Why Did God Choose Blood? Part 7 of 19

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7dyc58-why-did-god-choose-blood-part-7-of-19.html

The Passover: What Did God See in the Blood?

Synopsis

For six parts, I have followed the trail of blood without jumping ahead to the verses Christians already know. We have watched blood represent life, testify to death, carry accountability for another person’s life, appear within covenant, accompany substitution, and finally appear beside threatened death and release in the mysterious Bridegroom of Blood encounter. Now we have finally reached the night when God Himself commands blood to be deliberately displayed.

Passover changes the investigation. Until now, blood has often appeared because something died. In Exodus 12, God specifically tells Israel to select an unblemished animal, kill it, collect its blood, and place that blood upon the sides and top of their doorways. Then God makes the extraordinary statement that has echoed through thousands of years of biblical history: “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.”

But why would God need to see blood? He already knew which homes belonged to Israelites. He knew every family and every firstborn child inside. If God simply wanted to distinguish Israel from Egypt, He could have chosen any sign imaginable. Instead, He chose the blood of something that had just surrendered its life.

That raises another question we cannot assume we already know the answer to. Did the Passover animal actually die instead of the firstborn? On Mount Moriah, Scripture explicitly told us that Abraham offered the ram “instead of his son.” At Passover, the structure looks remarkably similar: a firstborn life faces death, an animal dies, blood is displayed, and the firstborn lives. But does Exodus itself describe this as substitution, or is that an interpretation that develops later? We need to let the evidence answer.

There is an even stranger detail. Killing the animal was not enough. The Israelites had to do something with its blood. The death occurred first, and then the blood had to be collected and applied exactly where God commanded. That distinction may bring us closer to understanding why blood matters. Perhaps the blood is not important because of some mysterious power contained within the liquid itself. Perhaps it represents the life that has already been given.

We also need to determine whether Passover is actually about atonement for sin. Exodus 12 does not initially describe the animal as a sin offering. There is no confession over it, no priest performing the ceremony, and no blood placed upon an altar. The immediate danger is death. That means protection, deliverance, substitution, covenant obedience, and atonement cannot simply be treated as though they are all the same thing. If Scripture eventually connects them, we need to discover when and how that happens.

And then there is Jesus.

Our investigation has begun uncovering something much larger than isolated Old Testament prophecies. The Old Testament appears to be establishing the work before identifying the worker. Beloved son, sacrifice, substitute, divine provision, covenant, blood, judgment, and deliverance from death have been appearing piece by piece. Now Passover adds another enormous piece.

This time, however, we eventually receive confirmation from the New Testament itself. Paul will call Christ “our Passover.” That means we are no longer merely noticing similarities and wondering whether Christians imposed Jesus upon an ancient story. The New Testament itself tells us to examine a relationship between the Passover established in Exodus and the work accomplished by Christ.

So in Part 7, I want to investigate Passover as though I do not already know the Christian answer. Why did the animal have to die? Why did its blood have to be removed and displayed? Why were God’s own people required to obey these instructions? What exactly did the blood signify? And above everything else, what did God mean when He said, “When I see the blood”?

Only after answering those questions from Exodus will I place what we discover beside Jesus.

Because if Passover establishes a pattern centuries before the crucifixion, and the New Testament later tells us that Jesus fulfills that pattern, then the Old Testament may be doing something extraordinary.

It may not merely be telling us that Jesus is coming.

It may be showing us what He is coming to do.

Investigation 1 – Why Were the Firstborn Going to Die?

Before we ask why blood protected the firstborn, we need to ask a more uncomfortable question. Why were the firstborn going to die in the first place? If we skip that question, we may misunderstand everything that happens at Passover. The blood only makes sense if we first understand the judgment from which the people behind it were being delivered.

The story begins long before Exodus 12. Pharaoh becomes afraid of Israel because the Hebrew population is growing. He enslaves them and attempts to control their numbers through oppression. When that fails, Pharaoh commands the Hebrew midwives to kill the male children at birth. When the midwives refuse, Pharaoh expands the order. Exodus 1:22 says, “Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.” Egypt’s ruler has turned the death of Israel’s sons into government policy.

That background matters when we eventually reach the death of Egypt’s firstborn. The final plague does not appear in a vacuum. Egypt has enslaved God’s people, and Pharaoh has already attacked their children. There is a terrible measure-for-measure quality developing in the story: the ruler who ordered the destruction of Israel’s sons will eventually face judgment involving Egypt’s sons.

But Exodus gives us an even deeper explanation before the plagues begin. In Exodus 4:22, God tells Moses exactly how He wants Israel described to Pharaoh: “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” That changes how we should understand the confrontation. Pharaoh is not merely refusing to release a workforce. He is holding God’s firstborn son.

Then comes the warning: “Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.” The final plague is therefore announced before Moses begins the confrontation with Pharaoh. The issue of the firstborn is built into the Exodus story from the beginning.

Pharaoh is warned repeatedly afterward, yet he continues resisting. Plague after plague demonstrates that Egypt’s power cannot withstand Israel’s God. Water becomes blood. Frogs overwhelm the land. Livestock die. Darkness covers Egypt. Again and again Pharaoh refuses to release Israel. By Exodus 11, God announces the final judgment: every firstborn in Egypt will die, from Pharaoh’s firstborn to the firstborn of the servant, along with the firstborn of the animals.

But now we encounter something extremely important for our investigation. God gives Israel instructions concerning how their firstborn will survive.

Why?

God certainly knows the difference between an Egyptian and an Israelite. Earlier plagues demonstrate that He can distinguish between them without blood on their houses. Exodus 8 says God will distinguish the land of Goshen during the plague of flies. Exodus 9 says God will distinguish Israel’s livestock from Egypt’s livestock. During the plague of darkness, the Israelites have light where they live. God has already demonstrated repeatedly that He does not need a physical marker to determine who belongs to Israel.

That makes the Passover blood much more significant.

If God merely needed to know which houses contained Israelites, blood was unnecessary.

Something else is happening.

Exodus 12 does not tell Israel, “You are descendants of Abraham, therefore remain home and nothing will happen to you.” Instead, God gives them instructions. Each household must select an animal. The animal must meet God’s requirements. It must be killed. Its blood must be taken and placed upon the two side posts and upper doorpost. They must eat the meal according to God’s instructions and remain inside until morning.

Then God says, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.”

This means Israel’s deliverance that night is not presented merely as an automatic consequence of ethnicity. They are God’s covenant people, but God nevertheless commands a response of faith and obedience. The household stands where God tells it to stand, behind the sign God has provided.

That observation becomes even more important because the final plague is described broadly. Exodus 12:12 says God will pass through “the land of Egypt” and strike the firstborn. The geographical setting is Egypt. Israel lives inside that land. The blood therefore marks households responding to God’s instruction within the territory where judgment is occurring.

