Why Did God Choose Blood? Part 14 of 19

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7eg40u-why-did-god-choose-blood-part-14-of-19.html

The Blood of the Covenant: When the Sacrifice, the Covenant, and the Servant Begin to Converge

Synopsis

Part 13 moved the investigation from the altar into the human heart. We discovered that God promised something repeated animal sacrifice could never accomplish by itself. He would circumcise the heart, write His Law within His people, cleanse them, give them a new heart and spirit, and ultimately place His own Spirit within them. Jeremiah called this coming restoration a new covenant, and Part 14 asks why covenant and blood belong together.

At Sinai, God did not demand that Israel earn its rescue. He had already delivered them from Egypt and told them that He had brought them to Himself. Only afterward did He establish the covenant. This matters because covenant was more than a contract or collection of commandments. God had rescued a people and was establishing how they would live in relationship with Him.

Then Exodus 24 places blood directly at the center of that relationship. Moses puts part of the sacrificial blood upon the altar, reads the covenant to the people, and then places blood upon them, declaring, “Behold the blood of the covenant.” We already established that Scripture connects blood with life, so now the question becomes why life represented by blood appears when covenant relationship with God is established.

What happens next is remarkable. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders ascend the mountain, encounter God’s presence, and eat and drink before Him. We should not force later New Testament meaning into this scene, but the sequence deserves attention. Blood, covenant, God’s presence, and a meal appear together. Perhaps covenant was always about something much greater than rules. Perhaps it was about life with God.

Israel eventually broke that covenant, and Jeremiah announces God’s answer. God promises a new covenant in which His Law will be written within His people. They will know Him, their iniquity will be forgiven, and their sin will be remembered no more. Part 13 already established the heart problem, so we do not need to prove it again. Part 14 instead asks how the new covenant answers the failure of the old one.

Then Isaiah gives us one of the most important pieces of the silhouette we have been building. God describes His Servant as someone He will give “for a covenant of the people.” This is extraordinary because Isaiah also describes the Servant as righteous, suffering, bearing sin, associated with the guilt offering, and pouring out his life unto death. The Servant connected with sacrifice is now also connected with covenant.

We are still not going to name the Worker. Instead, we are allowing the Old Testament to construct His silhouette. Someone is coming who is righteous, bears sin, gives his life, is associated with sacrifice, and is somehow connected with covenant. Meanwhile, Jeremiah promises that the coming covenant will bring forgiveness and reach the human heart.

Parts 12, 13, and 14 are therefore beginning to converge. Part 12 showed us the life being given through the Servant. Part 13 showed us the life God intends to restore within His people. Part 14 asks whether covenant is the bridge connecting those two realities.

The question is becoming larger than why God chose blood. We are beginning to ask what God intended to accomplish through the blood. If covenant is ultimately about restored relationship with the God from whom life comes, then blood, sacrifice, forgiveness, transformation, and God’s presence may all be pieces of the same story.

The Worker has still not been named, but His silhouette is becoming difficult to miss. The blood trail is bringing sacrifice, covenant, and the mysterious Servant into the same picture, and we are getting closer to understanding how the life that is given could become the road toward the life God intends to restore.

Investigation 1 – Did God Rescue Israel Before He Asked Israel to Obey?

Before examining the blood of the covenant, we need to establish the order of events. Israel did not arrive at Sinai trying to earn God’s rescue. God had already heard their cries in Egypt, confronted Pharaoh, brought the plagues, provided the Passover, led Israel through the sea, and carried them into the wilderness. The covenant at Sinai comes after the rescue, not before it.

That order changes how we understand the Law. God did not tell enslaved Israel that if they perfectly obeyed His commandments, He might rescue them. He rescued them first. Then He brought them to Sinai and explained what life in covenant relationship with Him would require.

Exodus 19:4 makes this especially clear. God reminds Israel what He had already done and says He carried them “on eagles’ wings” and “brought you unto myself.” Notice the destination. God does not merely say He brought them out of Egypt. He says He brought them to Himself.

That may tell us something important about the Exodus. Freedom from Pharaoh was not the final destination. God was bringing people out of bondage and into relationship with Himself. Only after establishing that does God speak about covenant obedience.

Exodus 19:5–6 says that if Israel will obey His voice and keep His covenant, they will be His peculiar treasure, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. Rescue has already occurred, but Israel’s response still matters. God’s initiative does not eliminate human responsibility. He delivers them, but they are still called to listen, obey, and remain faithful.

This also keeps us from reducing covenant to a business contract. The language surrounding Sinai is relational. God reminds Israel what He has done, calls them His treasured possession, and gives them a purpose among the nations. The commandments describe how this rescued people should live with the God who rescued them.

Obedience therefore was not the purchase price of the Exodus. Israel could never claim that God rescued them because they had already demonstrated perfect covenant faithfulness. God acted first. Yet obedience did not become irrelevant after their rescue. The people who had been delivered were now responsible for how they lived with their Deliverer.

This becomes important for our blood investigation because sacrifice can easily be misunderstood as a transaction. Sin happens, blood is offered, and God supposedly forgives because the required price has been paid. But Sinai begins in another direction. God is already moving toward His people before the covenant blood of Exodus 24 ever appears.

God had already rescued them, brought them to Himself, and offered them covenant relationship before the blood ceremony occurred. Therefore, the blood of Exodus 24 cannot simply mean that Israel was purchasing God’s willingness to save them. Their deliverance from Egypt had already happened. Whatever the covenant blood means, it belongs within a relationship God had already initiated.

Israel’s response also matters. In Exodus 19:8, the people agree to what God has proposed. This connects with what we established in Part 13 without needing to reopen that investigation. God’s initiative and human response appear together. God acts, and humanity responds. God establishes the relationship, but covenant faithfulness remains meaningful.

The tragedy is that Israel will eventually break what they promised to keep, and Jeremiah will later use that failure when announcing the new covenant. But before we reach Israel’s failure, something extraordinary happens. God formalizes the covenant with blood.

Exodus 24 gives us an altar, sacrifices, the words of the covenant, Israel’s agreement, and blood. Moses then calls it “the blood of the covenant.” Blood therefore appears after deliverance but at the formal establishment of covenant relationship.

That distinction is crucial. Blood is not convincing God to rescue Israel. God has already done that. Blood enters the story when the rescued people are being bound to the God who rescued them.

Now something we established much earlier in this series becomes important again. Scripture connects blood with life. We do not need to prove that again. We can use it as evidence already established and ask a new question: why does something representing life appear at the moment covenant relationship is established?

The question becomes even more interesting because of what happens immediately afterward. Representatives of Israel ascend the mountain, encounter God’s presence, and eat and drink before Him. The sequence of Exodus 19–24 is remarkable. God rescues Israel, brings them to Himself, establishes covenant, blood appears, and then representatives of Israel enter His presence.

We should not explain that sequence before investigating it. For now, we simply recognize that it exists. Covenant appears to be about much more than rules. The entire movement is toward relationship with God.

That gives us our foundation for Part 14. God did not rescue Israel because Israel first proved itself worthy through obedience. God acted first and brought them to Himself. Once rescued, however, they were called to respond and live faithfully within the relationship He established.

Now we can approach Exodus 24 with the right question. Why did the God who had already rescued Israel choose blood when He formally joined them to Himself in covenant?

Investigation 2 takes us directly into that mystery because Moses does something remarkable with the blood. Some goes toward the altar, and some goes toward the people. If we want to understand why God chose blood, we need to understand why covenant blood appears on both sides of the relationship.

Investigation 2 – Why Did Moses Put Blood on Both the Altar and the People?

Now we arrive at one of the most unusual covenant ceremonies in the Old Testament. Exodus 24 describes Moses building an altar at Mount Sinai and setting up twelve pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Young men offer burnt offerings and peace offerings, and Moses collects the blood. Then he divides it.

