does not provide adequate basis for imposing a "testamentary" idea on the biblical concept of covenant. A treaty agreement may include succession arrangements as one part of its stipulations. But the inclusion of such a section does not create a testamentary document. All the provisions of a last will and testament await the death of the testator. Certainly that is not the case with respect to the covenant commitments which God has made to his people throughout the ages. In Summary.... A "covenant" may well include aspects which insure continuation of its provisions beyond those people then living. As a matter of fact, the biblical covenants extend to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalms 105:8). A "covenant" is not a testament. A "covenant" is a bond-in-blood. It involves commitments with life-and-death consequences. At the point of covenantal inauguration, the parties of the covenant are committed to one another by a formalizing process of blood-shedding. This blood-shedding represents the intensity of the commitment of the covenant. By the covenant they are bound for life and death. Source: The Christ of the Covenants, by O. Palmer Robertson, Copyright 1980, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
2010 - HIS GLORY REIGNS
| LIFE IN JESUS-MINISTRIES |