We should be careful not to go beyond the text and claim that Israel’s firstborn were being judged for exactly the same reasons as Egypt’s firstborn. Exodus does not say that. The judgment is directed against Egypt and Egypt’s gods. But the text does show that Israel receives specific instructions for protection. Their identity as God’s people does not make obedience irrelevant.

And that gives us an important clue concerning the blood.

The blood cannot merely be God’s address label.

God already knows the addresses.

Nor can it simply mean, “Israelites live here,” because God had previously distinguished Israel from Egypt without such a marker. The blood is something God Himself chooses and assigns significance to.

Now our earlier investigations begin becoming relevant. Genesis has already taught us that blood represents life. Genesis 22 showed a ram dying while Isaac lived. Exodus 4 gave us covenant blood appearing in a scene involving threatened death and release. Now, on Passover night, firstborn lives are threatened, an animal will die, its blood will be displayed, and the people behind that blood will live.

We still should not rush ahead and say we have proven substitution. That is the question for the next investigation. But the structure is becoming difficult to overlook.

There is also something here that will eventually matter when we examine Jesus. God’s people are not simply told that judgment exists somewhere outside their experience. God provides a way through the judgment. They must trust what He has said and place themselves where He has instructed them to be.

The protection is God’s idea.

The animal is God’s instruction.

The blood is God’s chosen sign.

The people do not invent the solution.

That resembles something we already encountered on Moriah. Abraham did not ultimately provide the ram. God did. Abraham called the place “The LORD will provide.” Now Israel again faces death, and God provides the instructions by which life will be preserved.

So why were the firstborn going to die? Because the Exodus confrontation has reached its final judgment. Pharaoh has attacked God’s son, enslaved God’s people, refused repeated commands to release them, and rejected repeated warnings. The death of Egypt’s firstborn is the devastating culmination of that judgment.

But the question that matters most for our blood investigation is what God does for Israel in the midst of it.

He does not merely tell them, “You are mine.”

He gives them a sign.

And He chooses blood.

That brings us to the next question, because before blood can appear on a doorway, something has to die. An unblemished animal will lose its life while the firstborn inside the house remains alive.

So now we need to determine whether Exodus is showing us what Genesis 22 showed us on Moriah.

Did the Passover animal die instead of the firstborn?

That is Investigation 2.

Investigation 2 – Did the Passover Animal Die Instead of the Firstborn?

Now we arrive at a question that could change how we understand Passover. On Mount Moriah, the language was unmistakable. Isaac was supposed to be offered, God stopped Abraham, a ram appeared, and Genesis 22:13 says Abraham offered the ram “in the stead of his son.” Something else died where Isaac had been expected to die. That was substitution. But when we arrive at Passover, we need to resist assuming the same thing before examining the evidence.

Exodus 12 begins with a firstborn population facing death. God then commands every Israelite household to take an animal from the sheep or goats. The animal must be a male, one year old, and “without blemish.” On the appointed evening it must be killed. Its blood must then be taken and placed upon the two side posts and upper doorpost of the house. Later that night, judgment passes through Egypt, but the firstborn behind those blood-marked doors remain alive.

The basic structure is striking. A life is threatened. Another life is taken. The blood of the life that was taken is displayed. The threatened life survives. That certainly looks like substitution, but Exodus 12 does not say as directly as Genesis 22 that the animal was killed “instead of” the firstborn. That distinction matters. We should not make the text say more than it says.

However, there is more evidence elsewhere in Exodus that helps us understand what happened that night. After Passover, God immediately claims Israel’s firstborn for Himself. Exodus 13:2 says, “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn.” Then Exodus 13:13 introduces the language of redemption. The firstborn of certain animals must be redeemed with a lamb, and God commands Israel to redeem every firstborn son.

That is important because Exodus itself connects the preservation of the firstborn with redemption after Passover. Parents are instructed to explain this practice to their children by telling them what happened in Egypt. God killed Egypt’s firstborn but spared Israel’s firstborn. The firstborn who survived now belong especially to Him.

This gives us something deeper than merely saying, “The lamb protected them.” Passover appears within a larger firstborn theology in which a life that has been spared belongs to God and must subsequently be redeemed. The surviving firstborn cannot simply walk away as though nothing happened. Their preservation creates a claim upon them.

Numbers later develops this further. Instead of requiring every firstborn Israelite male to serve directly, God takes the Levites in their place. Numbers 3 repeatedly uses language of taking the Levites “instead of all the firstborn.” Once again, the Bible is comfortable with one standing in the place of another. The firstborn were spared in Egypt, they belonged to God because of that deliverance, and another group would eventually serve in their place.

But what about the Passover animal itself?

The strongest evidence remains the structure of the event. The firstborn is under threat of death. The animal dies. Its blood is displayed. God sees that blood and the threatened firstborn lives. At minimum, the animal’s death is directly involved in the means God provides for preserving the firstborn.

And notice something important: God could have commanded Israel simply to kill an animal. He does not. The animal dies, but then evidence of that death must be placed upon the house. The blood connects the death outside the firstborn’s body with the life being preserved inside the house.

This takes us back to Joseph’s coat in a fascinating way. In Genesis 37, an animal dies, its blood is displayed, and Jacob interprets that blood as evidence that his son has died. At Passover, an animal dies, its blood is displayed, and the son inside has not died. We should not claim Exodus explicitly constructs this parallel, but the contrast remains remarkable.

Something has died at both doors, so to speak.

The question is whose life was surrendered.

And now Genesis 22 becomes even more interesting. On Moriah, Isaac is the promised son facing death. God provides a ram, and the ram dies while Isaac walks away. At Passover, firstborn sons face death. God commands the selection of an animal, the animal dies, and those sons remain alive. Genesis 22 explicitly gives us substitution. Exodus 12 gives us a structure that strongly resembles it.

The requirement that the Passover animal be “without blemish” deserves attention too. At this point, we should not automatically import the entire later sacrificial system into Exodus 12. Nevertheless, God specifically requires an acceptable animal rather than allowing Israel to use anything available. The animal is male, one year old, and without defect. The life being given is deliberately selected according to God’s specifications.

This also brings us closer to the question we have been tracking about Jesus. We should not begin by saying, “The Passover lamb represents Jesus,” and then make every detail fit. We first establish what Passover does. A chosen, unblemished animal dies. Its blood becomes God’s appointed sign. Judgment comes. Those behind that blood are spared. The firstborn who survive are afterward claimed by God and described within the language of redemption.

Only after establishing that should we turn to the New Testament.

And when we do, something extraordinary happens.