Exodus 24:6 says Moses places half of the blood upon the altar while keeping the other half in basins. He reads the Book of the Covenant to Israel, and the people respond that everything the LORD has spoken they will do and obey. Moses then takes the remaining blood, sprinkles it upon the people, and declares, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.”

The arrangement appears deliberate. There is an altar, twelve pillars representing Israel, sacrifices, God’s covenant words, Israel’s agreement, and blood associated with both the altar and the people. Exodus does not tell us that God and Israel are literally “sharing blood,” so we should not claim that. But the same sacrificial blood clearly stands at the center of the covenant relationship being formally established.

Moses specifically calls it “the blood of the covenant.” That means the blood is not incidental to the ceremony. It ratifies or solemnizes the relationship God is establishing with Israel. We already established earlier in this series that Leviticus 17:11 connects blood with life, so we do not need to prove that again. Instead, we can ask why something representing life appears at the moment God establishes covenant with His people.

One possibility is that blood demonstrates the life-and-death seriousness of covenant. Covenant with God is not a casual agreement that can be abandoned without consequence. Genesis 15 already gives us covenant imagery involving divided animals, while Jeremiah 34 later describes covenant breakers in connection with a calf that had been cut in two. Covenant could carry the solemn reality that violating the relationship brought judgment.

But that does not seem to explain everything happening in Exodus 24. The blood is not merely displayed as a warning about future punishment. It is applied within the ceremony. Some goes toward the altar, and some goes upon the people. Moses then directly identifies that blood with the covenant God has made with them. The blood appears to be doing more than illustrating what might happen if Israel disobeys; it participates in formally establishing the relationship.

The sacrifices involved are also interesting. Exodus mentions burnt offerings and peace offerings. Peace offerings could involve fellowship and eating in connection with sacrifice. Immediately after the covenant ceremony, Moses and Israel’s elders ascend the mountain and eat and drink before God. We should not force later theology backward into Exodus, but we should notice the sequence: sacrifice leads to covenant blood, covenant blood leads toward God’s presence, and God’s presence is followed by a meal.

The covenant words and the blood also belong together. Israel first hears what God has spoken and agrees to obey. Only then does Moses apply the blood and call it “the blood of the covenant.” This is not an undefined spiritual relationship. God has spoken, Israel has responded, and blood solemnizes the relationship. Covenant therefore contains both relationship and responsibility.

That becomes important when we remember Jeremiah’s promise of a new covenant. Part 13 already established what Jeremiah says will change, so we do not need to investigate the heart again here. What matters now is that Jeremiah deliberately calls the coming relationship a new covenant. The first covenant had God’s words, blood, and a people entering relationship with Him, yet that covenant was eventually broken. Jeremiah says another covenant is coming.

This also strengthens the silhouette we have been following. If the first covenant was established with blood, what will happen when God establishes the covenant Jeremiah promised? We should not answer that from the New Testament yet. The Old Testament still has evidence to show us, particularly Isaiah’s mysterious Servant who is somehow connected with covenant while also giving his life.

Investigation 1 established something else we cannot forget. God had already rescued Israel before the covenant blood appeared. The blood therefore was not Israel purchasing God’s love or convincing Him to deliver them. God had already brought them out of Egypt and told them that He had brought them to Himself. The covenant ceremony occurs inside a relationship initiated by God.

Then Exodus gives us one final detail that may change how we understand the entire ceremony. After Moses declares the blood of the covenant, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders ascend the mountain. Exodus says they see the God of Israel, yet God does not destroy them. Instead, they eat and drink in His presence.

The story therefore does not end with blood upon the people. It ends with people alive in the presence of God. The animals have died, blood has established the covenant, and human beings move toward fellowship with God. Death appears in the ceremony, but death is not where the ceremony leads.

That may be another piece of the pattern we have been discovering throughout this series. Blood involves death because life has been given, but the destination keeps moving beyond death toward relationship with the living God. Investigation 3 must now examine that extraordinary meal because Exodus deliberately places blood, covenant, God’s presence, and fellowship beside one another, and we need to discover why.

Investigation 3 – Why Did They Eat and Drink in the Presence of God?

Immediately after Moses declares, “Behold the blood of the covenant,” Exodus 24 does something unexpected. The story does not move directly into another commandment or another sacrifice. Instead, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel ascend the mountain. What happens next may be one of the most overlooked scenes in the covenant story.

Exodus 24:10 says, “And they saw the God of Israel.” The passage describes what appeared beneath His feet as something like a paved work of sapphire, clear as the heavens. Whatever precisely these men were permitted to see, the text wants us to understand that representatives of Israel had entered into an extraordinary encounter with God’s presence.

Then Exodus gives us an even more remarkable detail. Verse 11 says God did not lay His hand upon the nobles of Israel, and instead they saw God and “did eat and drink.” This is how the covenant ceremony concludes. Immediately before this moment there had been sacrifice, blood, covenant words, Israel’s agreement to obey, and Moses’ declaration of the “blood of the covenant.” Now representatives of the people are eating and drinking before God.

The sequence deserves our attention because God had already told Israel in Exodus 19 that He had brought them to Himself. Israel then agrees to the covenant, sacrifices are offered, blood is placed upon the altar and the people, and representatives of Israel ascend into God’s presence. The movement that began with deliverance from Egypt has ended, at least in this scene, with fellowship before God.

We need to be careful about what the passage actually proves. Exodus does not explicitly say that the blood caused these men to survive God’s presence, so we should not make that claim. It also does not identify this meal with Communion or the Last Supper. Those connections can be tested much later when we finally allow the New Testament to identify the Worker. For now, the Old Testament scene is powerful enough on its own.

What we can say is that the covenant ceremony ends with fellowship rather than death. Animals have died, blood has been shed, and yet the covenant representatives remain alive. Their movement is not away from God but toward Him. The final picture is not people hiding from God’s presence. It is people eating and drinking before Him.

That may help us understand what covenant was ultimately intended to accomplish. The commandments mattered, obedience mattered, and covenant faithfulness mattered, but Exodus repeatedly frames these things within relationship. God rescued Israel and brought them to Himself. Now representatives of that rescued people are pictured in His presence. Covenant therefore appears to involve much more than agreeing to rules.

Meals also carried powerful relational meaning in the biblical world. Eating together could express fellowship, peace, acceptance, and relationship. Exodus 24 had already mentioned peace offerings, which elsewhere could include eating portions of the sacrifice. We should not assume that every detail of the mountain meal came directly from those offerings because the passage does not explicitly say so, but the proximity of sacrifice, covenant, presence, and eating deserves attention.

This becomes especially important to our blood investigation. If blood were simply evidence that God desired death, the direction of Exodus 24 would be difficult to explain. Animals die, but the people live. Blood is shed, but the people approach God. Death occurs within the covenant ceremony, but the story moves through that death toward living fellowship in God’s presence.

That pattern should sound familiar by now. Throughout this investigation, blood has continually been connected with life. Sacrifice involves death, but atonement and cleansing have repeatedly been connected with preserving or restoring relationship with God. Death appears along the road, but the destination keeps moving toward life with Him.

The covenant therefore may help us understand something deeper about God’s commandments as well. They were not arbitrary restrictions imposed by a distant ruler. They described how a people living in covenant with a holy God were supposed to live. Israel had been removed from Pharaoh’s rule and brought to God, and now they had to learn what faithfulness within that relationship looked like.

That also explains why breaking covenant would become so serious. Israel would not merely be violating a legal document. They would be violating a relationship. Idolatry, injustice, bloodshed, exploitation, and rebellion contradicted the identity of a people whom God had rescued, brought to Himself, and called His own.

This is where Jeremiah’s promised new covenant begins looming over the story. The people who stood beneath the blood of the covenant and promised obedience would eventually break that covenant. Yet God would not abandon His desire for relationship with them. Instead, He would promise another covenant in which something fundamental would change within the people themselves.

Exodus 24 therefore leaves us with an image we need to remember as the silhouette continues developing. Blood and covenant appear together, and immediately afterward human beings enter God’s presence and share a meal. If those same elements appear together again later in Scripture, we will know that the pattern did not begin there. Its outline was already visible at Sinai.

That brings us directly to Investigation 4. Israel had experienced deliverance, heard God’s words, agreed to obey, received the blood of the covenant, and even had representatives eat and drink before God. Yet the covenant would still be broken. The question now is not whether the covenant ceremony was powerful enough, but whether covenant blood could change the people who received it deeply enough to keep them faithful. That distinction may finally explain why God eventually promised a new covenant.

Investigation 4 – Why Did Israel Break a Covenant Established by God?

Israel had now experienced something extraordinary. God rescued them from Egypt, brought them to Himself, spoke His covenant words, received their agreement, and established the relationship with blood. Representatives of Israel then ascended the mountain, encountered God’s presence, and ate and drank before Him. If any generation should have understood the seriousness of covenant, it would seem to be this one.

Yet something shocking happens almost immediately. While Moses remains on the mountain with God, Exodus 32 tells us that the people become impatient. They gather around Aaron and demand gods who will go before them. Aaron makes the golden calf, and Israel begins worshiping it. The people who had just declared that everything the LORD commanded they would do are already violating the covenant they promised to keep.

The timing is what makes this so important. Israel did not slowly forget the covenant over hundreds of years before rebellion appeared. The failure began almost immediately. They had witnessed Egypt’s destruction, crossed the sea, heard God’s voice, received the covenant, and seen the mountain covered with God’s presence. None of those external experiences guaranteed continued faithfulness.

This tells us something important about covenant blood. The blood of Exodus 24 could establish the covenant according to the purpose God gave it, but receiving that blood did not make Israel incapable of rebellion. The blood was upon the people, yet their hearts could still turn toward another god.

That distinction may be one of the most important discoveries in Part 14. The problem was not that the covenant lacked seriousness. Blood demonstrated its seriousness. The problem was not that Israel lacked evidence of God. They had witnessed extraordinary evidence. The problem was not that they lacked commandments. God had spoken directly to them. Something inside the people could still resist everything they had experienced outside themselves.

We have already investigated that heart problem in Part 13, so there is no reason to prove it again. What matters now is what it means for covenant. A covenant can tell people what faithfulness requires, but words alone do not guarantee that the people hearing them will remain faithful. Israel could say with their mouths that they would obey and shortly afterward act against what they had promised.

This becomes a pattern throughout Israel’s history. The people turn away, experience consequences, cry out, return, and eventually wander again. The sacrificial system continues functioning, priests continue serving, and covenant commandments remain available, yet possession of those things does not permanently solve the problem of covenant unfaithfulness.

The prophets eventually confront something even more disturbing. Religious activity itself could continue while covenant faithfulness disappeared. People could bring sacrifices while practicing injustice. They could observe sacred rituals while oppressing others. They could assume that possessing God’s Temple meant they remained secure even while their behavior contradicted the God whose Temple they claimed.

Jeremiah attacks exactly this kind of confidence. In Jeremiah 7, people come to the Temple while stealing, murdering, committing adultery, swearing falsely, and following other gods. They then stand before God in the house bearing His name as though the religious institution protected them from the consequences of their behavior. Jeremiah exposes the deception because covenant relationship could not be reduced to participation in religious rituals.

This connects with what we discovered earlier concerning the possibility of using the sacrificial system to one’s advantage. Wealth might make it easier to bring offerings, but wealth could not purchase permission to continue deliberately hurting others. God’s provision for sacrifice was never intended to become a system through which someone could afford more sin.

The prophets repeatedly make that point. Isaiah condemns worship offered alongside injustice. Hosea declares that God desires mercy and knowledge of Him rather than sacrifice. Micah asks whether thousands of rams or rivers of oil could satisfy God and then points toward justice, mercy, and humble walking with Him. The quantity of religious activity could never compensate for a heart determined to remain unfaithful.

That means the failure of the covenant cannot simply be blamed on insufficient sacrifice. Israel did not need more animals. They already had sacrifices. They did not need more religious activity. They had religious activity. They did not merely need more commandments because they already possessed God’s Law.

The problem was deeper than the system surrounding them.

This is where Jeremiah 31 becomes extraordinary. God looks back at the covenant made when He brought Israel out of Egypt and explicitly says that His people broke it. Then He announces that the days are coming when He will make a new covenant. God’s response to covenant failure is not simply to repeat Sinai with more blood, more commandments, or more severe penalties.

Something fundamental will change.

Jeremiah says God will put His Law within His people and write it upon their hearts. We already explored the heart in Part 13, so the important point here is covenantal. The covenant that was heard externally and repeatedly broken will be followed by a covenant in which God’s instruction somehow becomes internal.

That tells us the old covenant’s failure does not mean God’s Law was evil. Jeremiah does not say God will throw His Law away. God says He will write it somewhere different. The problem was never that righteousness was wrong. The problem was that human beings could know what was right and still choose against it.

This brings us to an important distinction. The covenant was established by God, but it involved human participation. Israel could therefore break the relationship. God’s faithfulness did not automatically make Israel faithful. The golden calf proves how quickly people could turn away even after extraordinary encounters with God.

Yet God does not respond by abandoning His desire for covenant relationship. He promises another covenant.

And now the silhouette begins sharpening again because Jeremiah leaves us with a mystery. If the first covenant involved blood, sacrifice, God’s words, and Israel’s agreement, what will establish the new covenant? If the problem reached deeper than external obedience, what kind of covenant could actually reach the place where the old covenant continually broke down?

The answer begins appearing somewhere unexpected. Isaiah speaks about a mysterious Servant whom God says He will give “for a covenant of the people.” This is the same prophetic Servant whose life becomes connected with suffering, bearing sin, and offering.

The old covenant was broken by the people who entered it, while the promised covenant somehow begins moving toward a person whom God Himself will provide. That is where Investigation 5 takes us next, because the silhouette is about to gain another unmistakable feature: the coming Servant is not merely going to talk about covenant. Somehow, He is going to become central to it.

Investigation 5 – Why Is Isaiah’s Servant Called a Covenant?

Now something happens that should make us stop and look carefully at the silhouette forming in the Old Testament. Jeremiah has told us that Israel broke the covenant established at Sinai and that God intends to make a new covenant. If we were reading the story for the first time, we might expect God simply to announce another set of covenant terms or another ceremony. Instead, Isaiah introduces a mysterious Servant and uses covenant language in connection with the Servant himself.

Isaiah 42:6 records God speaking to the Servant: “I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.” That wording is unusual. God does not merely say that the Servant will teach the covenant, announce the covenant, or deliver another book of commandments. God says He will give the Servant “for a covenant of the people.”

Isaiah 49:8 gives us the language again. God tells the Servant that He will preserve him and “give thee for a covenant of the people.” The repetition matters because it makes it difficult to dismiss Isaiah 42 as an isolated phrase. Twice Isaiah describes this Servant as someone God Himself gives in connection with covenant.

We need to be cautious about what that means. Isaiah does not stop and provide a systematic explanation saying exactly how a person can be “a covenant.” The Servant may function as the one through whom covenant restoration is accomplished or embodied. Whatever the precise meaning, the text gives the Servant a role much greater than merely delivering information about a future covenant.

Now place that beside what we discovered in Investigation 4. Israel had covenant words. Israel had blood. Israel had sacrifice. Israel had priests and eventually the Temple. Yet Israel broke covenant. Jeremiah’s answer was a new covenant, while Isaiah’s prophecy introduces a Servant whom God gives in covenant language. Something in the future covenant appears to be moving away from dependence upon another external arrangement and toward a person.