Paul does not merely say Jesus reminds him of Passover. First Corinthians 5:7 says, “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” The New Testament itself identifies Jesus with the Passover category. First Peter 1:18–19 also describes believers as redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” The language of redemption, blood, and an unblemished lamb now converges upon Jesus.

That does not mean every detail of Exodus 12 was consciously understood by the Israelites as a prediction of Jesus. They were dealing with a real night, a real Pharaoh, real judgment, and real firstborn children. But this is precisely the pattern our investigation has been uncovering. The Old Testament establishes the work before the New Testament identifies the worker.

Moriah established that another life could be offered instead of a son.

Passover now establishes that a slain animal and its blood can stand within God’s appointed means by which a threatened firstborn survives judgment.

And the New Testament eventually identifies Jesus with both sacrificial and Passover language.

So did the Passover animal die instead of the firstborn? I would phrase our conclusion carefully. Exodus 12 does not use the explicit “instead of” language found in Genesis 22, so we should not claim more certainty than the passage provides. But the larger Exodus narrative strongly supports a substitutionary or representative dimension: the firstborn faces death, the animal dies, its blood marks the house, the firstborn survives, and those spared firstborn subsequently belong to God and require redemption.

But now we have an even bigger problem.

If the animal’s death was the important event, why wasn’t killing it enough?

God specifically required Israel to take the blood out of that dead animal and put it somewhere else. The blood had to appear on the doorway before judgment arrived.

That means the death and the blood are related, but they are not treated as identical actions.

Something had to die.

Then something had to be done with the blood.

Why?

That is where Investigation 3 takes us.

Investigation 3 – Why Was Killing the Animal Not Enough?

This may be one of the most important questions we have asked in this entire investigation. If the Passover animal died in connection with the preservation of the firstborn, why did God require anything else? The animal had already been killed. Its life had already ended. If death alone were what God required, the instructions could have stopped there. But they did not.

Exodus 12:7 says, “And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses.” Then Exodus 12:13 explains why: “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” This is a major development in our investigation. God does not merely command the death of the animal. He commands that something produced by that death be taken and applied.

That means we need to distinguish two events. First, the animal dies. Second, its blood is displayed. The death produces the blood that becomes the sign, but the death by itself does not fulfill everything God commanded. An Israelite could not kill the animal and leave its blood where it fell. God specifically instructed them to take that blood and place it upon the doorway.

Why blood? Why not place some of the animal’s wool on the doorway? Why not hang part of the animal outside? Why not simply mark the house with paint? God could have chosen anything if the purpose were merely identifying the household. Instead, He specifically chooses the substance Scripture has already associated with life.

That takes us directly back to Genesis 9. Blood and life have already been connected. We have also seen blood function as evidence that life has been lost. Joseph’s brothers understood this when they placed the goat’s blood on Joseph’s garment. Jacob saw the blood and concluded that death had occurred. The blood testified that something had died.

Now consider the Passover doorway.

The animal itself is not nailed to the door. Its body is not displayed outside. The blood is.

That blood tells a story.

Something has died here.

This does not mean the blood possesses magical properties. Nothing in Exodus suggests that blood itself frightens God, repels a supernatural being, or creates some physical barrier death cannot cross. The significance of the blood comes from God’s command and from the life that has been surrendered.

This becomes clearer when we notice that Exodus 12:13 explicitly calls the blood a “token,” or sign. The Hebrew word is ‘ot, a word used elsewhere for a meaningful sign or marker. The blood points beyond itself. It signifies something. God has assigned meaning to what appears on that doorway.

And this creates an extraordinary possibility for our investigation. Perhaps when God says, “When I see the blood,” the important thing is not merely that He sees red liquid. He sees the sign that the commanded death has already occurred at that household. A life has been given according to His instruction, and the blood visibly testifies to it.

We should be careful here. Exodus does not literally say, “When I see the blood, I see the life that was given.” That would be our theological inference. The explicit connection between blood and life becomes much clearer later in Leviticus 17:11, where God says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” We should allow Leviticus to explain that when we reach it rather than importing the entire later theology into Exodus.

But Genesis has already given us enough to recognize the connection. Blood and life were linked long before Passover. So when God chooses blood as the sign resulting from the death of the Passover animal, the choice is not occurring in a biblical vacuum.

There is another detail we should notice. Exodus 12:22 says Israel is to take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood collected in a basin, and strike the lintel and side posts with it. Then God commands, “none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.”

That means the people do not simply apply the blood and wander around Egypt believing they are now invulnerable. They remain inside the place God has designated. The blood marks the entrance, and the people remain behind it.

The image is powerful without our needing to embellish it. Judgment passes through the land. Inside the house is a firstborn person whose life would otherwise be exposed to the judgment. At the boundary of that house is blood from an animal that has already died. God sees the blood and does not allow destruction to enter.

This brings us back to our question about substitution. Exodus 12 still does not explicitly say, “This animal died instead of this firstborn.” But the application of the blood strengthens the connection between the animal’s death and the firstborn’s preservation. The blood of the dead animal is deliberately placed at the boundary of the place containing the living firstborn.

And now something we found in Genesis 37 becomes strangely relevant again. Joseph’s brothers killed a goat and displayed its blood. Jacob saw that blood and understood one message: a death has occurred. At Passover, animal blood is displayed again. God sees it, and again the blood testifies that a death has occurred.

But this time the son behind the blood lives.

We should not claim that Exodus intentionally references Joseph’s coat unless we find textual evidence for that connection. But as investigators following the biblical development of blood, the contrast is worth preserving. In both stories, animal blood becomes visible evidence of death while the son associated with that blood remains alive.

There may be an even larger principle emerging. The blood is meaningful because death has happened, but it is useful to the living because the blood can be applied beyond the body that died. The animal dies once, yet the sign of its surrendered life is placed upon the household.

That begins to help us understand something that will become enormously important later when Scripture speaks about Jesus. The New Testament does not merely emphasize that Jesus died. It repeatedly emphasizes His blood. It speaks of redemption through His blood, justification by His blood, peace through the blood of His cross, and the blood of the covenant.

Why distinguish His blood from simply saying He died?

Passover may be beginning to give us the vocabulary.

The death is the surrender of the life.

The blood is the sign and representation of that surrendered life.

We should still hold that conclusion carefully because Leviticus will eventually give us much more explicit language. But we can already see why killing the Passover animal alone did not complete God’s command. God wanted the blood taken from the slain animal and placed where He instructed.

The blood made the death visible.

It testified that a life had been given.

And it marked the place where the living remained.

But this brings us to an even deeper question. God did not merely say the blood would be there. He said something intensely personal: “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.”

God already knew which houses belonged to Israel. He did not need directions.

So what exactly was God looking for when He looked at that blood?

That is Investigation 4.

Investigation 4 – What Did God Mean by “When I See the Blood”?