This becomes much more significant when we remember what Isaiah says elsewhere about the Servant. Isaiah 52–53 describes someone who suffers despite being presented as innocent. He is wounded in connection with the transgressions of others, bears their iniquities, is compared with a lamb led to slaughter, becomes associated with the asham, or guilt offering, and pours out his life unto death.

We investigated that evidence earlier, so we do not need to prove it again. What matters now is the new connection. The Servant associated with sacrifice is also the Servant associated with covenant. Two trails we had been following separately are beginning to move toward the same figure.

This is exactly why we have been looking for the work before identifying the Worker. If we began by saying Jesus is the answer and then searched backward, it would be easy to see only what we expected to see. Instead, we have allowed the Old Testament to build the requirements one piece at a time. Now Isaiah is giving the silhouette another feature without our needing the New Testament to supply it.

The figure emerging from Isaiah must somehow be righteous and yet suffer. He must somehow bear the wrongdoing of others without simply becoming another guilty person being punished for his own sins. His life becomes associated with an offering, and now he is somehow given by God in connection with covenant. These are no longer random characteristics scattered across unrelated ideas. They are beginning to gather around the Servant.

There is another detail in Isaiah 42 that deserves attention. Immediately after saying the Servant will be given for a covenant, Isaiah describes him as “a light of the Gentiles,” opening blind eyes and bringing prisoners out of darkness. The Servant’s covenant work therefore appears to have a restorative direction. The imagery moves toward light, freedom, and release.

Isaiah 49 expands the reach even farther. The Servant’s mission is described as too great to concern only the restoration of Israel. God says He will make the Servant a light to the nations so that His salvation may reach to the ends of the earth. Whatever this covenant-associated Servant is going to accomplish, the horizon appears larger than Israel alone.

That should get our attention because the original covenant with Abraham had always contained a larger horizon. God’s purpose involved blessing reaching beyond Abraham’s immediate descendants to the families or nations of the earth. Isaiah’s Servant now appears within that larger movement, connecting covenant restoration with a mission extending outward to the nations.

The silhouette is becoming remarkably specific, but we still need to resist naming Him. At this point in the investigation, we should be able to hand someone only the Old Testament evidence and ask what kind of Worker would satisfy it. The person would need to explain a righteous Servant who suffers, bears sin, gives his life, becomes associated with an offering, is given by God in connection with covenant, brings restoration, and carries God’s salvation toward the nations.

Then Jeremiah adds another requirement. The promised new covenant must somehow involve forgiveness, knowing God, and God’s Law written within His people. Ezekiel adds cleansing, a new heart, a new spirit, and God’s Spirit within. The Servant cannot merely establish another external religious system if the promised work is supposed to reach this deeply into humanity.

That brings us back to the question of blood. At Sinai, animals supplied the blood of the covenant. The animals were sacrificed, their blood was applied, and the covenant relationship was formally established. Yet the people who received that blood eventually broke the covenant.

Isaiah now gives us a Servant connected with covenant whose own life is poured out unto death.

We should not yet say that the Servant’s blood is the blood of the new covenant because the Old Testament passages we are examining do not explicitly make that statement. Making that connection belongs later when additional evidence allows us to test it. But we can certainly recognize that the pieces are moving unusually close together.

At Sinai, covenant and sacrificial blood meet. In Jeremiah, a new covenant is promised. In Isaiah, the Servant is given for covenant. Elsewhere in Isaiah, that same Servant gives his life and becomes associated with sacrifice. The evidence has not yet completed the picture, but the outline is becoming difficult to ignore.

This may be the strongest feature of Jesus’ silhouette we have encountered so far because the coming solution is beginning to look less like another ritual and more like a person. God does not merely promise something new. Isaiah repeatedly points toward someone whom God will give.

Investigation 6 must now place these pieces beside one another and ask whether covenant is the bridge connecting the life given by the Servant with the life God promises to restore within His people. If it is, then the blood trail is approaching a major transition. We began with animals being brought to God, but the prophets are increasingly describing something God Himself intends to give to humanity: a Servant, a covenant, forgiveness, a new heart, and eventually His own Spirit.

Investigation 6 – Is Covenant the Bridge Between the Life Given and the Life Restored?

We have reached the point where several trails that began separately are starting to converge. Exodus gave us blood establishing covenant. Isaiah gave us a righteous Servant who suffers, bears sin, becomes associated with an offering, and pours out his life unto death. Jeremiah promised a new covenant involving forgiveness and God’s Law written within the heart. Ezekiel promised cleansing, a new heart, a new spirit, and God’s Spirit within His people. The question now is whether these are separate promises or pieces of one larger work.

At Sinai, the covenant was established with the blood of animals. Israel heard God’s words, agreed to obey, received the blood of the covenant, and then representatives of Israel entered God’s presence and ate and drank. Yet the people eventually broke that covenant. The blood established the relationship, but it did not make the people permanently faithful to the relationship.

Jeremiah therefore announces something different. God will make a new covenant, and the defining features will reach inside the people themselves. God’s Law will be written upon their hearts, they will know Him, their iniquity will be forgiven, and their sin will be remembered no more. The problem that repeatedly appeared inside the covenant people will somehow be addressed within the covenant people.

Then Isaiah introduces the Servant and gives us an unexpected connection. God says He will give the Servant “for a covenant of the people.” Isaiah also describes this Servant as righteous, suffering, bearing iniquity, associated with the guilt offering, and pouring out his life unto death. We should not connect these passages beyond what the Old Testament evidence allows, but we cannot ignore that sacrifice and covenant are beginning to gather around the same figure.

This may be where the life given and the life restored begin moving toward each other. Isaiah shows us the Servant giving his life, while Jeremiah and Ezekiel show us what God intends to accomplish within His restored people. Between those two sides stands covenant. One side involves a life being given, while the other involves people receiving forgiveness, cleansing, transformed hearts, and God’s Spirit.

That possibility changes the way we look back at Sinai. Animal blood could participate in establishing the covenant God gave Israel, but the animal itself could not become the covenant. It could not write God’s Law upon a human heart. It could not cause someone to know God. It could not give a new spirit, remove a heart of stone, or place God’s Spirit within someone.

Yet Isaiah’s language about the Servant is different. God does not merely describe another animal or another ritual. He says He will give someone “for a covenant of the people.” The coming solution is increasingly centered upon a person rather than simply another ceremony.

This is where we need to preserve the silhouette without naming the Worker. If we gather only the evidence we have already discovered, we can begin describing what this coming figure must somehow accomplish. He must be righteous, yet suffer. His suffering must somehow involve the sins of others. His life must be given. He must be associated with sacrifice, and now he must somehow be connected with covenant.

At the same time, the covenant associated with God’s promised restoration must accomplish something the earlier arrangement did not permanently produce within Israel. It must involve forgiveness, knowledge of God, inward transformation, and ultimately God’s Spirit within His people. The Worker and the work are approaching each other.

There is another detail worth noticing about the direction of God’s action. At Sinai, Israel brings animals to the altar. But in Isaiah, God says He will give the Servant. In Jeremiah, God says He will make the new covenant. God says He will write His Law upon the heart. In Ezekiel, God says He will cleanse, give the new heart, give the new spirit, and put His Spirit within His people.

The direction has increasingly shifted from what humanity brings to God toward what God provides humanity.

That may be crucial to understanding the entire blood story. Humanity brings sacrifices because God provided the sacrificial system, but the prophets eventually describe something humanity cannot supply. Humanity cannot manufacture the righteous Servant. Humanity cannot write God’s Law upon its own heart in the way Jeremiah promises. Humanity cannot place God’s Spirit within itself. The final restoration must come from God.

This does not erase human response. Israel was still called to repent, return, obey, and love God. We established that in Part 13 and do not need to reopen it. The important point here is that the promised solution exceeds what human religious performance can produce.

Perhaps covenant is therefore becoming the bridge between two movements. On one side, a life is given. On the other side, life with God is restored. The Servant stands strangely close to the first side because he pours out his life, and strangely close to the second because God calls him a covenant.

We should not yet claim that we have proven exactly how the Servant’s death establishes Jeremiah’s new covenant. The Old Testament evidence has brought the pieces together, but it has not given us every connection explicitly. That distinction is important because we are trying to follow the evidence rather than read the ending backward into the beginning.

But we can say that the silhouette is becoming remarkably specific. Somewhere in the promised future stands a righteous Servant who gives his life, bears sin, is associated with sacrifice, and is given by God for covenant. Somewhere in that same promised future stands forgiveness, inward transformation, restored knowledge of God, cleansing, and God’s Spirit within His people.

The question is no longer whether these themes exist. They clearly do. The question is how they connect.

That is exactly where Part 14 should leave us. We began with the blood of animals at Sinai and discovered that covenant blood led toward fellowship in God’s presence. We then watched Israel break that covenant despite everything God had given them. Jeremiah responded with the promise of a new covenant, and Isaiah unexpectedly placed a mysterious Servant directly in the covenant trail.

The silhouette now has enough features that we should be able to recognize the Worker when Scripture finally identifies Him, but we are not ready to turn on the light yet. There is still another major piece of the Old Testament blood trail to investigate.

Before God’s presence could remain among Israel, cleansing mattered. Ezekiel later promises cleansing immediately before promising God’s Spirit within His people. If the new covenant ultimately moves God’s presence closer rather than farther away, then we need to understand what must be cleansed and why blood repeatedly appears in that process.

That is where Part 15 must go next. Covenant has brought the life given and the life restored close together, but cleansing may explain how the distance between a holy God and sinful humanity can actually be crossed. If the Servant is somehow involved in that cleansing, then the silhouette will become sharper still before we ever speak His name.

What We Learned Today

Today we learned that covenant begins with God’s initiative. Israel did not earn its rescue by keeping the Law. God delivered them from Egypt first, carried them through the wilderness, and told them that He had brought them to Himself. Only afterward did He call them into covenant obedience. The destination of the Exodus was therefore more than freedom from Pharaoh. It was relationship with God.

At Sinai, that covenant relationship was formally established with blood. Moses placed blood upon the altar and then upon the people, declaring it “the blood of the covenant.” We already knew that Scripture connects blood with life, but Part 14 showed us something new. Blood appears at the moment God formally binds His rescued people to Himself.

Then Exodus gives us an extraordinary sequence. After the covenant blood is applied, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders ascend the mountain, encounter God’s presence, and eat and drink before Him. We cannot claim that the blood explicitly caused this access because Exodus does not say that, but we cannot ignore the sequence either. Sacrifice, blood, covenant, God’s presence, and fellowship appear together.

This showed us that death was not the destination of the covenant ceremony. The animals died, but the people approached God alive. Blood was shed, but the story moved toward fellowship. Once again, the blood trail passed through death while continuing toward life with God.

Yet Israel broke the covenant almost immediately. The golden calf revealed something covenant blood had not changed. Israel could receive the blood, hear God’s words, promise obedience, and still turn away. Later generations could possess sacrifices, priests, commandments, and the Temple while their hearts remained unfaithful. The problem was not simply a shortage of religious activity.

Jeremiah therefore promised something different. God would make a new covenant, not merely add more sacrifices or commandments. His Law would be written within His people, they would know Him, and their sins would be forgiven. Part 13 had already established the heart problem, while Part 14 showed us why that problem becomes central to the new covenant.

Then Isaiah gave us the most important new piece of today’s investigation. God says He will give His Servant “for a covenant of the people.” This is the same prophetic Servant we previously encountered suffering, bearing sin, becoming associated with the guilt offering, and pouring out his life unto death. The Servant connected with sacrifice is now also connected with covenant.

That sharpened the silhouette considerably. The Old Testament is beginning to describe a Worker who must somehow be righteous, suffer, bear sin, give his life, be associated with sacrifice, and be connected with covenant. Meanwhile, the promised covenant must somehow result in forgiveness, restored relationship, transformed hearts, and ultimately God’s Spirit within His people.

The direction of the story also became clearer. At Sinai, humanity brought animals to the altar. But Isaiah says God will give the Servant. Jeremiah says God will make the new covenant and write His Law upon the heart. Ezekiel says God will cleanse His people, give them a new heart and spirit, and place His Spirit within them. The promised restoration increasingly moves from what humanity brings to God toward what God gives humanity.

Perhaps the greatest thing we learned today is that covenant may be the bridge between the life being given and the life being restored. Isaiah shows us the Servant giving his life. Jeremiah and Ezekiel show us God restoring His people from within. Between those two realities stands the promise of covenant, and Isaiah places the Servant directly inside that covenant story.

We still have not named the Worker because the Old Testament is still constructing His silhouette. But the outline is becoming increasingly difficult to miss. Blood, sacrifice, covenant, forgiveness, life, God’s presence, and the mysterious Servant are no longer separate trails. They are beginning to converge upon the same destination.

Part 15 now needs to investigate the next missing piece: cleansing. If covenant is bringing God and humanity back together, and if God’s ultimate promise is to place His Spirit within His people, what must happen before a holy God’s presence can dwell within sinful humanity? That question may bring the silhouette into even sharper focus.

Questions for the Next Episode

If covenant is the bridge between the life that is given and the life God intends to restore, then the next question is what makes that restored relationship possible. God is holy, humanity is sinful, and yet Ezekiel promises that God’s own Spirit will eventually dwell within His people. What has to happen before God’s presence can move that close?

Why does cleansing appear so often in the blood story? On the Day of Atonement, blood was used in connection with cleansing the sanctuary, the altar, and the holy places because Israel’s uncleanness had affected the place where God dwelt among them. Was cleansing simply ceremonial, or was it revealing a much larger problem involving sin and God’s presence?

If the sanctuary had to be cleansed because God dwelt there, what should we make of Ezekiel 36? God promises to sprinkle clean water upon His people, cleanse them from their uncleanness and idols, give them a new heart and spirit, and then place His Spirit within them. Is the order significant? Does cleansing prepare the way for God’s presence?

And if so, are we seeing another part of the sanctuary pattern move toward the human being? We should not yet claim that Ezekiel explicitly calls the individual person God’s Temple, because he does not. But why does the prophet place cleansing immediately before the promise of God’s Spirit within? Could the sanctuary have been showing us something about the greater restoration God intended all along?

What exactly could animal blood cleanse, and where did its work reach its limit? The sacrificial system could address ritual impurity and atonement within the covenant God established, but could the blood of an animal cleanse the human heart itself? Could it remove the heart of stone, write God’s Law within, or make God’s Spirit dwell within a person?

This brings Isaiah’s Servant back into the investigation. We have already discovered that the Servant bears sin, is associated with the guilt offering, pours out his life unto death, and is given by God “for a covenant of the people.” If the promised covenant also requires a deeper cleansing, could the Servant somehow be connected with that cleansing as well?

Isaiah 52 may give us an important clue before the suffering Servant passage even begins. Isaiah 52:15 contains difficult Hebrew traditionally translated with language about the Servant “sprinkling many nations,” although the precise translation is debated. If cleansing or sprinkling imagery really belongs there, why does Isaiah place it immediately before the description of the Servant’s suffering and death? We will need to investigate the Hebrew carefully rather than assuming the answer.

We also need to ask whether cleansing and forgiveness are the same thing. Jeremiah promises forgiveness within the new covenant, while Ezekiel promises cleansing, a new heart, and God’s Spirit. Are these simply different ways of describing one event, or are the prophets showing us different dimensions of restoration? Could forgiveness deal with guilt while cleansing prepares humanity for God’s presence?

Then there is the question of life. If blood represents life, why is blood used for cleansing at all? How can something associated with life cleanse what sin and death have contaminated? Perhaps understanding that relationship will move us closer to the original question of this entire series: why did God choose blood rather than some other substance?