We have reached the sentence at the center of this entire episode. Exodus 12:13 says, “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” For generations, Christians have repeated those words, sung about them, preached about them, and connected them with Jesus. But our investigation requires us to slow down and ask the obvious question. Why did God need to see blood?

He certainly did not need help identifying the Israelites. God had already demonstrated during the earlier plagues that He could distinguish Israel from Egypt without anyone marking a doorway. During the plague of flies, God separated the land of Goshen. During the plague against livestock, He distinguished between the animals belonging to Israel and those belonging to Egypt. During the darkness, Israel had light. God knew exactly where His people were.

So the blood cannot simply be an address marker for God.

That becomes even clearer when we look carefully at Exodus 12:13. God calls the blood a “token,” or sign. The Hebrew word is ‘ot. We have encountered this kind of concept before. A sign is something visible that carries meaning beyond the object itself. The blood on the doorway is therefore not merely blood sitting on wood. God has assigned meaning to it.

What does it signify?

The first answer comes from what had to happen before the blood could ever reach the door. An animal had to die. There could be no Passover blood without a Passover death. The Israelites could not manufacture the sign with red dye. They could not substitute wine. They could not paint the doorway with something that merely looked like blood. The sign had to come from the animal God commanded them to kill.

That means when God saw the blood, He saw evidence that His command concerning the animal had been carried out.

Something had already died at that house.

This takes us back through everything we have discovered. Abel’s blood testified that a life had been taken. Genesis 9 connected blood directly with life and accountability. Joseph’s brothers knew that blood could serve as evidence of death. Now, at Passover, blood once again visibly testifies that a life has been surrendered.

But this time God commanded the death.

And God commanded the blood to be displayed.

That distinction is enormous. Joseph’s brothers used blood to deceive their father. Israel uses blood because their heavenly Father told them to. The physical substance may be the same, but its meaning comes from God’s command and the life from which it came.

Now we can begin approaching the words “when I see the blood” differently. God is not saying, “When I see the color red, I will know Israelites live there.” He has established a sign connected to an obediently surrendered life. The blood declares that the household has responded to the provision God Himself commanded.

That may explain another important detail. Exodus 12:13 first says, “the blood shall be to you for a token.” The sign is not described merely as something God needs. It is a sign “to you.” Israel is being given something visible connected with God’s promise. They kill the animal, apply the blood, enter the house, and remain there trusting that what God promised concerning that blood will happen.

Their protection therefore rests not upon discovering some natural power in blood but upon believing God’s word concerning the blood.

This is crucial to our larger investigation. Nothing here suggests blood controls God. The Israelites are not performing magic. They have not discovered a substance capable of forcing a supernatural being to behave differently. God initiates everything. God announces the judgment. God chooses the animal. God commands its death. God chooses the blood as the sign. God tells them where to place it. And God promises what He will do when He sees it.

The power belongs to God.

The meaning of the blood comes from God.

But why choose blood at all?

This is where the answer we have been slowly uncovering becomes harder to ignore. Blood represents life. When the blood appears on the doorway, it testifies that life has been given. The threatened firstborn remains alive inside while the blood of a life already surrendered appears at the entrance.

We should still be careful. Exodus 12 itself does not say, “The blood represents the animal’s life.” Leviticus will eventually make the blood-life connection explicit in sacrificial theology. But Genesis has already connected blood and life, so we are not importing an entirely foreign concept into Passover.

There is also a revealing statement in Exodus 12:23. Moses tells Israel that when the LORD sees the blood on the lintel and doorposts, He will “pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”

Notice what God sees.

Not nationality.

Not genealogy.

Not someone’s personal righteousness.

The text specifically draws attention to the blood.

Again, that does not mean Israel’s covenant identity is irrelevant. The entire Exodus exists because God remembered His covenant. But on this particular night, God establishes blood as the appointed sign associated with protection from the judgment passing through the land.

And this may answer one of the questions we asked earlier. Why did Israel need blood if they were already God’s people? Because being God’s people did not eliminate the need to respond to what God had provided. Covenant identity and obedient trust were not enemies. Israel demonstrated trust by doing what God said.

This becomes especially interesting when we remember the Bridegroom of Blood episode. Moses was already God’s chosen servant. God had already commissioned him. Yet that calling did not make the covenant sign irrelevant within his household. Circumcision was performed, blood appeared, and the threat ended.

Now Israel is already God’s “firstborn son.” Yet that identity does not make the Passover command irrelevant. Again, blood appears within covenant obedience while death threatens.

The pattern is becoming increasingly consistent.

And now we have to consider Jesus.

Not because we want to force Jesus into Exodus, but because the New Testament eventually forces us to ask the question. Paul explicitly calls Christ “our passover.” If Jesus fulfills the Passover category, then “when I see the blood” becomes enormously important for understanding what His blood means.

The Passover pattern establishes something before Jesus arrives. Judgment is approaching. God Himself provides the instructions for deliverance. A blameless animal dies. Its blood becomes the appointed sign. Those who remain where God instructed them to remain are preserved from death.

Centuries later, the New Testament will speak repeatedly not merely about the death of Jesus but about His blood.

That language did not begin at Calvary.

The vocabulary was already waiting.

And perhaps we can now state our developing answer more clearly. God does not appear to choose blood because He desires blood for its own sake. Blood matters because blood represents life. At Passover, the blood on the doorway is visible testimony that a life has been surrendered according to God’s provision.

The blood points to the death.

The death represents the surrendered life.

And the living remain behind it.

But there is still one danger in our interpretation. Christians often call Passover “atonement” without stopping to ask whether Exodus actually does.

Does the Passover blood forgive anyone’s sins? Does Exodus call the lamb a sin offering? Is there confession? Is there an altar? Is there a priest?

If not, then perhaps blood is teaching us something important before God introduces blood atonement.

We need to separate those ideas carefully.

That is where Investigation 5 takes us.

Investigation 5 – Was Passover Atonement for Sin?

We have reached a point where we need to separate several ideas Christians often combine. An animal died at Passover. Its blood was applied. Judgment passed over the household. The firstborn lived. Because Christians know where the biblical story eventually goes, it is easy to call all of this “atonement.” But if we are really investigating why God chose blood, we cannot use a later word before Scripture itself gives us the evidence.

So was the Passover animal actually an offering for sin?

When we examine Exodus 12 by itself, something is noticeably absent. God does not instruct the Israelites to confess their sins over the animal. He does not call it a sin offering. There is no priest performing the ritual. There is no tabernacle or temple. There is no altar receiving the blood. The animal is killed at the household level, its blood is placed upon the doorway, and its flesh is eaten as a meal.

Most importantly, the immediate problem being addressed is not described as individual sins needing forgiveness.