The silhouette of the Worker must also continue developing without naming Him yet. We now know that He must somehow be connected with sacrifice and covenant. If Part 15 reveals that He must also accomplish a cleansing beyond what animal blood could accomplish, another feature will be added to the silhouette.

By the end of Part 15, we should be able to ask an even harder question. If animal blood could serve the purposes God assigned to it but could not permanently transform the human heart, what kind of blood could accomplish the deeper work promised by Jeremiah and Ezekiel?

That question will prepare us for Part 16. Before we finally identify the Worker, we need to determine why another animal could never finish the work. If the coming covenant requires forgiveness, cleansing, transformed hearts, restored access to God, and His Spirit within His people, then the final sacrifice must somehow accomplish something no animal standing at the altar was ever capable of accomplishing.

The silhouette is almost complete. Part 15 will add cleansing to it, and Part 16 will ask whether the Old Testament itself has already shown us why the final answer could never simply be another animal.

Evidence & Scripture

Exodus 2:23–25 establishes that God’s movement toward Israel began before Sinai. God heard Israel’s groaning in Egypt, remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, looked upon the Israelites, and acknowledged their suffering. This is important because Israel’s deliverance begins with God’s action rather than Israel first demonstrating obedience to the Sinai Law.

Exodus 6:6–8 strengthens that sequence. God promises to bring Israel out from Egyptian bondage, redeem them, take them as His people, and be their God. Deliverance and relationship are already God’s stated objectives before the covenant ceremony at Sinai takes place.

Exodus 19:3–6 provides the foundation for Part 14. God reminds Israel that He carried them “on eagles’ wings” and “brought you unto myself.” Only afterward does He call them to obey His voice and keep His covenant, describing them as His treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. Rescue therefore precedes Sinai’s covenant obligations.

Exodus 19:7–8 records Israel’s response to God’s covenant proposal. The people declare that everything the LORD has spoken they will do. God’s initiative and Israel’s responsibility therefore appear together. God rescues and calls, while Israel willingly agrees to covenant obedience.

Exodus 24:3–4 records another declaration of Israel’s willingness to obey. Moses tells the people the words and judgments of the LORD, and the people answer with one voice that they will do everything God has spoken. Moses then writes the words down and prepares the covenant ceremony.

Exodus 24:4–5 describes Moses building an altar beneath the mountain and twelve pillars corresponding to Israel’s twelve tribes. Burnt offerings and peace offerings are sacrificed. The covenant ceremony therefore brings together the altar, Israel, sacrifice, God’s words, and the people’s response.

Exodus 24:6–8 contains the central evidence for Part 14. Moses divides the sacrificial blood, placing half upon the altar and retaining half in basins. After reading the Book of the Covenant and receiving Israel’s renewed promise of obedience, Moses sprinkles blood upon the people and declares, “Behold the blood of the covenant.” Blood is therefore explicitly identified with the covenant established between God and Israel.

Leviticus 17:11 provides evidence already established earlier in the series and now applied to covenant. God declares that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” and says that He has given blood upon the altar for atonement. Part 14 does not need to establish this again but can use it when asking why blood appears at the establishment of covenant.

Genesis 15:9–18 provides an earlier example of covenant involving sacrificed animals. Abraham divides animals, and God’s symbolic presence passes between the pieces as covenant promises are declared. The passage establishes that solemn covenant-making involving sacrificed animals existed before Sinai, although its ceremony should not simply be treated as identical to Exodus 24.

Jeremiah 34:18–20 helps explain the seriousness of ancient covenant ceremonies involving divided animals. God condemns those who broke a covenant after passing between the parts of a calf and connects their covenant violation with judgment. This supports the idea that covenant carried life-and-death seriousness.

Exodus 24:9–11 records what happens immediately after Moses declares the blood of the covenant. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders ascend and encounter the God of Israel. God does not lay His hand upon them, and the text says they “saw God, and did eat and drink.” Covenant blood, God’s presence, and a meal therefore occur in immediate sequence.

Exodus 32:1–8 reveals how quickly covenant failure follows covenant establishment. While Moses remains on the mountain, Israel turns toward the golden calf. This provides powerful evidence that witnessing miracles, hearing God’s words, agreeing to covenant, and receiving covenant blood did not make the people incapable of rebellion.

Exodus 32:19–20 dramatizes the covenant rupture when Moses descends, sees the calf and dancing, and breaks the tablets. The people who had recently promised to do everything the LORD commanded had already violated the relationship into which they had entered.

1 Samuel 15:22–23 reinforces the distinction between sacrifice and covenant faithfulness. Samuel tells Saul that obedience is better than sacrifice and listening better than the fat of rams. Religious offering cannot substitute for obedience to the God receiving the offering.

Isaiah 1:11–17 condemns abundant sacrifices, offerings, assemblies, and prayers when they coexist with wrongdoing and injustice. God commands the people to wash themselves, cease doing evil, learn to do good, seek justice, and defend the oppressed. Quantity of sacrifice could not compensate for covenant unfaithfulness.

Hosea 6:6 makes the same point in concentrated form. God desires mercy and knowledge of Him rather than sacrifice and burnt offerings. This supports Part 14’s conclusion that covenant relationship cannot be reduced to successful performance of religious rituals.

Micah 6:6–8 asks whether increasingly extravagant offerings could satisfy God, progressing rhetorically from burnt offerings to thousands of rams and rivers of oil. The answer turns toward justice, mercy, and humble walking with God. More sacrifice was not the solution to an unfaithful heart.

Jeremiah 7:4–11 confronts people who trusted in the Temple while continuing theft, murder, adultery, false swearing, and idolatry. Possession of God’s sanctuary and continued religious activity did not provide protection for deliberate covenant rebellion. This directly supports the concern raised earlier in the series about using religion as cover for continued sin.

Jeremiah 31:31–32 provides the major transition. God promises a “new covenant” and explicitly contrasts it with the covenant made when He brought Israel out of Egypt, “which my covenant they brake.” Scripture itself therefore identifies the Sinai covenant as broken and announces another covenant to come.

Jeremiah 31:33–34 explains what will distinguish the promised covenant. God will place His Law within His people and write it upon their hearts. They will know Him, He will forgive their iniquity, and He will remember their sin no more. The promised covenant therefore involves inward transformation, restored relationship, and forgiveness.

Isaiah 42:1–4 introduces the LORD’s Servant as chosen by God, possessing God’s Spirit, bringing judgment or justice to the nations, and faithfully completing his mission. This establishes the character of the figure before Isaiah introduces covenant language.

Isaiah 42:5–7 contains one of Part 14’s most important pieces of evidence. God tells the Servant that He has called him in righteousness, will hold and preserve him, and will “give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.” The Servant is therefore described not merely as preaching covenant but as being given by God in connection with covenant itself.

Isaiah 49:5–6 expands the Servant’s mission beyond the restoration of Israel. God says it is too small a thing for the Servant merely to restore Jacob and declares that He will also make him a light to the Gentiles so that God’s salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.

Isaiah 49:8 repeats the covenant language of Isaiah 42. God promises to preserve the Servant and “give thee for a covenant of the people.” The repetition strengthens the importance of the phrase and establishes that the covenant association is not isolated to a single verse.

Isaiah 52:13–15 begins the final major Servant passage by describing the Servant’s exaltation alongside astonishing suffering and a worldwide impact. This passage leads directly into Isaiah 53 and therefore belongs to the larger portrait of the Servant being constructed.

Isaiah 53:4–6 describes the Servant bearing griefs and sorrows, being wounded in connection with transgressions, and having the iniquity of others laid upon him. The passage connects the Servant’s suffering with the wrongdoing of people other than himself.

Isaiah 53:7 portrays the Servant as being brought “as a lamb to the slaughter.” The sacrificial imagery does not by itself explain the entire meaning of his death, but it adds another unmistakable feature to the silhouette being constructed throughout the investigation.

Isaiah 53:10 uses the Hebrew term asham, commonly associated with the guilt offering, when describing the Servant’s life being made an offering for guilt. This creates an especially important connection between the Servant and Israel’s sacrificial vocabulary.

Isaiah 53:11–12 describes the Servant bearing iniquities, bearing the sin of many, and pouring out his life unto death. Combined with Isaiah 42 and 49, Isaiah presents a Servant associated both with covenant and with the giving of his own life.

Ezekiel 36:25–27 remains important evidence from Part 13 because it shows where God’s promised restoration is heading. God promises cleansing, a new heart, a new spirit, removal of the heart of stone, and His own Spirit within His people. Part 14 does not need to reinvestigate these promises, but they establish what the coming restoration must ultimately reach.

Taken together, these passages reveal the progression driving Part 14. God rescues Israel and brings them to Himself before establishing covenant obligations. The covenant at Sinai is formally established with blood, and representatives of Israel afterward eat and drink in God’s presence. Israel nevertheless breaks the covenant, demonstrating that covenant blood and external commandments did not make the people permanently faithful.

The prophets then reveal something new. Jeremiah promises another covenant reaching inward and bringing forgiveness, while Isaiah describes a righteous Servant whom God will give “for a covenant of the people.” The same Servant is later described as suffering, bearing sin, becoming associated with the guilt offering, and pouring out his life unto death. The Old Testament has not yet explained every connection between these promises, but the evidence is beginning to construct an unmistakable silhouette in which blood, sacrifice, covenant, forgiveness, life, and the mysterious Servant are moving steadily toward the same point.

Bibliography

• Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary. 3 vols. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.
• Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
• Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.
• Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974.
• Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.
• Goldingay, John. The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
• Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.
• Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
• Lewis, Theodore J. “Covenant and Blood Rituals: Understanding Exodus 24:3–8 in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” In Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, edited by Seymour Gitin, J. Edward Wright, and J. P. Dessel, 341–350. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Lewis is particularly useful for Part 14 because he specifically examines the covenant and blood ritual of Exodus 24:3–8 within its ancient Near Eastern setting. 
• Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
• Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
• Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
• North, Christopher R. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. North remains an important scholarly work for investigating the identity and function of Isaiah’s Servant independently of simply assuming a later Christian interpretation. 
• Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
• Robinson, Bernard P. “The Theophany and Meal of Exodus 24.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 25, no. 2 (2011): 155–173. Robinson specifically examines Exodus 24:9–11 and the extraordinary scene in which Israel’s representatives encounter God and participate in the covenant meal, making it particularly relevant to Investigation 3. 
• Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.
• Talia, Peter. “A Critical and Exegetical Analysis of Exodus Twenty-Four with Special Attention to Covenant Ratification.” ThD diss., Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1979. This study concentrates specifically on Exodus 24 and covenant ratification, including the covenant blood and the meal of Exodus 24:9–11. 
• Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.
• Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
• Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.
• Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
• The Holy Bible. King James Version.
• The Holy Bible. Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo biblical tradition, English translation used throughout the Why Did God Choose Blood? investigation.