The immediate problem is death.

God has announced judgment against Egypt’s firstborn. Israel is told what must be done so that the plague will not destroy them. Exodus 12:13 is remarkably specific: “when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you.” The immediate function assigned to the blood is protection from destruction.

That means we should distinguish Passover from the later sin offerings.

This is important because it tells us something surprising about the development of blood in Scripture. Blood is associated with deliverance from death before the Torah gives us the detailed sacrificial system explaining blood’s relationship to sin and atonement.

The sequence matters.

Life first.

Death first.

Deliverance first.

Then later comes the fuller explanation of atonement.

That may eventually help us understand why blood becomes connected with sin at all. If sin leads to death, and blood represents life, then perhaps the later atoning function of blood grows out of this deeper life-and-death foundation. We are not ready to prove that yet. Leviticus will eventually give us language much more explicit than anything we have encountered so far. But Passover is moving us toward it.

There is another reason we need to be careful. Exodus 12 does use sacrificial language for Passover. Exodus 12:27 calls it “the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover.” So we should not go too far in the opposite direction and say Passover has nothing sacrificial about it. Something genuinely sacrificial is occurring. An animal belonging to the household is selected, killed according to God’s command, its blood becomes a sign, and its flesh becomes the Passover meal.

But “sacrifice” does not automatically mean “sin offering.”

That distinction will become extremely important once we reach Leviticus because Israel will have multiple kinds of sacrifices. Some deal explicitly with sin and guilt. Others express thanksgiving, fellowship, dedication, purification, or other covenant purposes. If we simply call every sacrifice “atonement for sin,” we erase distinctions Scripture itself makes.

So what can we confidently say Passover accomplishes?

It delivers from judgment.

It preserves life.

It marks obedient response to God’s command.

It commemorates God’s rescue of Israel.

And it stands within God’s covenant relationship with His people.

Whether we should also describe it as substitutionary requires the careful qualification we made in Investigation 2. The structure strongly points in that direction: a firstborn faces death, an animal dies, its blood is applied, and the firstborn lives. But Exodus 12 does not use the explicit “instead of” language Genesis 22 used concerning Isaac and the ram.

There is also another clue immediately after Passover. God claims Israel’s surviving firstborn for Himself. Exodus 13:2 says, “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn.” Later in the chapter, firstborn sons must be redeemed. Their survival has created a special claim upon their lives.

That is fascinating.

The firstborn were delivered from death, but their lives are now understood as belonging to God.

Deliverance did not mean, “Nothing happened.”

Something happened so significant that Israel was commanded to remember it generation after generation, and the surviving firstborn became permanently connected with that deliverance.

Now consider what this does to our blood investigation. We started with Abel, where shed blood cried because life had been wrongfully taken. Genesis 9 connected blood with life and accountability. Genesis 22 gave us substitution. Exodus 4 placed covenant blood beside threatened death and release. Passover now gives us something much clearer: God commands a sacrifice, commands its blood to be displayed, calls that blood a sign, and associates seeing that sign with protection from destruction.

But He still has not explicitly told us that blood forgives sin.

That comes later.

And I think recognizing that actually makes the eventual answer stronger. Instead of beginning with the assumption that God simply decided sin requires blood, we are watching Scripture build the logic underneath atonement. Blood represents life. Death is the problem. A life can be given while another life is preserved. Blood can testify that the life has been surrendered. God can assign that blood a covenant function. Only after those ideas are established does Scripture eventually explain how blood relates specifically to sin.

That progression may also change how we understand Jesus.

Christians sometimes reduce the cross to a simple equation: people sinned, God needed blood, so Jesus supplied blood. But the biblical story we are uncovering appears richer than that. Jesus comes not merely to satisfy an unexplained demand for blood but to give His life.

That distinction is important because Jesus Himself speaks this way. He says the Son of Man came “to give his life a ransom for many.” The emphasis ultimately returns to life given for others.

And that is precisely where our investigation has been pointing since Genesis.

Blood matters because life matters.

The New Testament will eventually say that Christ’s blood deals with sin, establishes covenant, brings forgiveness, cleanses, reconciles, and gives access to God. But those later claims stand upon an Old Testament foundation that has been constructed gradually.

Passover gives us one enormous part of that foundation: deliverance from death through the means God Himself provides.

This is why Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 5:7 becomes so important: “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” Paul explicitly takes the Passover category and applies it to Jesus. He does not need to invent the category. Exodus established it centuries earlier.

And this brings us directly to the larger discovery we have been tracking.

The Old Testament is showing us the work before identifying the worker.

Before Jesus appears, Scripture has already shown a beloved son facing sacrifice, another life offered in his place, God’s provision of that substitute, blood representing life, judgment approaching, a sacrifice commanded by God, blood displayed, and people delivered from death.

Passover is not yet the complete doctrine of the cross.

But another major piece is now on the table.

And that brings us to Investigation 6. We have deliberately resisted beginning with Jesus. We have allowed Exodus to tell us what Passover means first.

Now we can finally turn the question around.

If the New Testament explicitly calls Jesus “our Passover,” how much of what God established in Egypt does Jesus actually fulfill?

Investigation 6 – Is Passover Showing the Work of Jesus Before Jesus Arrives?

For the first five investigations, I deliberately tried to leave Jesus out of Passover. That may sound strange for a Christian investigation, but there was a reason. If I begin with the conclusion that the Passover animal represents Jesus, then every detail can easily be interpreted through something I already believe. I wanted to reverse the process. First, determine what Passover actually established. Then ask whether the New Testament later says Jesus came to accomplish the same work.

What did we find? Judgment was coming. A firstborn life was threatened. God provided the means of deliverance. An unblemished animal was selected according to God’s instructions. The animal died. Its blood was removed and placed upon the doorway. God called that blood a sign. Those who remained where God instructed them to remain were preserved from death. Afterward, the surviving firstborn belonged especially to God and were associated with redemption. We established all of that before bringing Jesus into the discussion.

Now we can ask whether the New Testament makes the connection for us. First Corinthians 5:7 gives us something extraordinarily important: “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” Paul does not merely compare Jesus loosely with Passover. He identifies Christ using the Passover category. Whatever else we eventually conclude about the relationship between Exodus and the cross, the New Testament itself tells us that Passover belongs within the framework for understanding Jesus.

Then another detail appears. Exodus 12 required the Passover animal to be “without blemish.” First Peter 1:18–19 tells Christians that they were redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Peter brings together redemption, blood, and an unblemished lamb in describing Jesus. Again, vocabulary established long before Christ has now converged upon Him.

John’s Gospel gives us another remarkable connection. John 19 places Jesus’ crucifixion within Passover time and specifically notes that His bones were not broken. John then quotes Scripture: “A bone of him shall not be broken.” Exodus 12:46 had commanded concerning the Passover animal, “neither shall ye break a bone thereof.” Whatever additional Old Testament texts John may have in view, he clearly wants his readers thinking in the world of Passover while looking at Jesus on the cross.

Then consider John the Baptist’s declaration in John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” We should be careful because “Lamb of God” may draw upon more than one Old Testament sacrificial image rather than referring exclusively to Passover. But once again, Jesus is being identified through categories that existed long before His birth: lamb, sacrifice, sin, and deliverance.

Something even more important happens at Jesus’ final meal with His disciples. During the Passover setting, Jesus takes the cup and says, “This is my blood of the new testament,” or new covenant. Suddenly blood, Passover, and covenant are moving toward one person. But notice something fascinating: we have not yet fully investigated covenant blood at Sinai. That comes next in our Old Testament trail. So even here, we should resist getting ahead of ourselves. Jesus is combining categories whose Old Testament meaning we still need to investigate.

That is exactly why this nineteen-part journey matters. The New Testament assumes readers understand a vocabulary that was built across centuries. Lamb. Blood. Passover. Covenant. Sacrifice. Redemption. Atonement. Priest. Without the Old Testament, those words can become religious slogans. With the Old Testament behind them, they carry an entire history.

Now return to our original Passover question. Did Jesus accomplish the kind of work Exodus established?

At Passover, judgment threatens. In the New Testament, humanity faces judgment and death. At Passover, God provides the means of deliverance. In the New Testament, God provides His Son. At Passover, an unblemished animal dies. The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the innocence and sinlessness of Christ. At Passover, blood becomes God’s appointed sign associated with deliverance from death. In the New Testament, Christ’s blood becomes central to redemption and salvation.

But there is an enormous difference.

The Passover animal had no choice.

Jesus did.

Jesus describes His own death as voluntary. In John 10:18 He says, “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.” And notice what He says He lays down: His life.

That brings us directly back to the answer our blood investigation has been slowly uncovering. The deepest biblical meaning is not merely that Jesus possessed blood. Every human possesses blood. What distinguishes His sacrifice is that He gives His life.

Blood represents that life given.

This is exactly what Jesus says elsewhere. Mark 10:45 says the Son of Man came “to give his life a ransom for many.” The emphasis is not upon satisfying some mysterious divine fascination with red liquid. The emphasis is a life voluntarily surrendered for others.

And now Mount Moriah becomes even more striking. Abraham was willing to give his beloved son, but God stopped him. A ram died instead of Isaac. At Passover, an animal dies while the firstborn lives. But when we finally reach the cross, there is no ram caught in the thicket replacing Jesus.

The Son becomes the one who is given.

That does not mean the Father cruelly forces an unwilling Son to die. The New Testament repeatedly presents Christ as willingly giving Himself. The Father gives the Son, and the Son gives Himself. The pattern established earlier reaches a depth the earlier stories themselves did not contain.

That may answer the question we noticed back on Moriah. Why did God provide Abraham with a substitute but not provide Jesus with another substitute?

From the Christian perspective, because Jesus is the provision.

The ram on Moriah allowed Isaac to walk away. The Passover animal died while the firstborn remained inside alive. Those earlier events establish the pattern of another life being given so that someone else may live. At the cross, Jesus occupies the place that those earlier patterns had been preparing us to understand.

This is why I think our investigation has uncovered something much larger than a collection of predictions. The Old Testament does contain direct messianic prophecies, but something else is happening alongside them. Scripture is building the architecture of redemption.

First we learned that blood represents life.

Then that innocent blood demands accountability.

Then covenant entered the story.

Then came the promised son.

Then substitution.

Then God’s provision.

Then the rejected son who eventually preserves those who rejected him.

Then covenant blood beside threatened death.

Now Passover gives us an unblemished animal, judgment, blood as a sign, redemption, and deliverance from death.

And later Scripture identifies Jesus with these categories.

The work appears before the worker.

That is what makes this different from searching the Old Testament for hidden references to Jesus. We do not have to turn every tree, animal, or number into a secret code. We can follow concepts plainly present in the text and then ask where the biblical story eventually takes them.

And we are not finished. In fact, something enormous comes next.

At Passover, blood is placed upon a door.

At Sinai, blood will be placed upon people.

Moses will take blood from sacrificed animals, sprinkle it, and declare, “Behold the blood of the covenant.”

Then centuries later, Jesus will take the cup and say, “This is my blood of the new covenant.”

That connection is too important to rush past.

Passover has shown us blood standing at the boundary between death and life. The next stage may show us blood doing something different: establishing covenant relationship between God and His people.

And once again, the Old Testament will establish the work before Jesus tells us that He has come to fulfill it.

What We Learned Today

Today we finally reached Passover, and something changed in our investigation. Before Exodus 12, blood had represented life, testified that death had occurred, carried accountability for another person’s life, appeared in covenant, and accompanied threatened death and release. But at Passover, God does something new. He deliberately commands blood to be taken from a slain animal, placed where He specifies, and used as a sign.

We learned that the blood was not necessary because God needed help identifying Israelites. Earlier plagues had already demonstrated that God could distinguish Israel from Egypt without marks on their houses. God knew where His people lived. Therefore, when He said, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you,” the blood must have meant something more than simply, “Israelites live here.”

We also discovered that the Passover animal’s death and the application of its blood were two separate actions. Killing the animal was not enough. Its blood had to be collected and placed upon the doorway. That matters because blood had already been associated with life throughout Genesis. The blood became visible testimony that a life had been surrendered according to God’s command. Something had died, while the firstborn behind that blood remained alive.

This brought us back to Mount Moriah. Isaac faced death, but God provided a ram that Abraham offered “instead of his son.” At Passover, the wording is not as explicit, so we should not claim more than Scripture gives us. Nevertheless, the structure is striking. A firstborn life faces death. An unblemished animal dies. Its blood is displayed. The firstborn lives. Then, immediately after Passover, God claims Israel’s surviving firstborn as His own and introduces the requirement that firstborn sons be redeemed.

We also learned something important about atonement. Passover should not automatically be called a sin offering. Exodus 12 does not tell Israel to confess sins over the animal. There is no priest, no tabernacle, and no blood placed upon an altar. The immediate problem is not described as individual forgiveness of sin. The immediate problem is death and judgment. Passover blood is explicitly associated with deliverance from destruction.

That may be one of the most important discoveries so far. Scripture appears to establish the relationship between blood and life before fully explaining the relationship between blood and sin. Blood represents life. Death threatens. Another life is surrendered. Blood testifies that the death occurred. The living are preserved. Only later will Scripture explicitly explain how blood functions in atonement.