Endnotes

1. Exodus 2:23–25 establishes that God’s movement toward Israel began before the Sinai covenant. God heard Israel’s suffering in Egypt and remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The narrative therefore presents deliverance as beginning with God’s initiative rather than Israel first earning rescue through obedience.
2. Exodus 6:6–8 describes God’s intention not merely to remove Israel from Egypt but to take Israel as His people and be their God. This relational purpose becomes important when Exodus 19 later describes God bringing Israel “unto myself.”
3. Exodus 19:4–6 establishes the order emphasized throughout Part 14. God first reminds Israel what He has already done in delivering them from Egypt and then calls them to covenant obedience. Rescue precedes Sinai’s covenant obligations.
4. Exodus 19:8 records Israel’s agreement to God’s covenant proposal. The people declare that everything the LORD has spoken they will do. God’s initiative therefore exists alongside meaningful human response and responsibility.
5. The conclusion that obedience was not the “purchase price” of the Exodus is a theological summary of this narrative order. Israel is delivered before the Sinai Law is given, although continued covenant faithfulness is subsequently required of the people.
6. Exodus 24:3–4 records another declaration of Israel’s willingness to obey before the blood ceremony. Moses communicates God’s words and judgments, and Israel responds together that they will do what the LORD has spoken.
7. Exodus 24:4–5 describes the altar, twelve pillars representing Israel’s tribes, burnt offerings, and peace offerings. These elements provide the immediate setting for the covenant blood ceremony.
8. Exodus 24:6–8 is the central passage for Part 14. Moses places half of the sacrificial blood upon the altar, reads the Book of the Covenant, receives Israel’s agreement, and then sprinkles blood upon the people while declaring, “Behold the blood of the covenant.”
9. The interpretation that the altar represents the Godward side of the covenant ceremony while the people represent the human side is an interpretive description of the arrangement. Exodus itself does not explicitly define the symbolism in those words, so the episode intentionally avoids claiming that God and Israel were literally “sharing blood.”
10. Leviticus 17:11 supplies an established premise from earlier episodes: “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” Part 14 uses that established connection between blood and life without attempting to prove it again.
11. Genesis 15:9–18 provides an earlier biblical example of covenant-making involving divided animals. God’s symbolic presence passes between the pieces while covenant promises are given to Abram. The ceremony differs from Exodus 24 but demonstrates the solemn relationship between covenant and sacrificed animals before Sinai.
12. Jeremiah 34:18–20 provides evidence for the life-and-death seriousness associated with covenant ceremonies. Those who violated their covenant after passing between the pieces of a divided calf are condemned by God and associated with the fate represented by the divided animal.
13. The conclusion that covenant blood may communicate more than threatened punishment is based partly upon the actual application of blood in Exodus 24. The blood is not merely displayed as an illustration of death; Moses actively uses it in the ceremony and explicitly calls it “the blood of the covenant.”
14. Exodus 24:9–11 immediately follows the blood ceremony with Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders ascending the mountain. They encounter the God of Israel, God does not lay His hand upon them, and they “did eat and drink.”
15. Part 14 deliberately does not claim that the blood of Exodus 24 explicitly caused the elders to survive God’s presence. Exodus does not state that causal relationship. The investigation instead observes the narrative sequence of sacrifice, covenant blood, divine presence, and a meal.
16. Likewise, the meal of Exodus 24 should not simply be identified with the New Testament Lord’s Supper. Such a connection must be investigated later rather than assumed. At this stage, the important observation is that blood, covenant, God’s presence, and eating occur together within the Sinai narrative.
17. Peace offerings are specifically mentioned in Exodus 24:5. Elsewhere in the Torah, peace offerings involve portions being eaten by worshipers, as seen particularly in Leviticus 7:11–21. Exodus 24 does not explicitly state that the mountain meal consisted of those sacrificial portions, so that possibility should not be presented as established fact.
18. The statement that the covenant ceremony ends in fellowship rather than death summarizes the movement of Exodus 24:6–11. Animals are sacrificed and blood is applied, yet the human representatives subsequently remain alive while eating and drinking before God.
19. Exodus 32:1–8 provides the immediate evidence that covenant participation did not make Israel incapable of rebellion. Shortly after promising obedience, Israel participates in the golden calf episode while Moses remains upon the mountain.
20. Exodus 32:19–20 dramatically portrays the rupture when Moses sees the calf and breaks the tablets. The narrative contrast between Israel’s promise in Exodus 24 and rebellion in Exodus 32 demonstrates the seriousness of the covenant failure.
21. The statement that covenant blood did not permanently transform Israel’s heart is a theological inference from the subsequent narrative rather than an explicit explanation given in Exodus 24. Israel receives covenant blood and nevertheless remains capable of idolatry and rebellion.
22. 1 Samuel 15:22–23 demonstrates that sacrifice could never function as a substitute for covenant obedience. Samuel’s declaration to Saul that obedience is better than sacrifice establishes an important distinction between performing religious acts and faithfully responding to God.
23. Isaiah 1:11–17 similarly condemns sacrificial worship performed alongside wrongdoing and injustice. The problem is not presented as sacrifice itself being inherently evil but as religious activity being offered while the worshipers refuse the righteousness God requires.
24. Hosea 6:6 declares God’s desire for mercy and knowledge of Him rather than sacrifice and burnt offerings. This supports Part 14’s conclusion that the covenant relationship was never reducible to the performance of ritual.
25. Micah 6:6–8 rhetorically escalates the quantity of possible offerings from burnt offerings to thousands of rams and rivers of oil. The prophet then emphasizes justice, mercy, and humble walking with God, showing that greater quantities of offerings could not compensate for covenant unfaithfulness.
26. Jeremiah 7:4–11 condemns those who trust in the Temple while continuing theft, murder, adultery, false swearing, and idolatry. This is particularly important to the earlier question of whether religious privilege or wealth could be used as a shield for deliberate sin. Jeremiah rejects that possibility.
27. The conclusion that a wealthy person could not simply “afford more sin” is therefore a summary of the prophetic evidence rather than a direct biblical quotation. Scripture repeatedly rejects the idea that increased sacrifice can compensate for deliberate injustice and unrepentant rebellion.
28. Jeremiah 31:31–32 explicitly identifies Israel as having broken the covenant God made when He brought their ancestors out of Egypt. God then promises that the days are coming when He will establish a “new covenant.”
29. Jeremiah 31:33–34 describes major features of that promised covenant. God will place His Law within His people and write it upon their hearts, they will know Him, He will forgive their iniquity, and He will remember their sin no more.
30. Part 14 does not treat the old covenant’s failure as proof that God’s Law was defective. Jeremiah’s promised solution does not abolish God’s instruction; instead, God promises to place His Law within His people and write it upon their hearts.
31. Isaiah 42:1–4 introduces the LORD’s Servant as chosen by God, associated with God’s Spirit, and commissioned to establish justice. This context should be preserved when interpreting the covenant language that follows.
32. Isaiah 42:6 contains one of the central discoveries of Part 14. God tells the Servant that He has called him in righteousness, will preserve him, and will “give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.”
33. The expression “give thee for a covenant of the people” is significant but should not be overstated. Isaiah does not provide a systematic explanation of how the Servant functions as covenant. The episode therefore treats the Servant’s precise covenant role as something to be investigated rather than assuming a later Christian explanation.
34. Isaiah 49:6 expands the Servant’s mission beyond Israel by describing him as a light to the Gentiles so that God’s salvation may reach “unto the end of the earth.” The Servant’s mission therefore participates in a restoration with an international horizon.
35. Isaiah 49:8 repeats the language of Isaiah 42:6 by saying that God will preserve the Servant and give him “for a covenant of the people.” The repetition strengthens the conclusion that covenant belongs meaningfully to Isaiah’s Servant portrait.
36. Isaiah 52:13 begins the final major Servant section and leads directly into Isaiah 53. The Servant’s eventual exaltation is placed alongside extraordinary humiliation and suffering.
37. Isaiah 53:4–6 associates the Servant’s suffering with the wrongdoing of others. He bears griefs and sorrows, is wounded in connection with transgressions, and has the iniquity of others laid upon him.
38. Isaiah 53:7 compares the Servant with “a lamb to the slaughter.” The comparison contributes sacrificial imagery to the Servant portrait, although the verse by itself should not be treated as a complete explanation of the Servant’s death.
39. Isaiah 53:10 uses the Hebrew word asham, a term used elsewhere for the guilt or reparation offering. This creates one of the strongest Old Testament connections between Isaiah’s Servant and Israel’s sacrificial vocabulary.
40. Isaiah 53:11–12 describes the Servant bearing iniquities and the sin of many and pouring out his life unto death. These verses provide the foundation for the episode’s description of the Servant as giving his life in connection with the sins of others.
41. Reading Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 alongside Isaiah 53 produces the central silhouette explored in Part 14: Isaiah’s Servant is associated with covenant in one set of passages and with suffering, sin-bearing, offering, and the giving of life in another. The conclusion that these themes ultimately converge requires careful theological interpretation, but the themes themselves are present within Isaiah.
42. Ezekiel 36:25–27 provides the prophetic destination carried forward from Part 13. God promises cleansing, a new heart, a new spirit, removal of the heart of stone, and His Spirit within His people.
43. The statement that covenant may be the “bridge between the life given and the life restored” is the investigative thesis of Part 14 rather than a direct biblical quotation. Isaiah portrays the Servant giving his life, while Jeremiah and Ezekiel describe the restoration God intends to accomplish within His people. Covenant language appears within both sides of that developing prophetic picture.
44. The observation that the direction increasingly moves from what humanity brings to what God provides is supported by the prophetic language. Isaiah says God will give the Servant, Jeremiah says God will make the new covenant and write His Law within, and Ezekiel says God will cleanse, give the new heart and spirit, and place His Spirit within His people.
45. Part 14 intentionally stops short of declaring that Isaiah’s Servant provides the “blood of the new covenant.” The Old Testament passages examined here do not explicitly use that phrase of the Servant. Preserving that distinction allows the investigation to continue following the work before allowing the New Testament to identify the Worker.
46. The silhouette established by the end of Part 14 therefore consists only of features already present in the Old Testament evidence. A righteous Servant suffers, bears sin, gives his life, is associated with sacrificial language, and is given by God in connection with covenant, while the prophets simultaneously promise forgiveness, inward transformation, cleansing, restored knowledge of God, and God’s Spirit within His people.
47. Part 15 will test the next piece of that silhouette by investigating cleansing. Leviticus describes blood functioning in connection with cleansing sacred space, while Ezekiel promises cleansing immediately before the new heart and indwelling Spirit. The next question is whether these patterns help explain how covenant restoration ultimately moves humanity back toward God’s presence.
48. The central conclusion of Part 14 should therefore remain carefully stated. The Old Testament has not yet explained every connection between blood, the Servant, and the promised new covenant, but it has brought sacrifice, covenant, forgiveness, restored relationship, and the Servant remarkably close together. The investigation now follows those converging trails rather than assuming their final explanation in advance.

#WhyDidGodChooseBlood, #BloodOfTheCovenant, #BloodCovenant, #BiblicalBlood, #LifeIsInTheBlood, #Covenant, #NewCovenant, #SinaiCovenant, #Exodus24, #BloodAndLife, #Sacrifice, #Atonement, #GodsPresence, #CovenantMeal, #ServantOfTheLord, #SufferingServant, #Isaiah42, #Isaiah49, #Isaiah53, #Jeremiah31, #Ezekiel36, #LawWrittenOnTheHeart, #HeartTransformation, #Forgiveness, #Cleansing, #SpiritOfGod, #BiblicalProphecy, #OldTestament, #BibleStudy, #BiblicalTruth, #BiblicalInvestigation, #JesusSilhouette, #WorkBeforeTheWorker, #RestoredRelationship, #LifeWithGod, #CauseBeforeSymptom

WhyDidGodChooseBlood, BloodOfTheCovenant, BloodCovenant, BiblicalBlood, LifeIsInTheBlood, Covenant, NewCovenant, SinaiCovenant, Exodus24, BloodAndLife, Sacrifice, Atonement, GodsPresence, CovenantMeal, ServantOfTheLord, SufferingServant, Isaiah42, Isaiah49, Isaiah53, Jeremiah31, Ezekiel36, LawWrittenOnTheHeart, HeartTransformation, Forgiveness, Cleansing, SpiritOfGod, BiblicalProphecy, OldTestament, BibleStudy, BiblicalTruth, BiblicalInvestigation, JesusSilhouette, WorkBeforeTheWorker, RestoredRelationship, LifeWithGod, CauseBeforeSymptom