And then we tested our second investigation: is the Old Testament showing us the work of Jesus before Jesus arrives? This time the evidence became much stronger because the New Testament itself makes the connection. Paul calls Christ “our Passover.” Peter describes redemption through the precious blood of Christ, “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” The Gospel tradition places Jesus’ death within Passover imagery, and Jesus Himself speaks about giving His life.

That last word may be the key to everything we have been discovering.

Life.

God did not choose blood because blood is magical. The trail keeps pointing toward what blood represents. Blood matters because life matters. At Passover, the blood displayed at the doorway came from a life that had already been surrendered. At the cross, Jesus does not merely lose blood. He willingly gives His life.

And now the pattern stretching from Genesis toward Jesus is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. The Old Testament establishes the beloved son, the substitute, God’s provision, covenant, blood, judgment, redemption, and deliverance from death. Then the New Testament begins identifying Jesus with those very categories.

The Old Testament is not merely telling us someone is coming.

It is showing us what He will come to do.

But we still have not reached the complete answer to why God chose blood. Passover showed blood standing between threatened death and continued life. The next major development will take us somewhere different.

At Passover, blood went on the door.

At Sinai, blood will go on the people.

And Moses will say words that Jesus Himself will later echo: “the blood of the covenant.”

That is where the investigation goes next.

Questions for the Next Episode

Passover taught us that God could assign blood a specific meaning in the face of judgment. An animal died, its blood was placed upon the doorway, and the people behind that blood were preserved from death. But once Israel leaves Egypt, blood does not disappear from the story. Instead, God takes it somewhere we have not seen before. At Sinai, blood will move from the doorway to the people themselves.

Why?

In Exodus 24, Moses builds an altar, sacrifices animals, and collects their blood. Half of the blood is placed upon the altar. Then Moses reads the Book of the Covenant to Israel, the people promise obedience, and Moses takes the remaining blood and sprinkles it upon them. He declares, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you.” What does blood have to do with making a covenant?

Why is some of the blood placed on the altar while the rest is placed upon the people? Is one blood somehow connecting the two sides of the covenant—God and Israel? Does the blood represent the life committed within that covenant? Does it signify the consequences of breaking the covenant? Or are we dealing with something even deeper that we have not yet discovered?

We also need to return to Genesis 15. Long before Sinai, Abraham saw animals divided when God established His covenant with him. We examined that earlier, but Sinai may finally give us more information about why covenant and sacrificed life repeatedly appear together. What does it mean biblically to “cut” a covenant, and why does death appear around these covenant ceremonies?

Another question becomes unavoidable. Why sprinkle the people with blood at all? At Passover, the blood remained outside on the doorway. At Sinai, human beings themselves become associated with it. What has changed? Is this blood protecting them, cleansing them, consecrating them, binding them to the covenant, or serving as a witness to the agreement they have just accepted?

We also need to ask whether this is atonement. We were careful not to automatically call Passover a sin offering. We need the same discipline at Sinai. Exodus 24 calls this “the blood of the covenant.” It does not simply call it blood for forgiveness. So before later Christian theology enters the discussion, we need to determine exactly what covenant blood meant within Exodus itself.

Then we have to confront something remarkable Jesus will say centuries later. During His final meal with His disciples, He takes the cup and speaks about “my blood of the new covenant.” Those words sound extraordinarily close to Moses’ declaration at Sinai. Was Jesus deliberately taking the language of Exodus 24 and applying it to Himself?

If so, our larger investigation takes another enormous step forward. At Passover, Jesus eventually occupies the category of the Passover sacrifice. At Sinai, He may occupy the category of covenant blood. The Old Testament would once again establish the work before the New Testament identifies the worker.

But there is an important difference we need to investigate. Moses used the blood of sacrificed animals to inaugurate the covenant between God and Israel. Jesus points to His own blood. Why does the new covenant require His life rather than the blood of another animal? What is Jesus claiming when He replaces the blood in Moses’ covenant ceremony with His own?

And then Hebrews enters the investigation. Hebrews 9 looks directly backward toward Moses, covenant, sacrifice, and blood while explaining the work of Christ. That means we will have something we increasingly need in this series: later Scripture interpreting earlier Scripture for us. Rather than guessing whether Sinai points toward Jesus, we can investigate whether the New Testament itself makes that connection.

There is also another question waiting underneath everything. We began this series asking why God chose blood, and the answer is slowly becoming more precise. Blood has represented life. Blood has testified to death. Blood has represented accountability for life. Blood has accompanied substitution. At Passover, blood became God’s appointed sign associated with deliverance from death.

Will Sinai now add another meaning?

Can blood represent covenant?

If it can, then something extraordinary is happening. The blood of Jesus in the New Testament may eventually bring together meanings that the Old Testament developed separately over centuries: life, substitution, deliverance, covenant, and eventually atonement.

So Part 8 needs to begin with Exodus 24 and a very simple question that may open another enormous door in this investigation.

Why did Moses put blood on the people?

Because when Moses declares, “Behold the blood of the covenant,” we may be standing in front of the very words Jesus will eventually take upon Himself.

Evidence & Scripture

Exodus 1:8–14 establishes the background of oppression behind Passover. A new Pharaoh fears Israel’s growing population and subjects the Israelites to forced labor and severe bondage. The final judgment against Egypt must be understood within this larger story of oppression rather than as an isolated act.

Exodus 1:15–22 adds an especially important firstborn context. Pharaoh commands the Hebrew midwives to kill newborn Hebrew sons. When they refuse, Pharaoh commands his people to cast every Hebrew son into the Nile. Long before Egypt’s firstborn die, Pharaoh has already directed deadly violence toward Israel’s sons.

Exodus 4:22–23 provides the theological framework for the final plague before Moses begins confronting Pharaoh. God identifies Israel as “my son, even my firstborn” and commands Pharaoh to release His son. God then warns, “if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.”

Exodus 8:22–23 demonstrates that God can distinguish Israel from Egypt without blood marking their houses. During the plague of flies, God specifically separates the land of Goshen. This is important evidence against interpreting Passover blood merely as an identification device telling God where Israelites live.

Exodus 9:4–7 provides another example. God distinguishes between Israel’s livestock and Egypt’s livestock during the plague. Pharaoh even investigates and discovers that Israel’s livestock have been preserved. Again, God needs no physical marker to identify what belongs to His people.

Exodus 10:21–23 provides a third example. Darkness covers Egypt, yet “all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.” These earlier distinctions make the blood of Exodus 12 more significant. God already knows exactly where Israel is.

Exodus 11:1–10 announces the final plague. Every firstborn in Egypt will die, from Pharaoh’s household downward. Moses also declares that God will make a distinction between Egypt and Israel. The judgment against the firstborn therefore represents the culmination of the confrontation announced earlier in Exodus 4.

Exodus 12:1–5 gives the instructions for selecting the Passover animal. Each household is to take an animal from the sheep or goats. It must be male, one year old, and “without blemish.” The specifications show that Israel cannot simply choose any animal according to convenience.

Exodus 12:6–7 distinguishes the animal’s death from the application of its blood. Israel first kills the animal and then takes its blood and places it upon the two side posts and upper doorpost. This distinction is central to our investigation because killing the animal alone does not complete God’s instructions.

Exodus 12:8–11 establishes that Passover is also a meal. The animal is eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while Israel prepares to leave Egypt. Passover therefore cannot be reduced merely to the application of blood; it becomes a memorial meal surrounding God’s deliverance.

Exodus 12:12 explains the approaching judgment. God says He will pass through Egypt, strike the firstborn, and execute judgment “against all the gods of Egypt.” Passover therefore occurs within a larger confrontation between the God of Israel, Pharaoh, and Egypt’s religious order.

Exodus 12:13 is the central text of Part 7: “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” The blood is explicitly called a “token,” or sign. God Himself assigns meaning to the blood and associates seeing it with preservation from the destructive plague.

Exodus 12:21–22 records Moses communicating the instructions to Israel. The people are to kill the Passover animal, dip hyssop into the blood in the basin, apply it to the lintel and side posts, and remain inside their houses until morning. The people therefore remain within the place God has designated after the blood has been applied.

Exodus 12:23 explains the protective function more explicitly. When the LORD sees the blood, He will pass over the doorway and “will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.” The text directly associates the displayed blood with protection from the destruction occurring outside.

Exodus 12:24–28 establishes Passover as an enduring memorial. Future generations are instructed to ask what the ceremony means, and Israel is to answer that it is “the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover,” who passed over Israel’s houses in Egypt. Importantly, Exodus itself calls the Passover a “sacrifice.”

Exodus 12:29–32 records the judgment itself. Egypt’s firstborn die, including Pharaoh’s firstborn, while Pharaoh finally commands Moses and Israel to leave. The threatened judgment announced in Exodus 4:23 is therefore fulfilled.

Genesis 9:4–6 remains important background for understanding why blood rather than another substance could function as this sign. Genesis had already associated blood with life and accountability for life long before Passover.

Genesis 22:7–14 provides the strongest earlier comparison concerning substitution. Isaac faces sacrifice, God stops Abraham, and Abraham offers the ram “in the stead of his son.” Passover does not use this same explicit substitutionary wording, so the distinction should be preserved. Nevertheless, both narratives contain a threatened son, God’s provision, another death, and the preservation of the son.

Genesis 37:31–33 provides an interesting earlier use of displayed animal blood. Joseph’s brothers kill a goat, place its blood upon Joseph’s garment, and Jacob interprets the blood as evidence that his son has died. At Passover, animal blood is again deliberately displayed while a son associated with that blood remains alive. This should be presented as a thematic observation rather than an explicitly stated biblical parallel.

Exodus 13:1–2 becomes extremely important immediately after Passover. God commands Israel, “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn.” The firstborn who have just survived the judgment are now explicitly claimed by God.

Exodus 13:11–16 develops this further through redemption. Firstborn sons are to be redeemed, and Israel is instructed to explain this practice by remembering what God did in Egypt. The preservation of the firstborn at Passover therefore creates an enduring relationship between firstborn life, God’s ownership, and redemption.

Numbers 3:11–13 later recalls Passover when God declares that the Levites belong to Him “instead of all the firstborn.” God explicitly grounds His claim upon Israel’s firstborn in the night when He struck Egypt’s firstborn and sanctified Israel’s firstborn for Himself.

Numbers 3:40–51 develops this substitution further. The Levites are counted in place of Israel’s firstborn, and where the numbers do not correspond exactly, redemption money is required. This later material demonstrates that Scripture itself develops the Passover firstborn event through concepts of substitution, belonging, and redemption.

Exodus 12:43–49 explicitly connects circumcision with participation in Passover. An uncircumcised male may not eat the Passover. A foreigner wishing to participate must first circumcise the males of his household. This strengthens the connection between the Abrahamic covenant sign encountered in Exodus 4 and the Passover deliverance of Exodus 12.

Exodus 12:46 commands that no bone of the Passover animal is to be broken. This becomes important later when examining the New Testament presentation of Jesus.

First Corinthians 5:7 provides one of the strongest New Testament controls on our interpretation: “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” Whatever additional meanings Passover possesses, Paul explicitly applies the Passover category to Christ.

First Peter 1:18–19 brings together redemption, blood, and the unblemished sacrificial animal. Peter says believers were redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” The language strongly resembles categories already established in the Passover instructions.

John 1:29 records John the Baptist declaring, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The precise Old Testament background of “Lamb of God” may involve multiple sacrificial traditions, so it should not automatically be limited exclusively to Passover. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the New Testament’s identification of Jesus with sacrificial lamb imagery.

John 10:17–18 is essential for distinguishing Jesus from an involuntary animal sacrifice. Jesus says that He lays down His life and that no one takes it from Him against His will. The New Testament therefore presents Christ’s sacrificial death as voluntary.

Mark 10:45 expresses the same idea using the language of life itself. Jesus says that the Son of Man came “to give his life a ransom for many.” This is especially important for our central investigation because it supports the developing conclusion that the significance of Christ’s blood is inseparable from His life being given.

John 19:31–36 records that Jesus’ legs were not broken during the crucifixion. John explicitly treats this as scripturally significant. Exodus 12:46 provides Passover background for the command that the animal’s bones not be broken, although Numbers 9:12 and Psalm 34:20 also belong in the discussion when determining John’s precise scriptural reference.

Matthew 26:26–28 records Jesus taking the cup during His final meal and identifying it with “my blood of the new testament,” or covenant. This moves our investigation beyond Passover toward the next major development: covenant blood.

Mark 14:22–24 likewise records Jesus declaring concerning the cup, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” Jesus therefore applies blood-and-covenant language directly to His own approaching death.

Luke 22:19–20 records the same developing connection between Jesus’ death and the new covenant, describing the cup as “the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

Exodus 24:3–8 provides the Old Testament background we will need for Part 8. Moses sacrifices animals, divides their blood, places part upon the altar, sprinkles blood upon the people, and declares, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you.”

The evidence from Part 7 therefore gives us an important progression. At Passover, blood is not yet explicitly described as blood making atonement for individual sin. Instead, God calls it a sign and associates it directly with deliverance from destruction. An animal dies, its blood is displayed, and the threatened firstborn lives. The surviving firstborn are subsequently claimed by God and associated with redemption.

The New Testament then explicitly identifies Jesus with Passover, an unblemished lamb, redemption, voluntarily surrendered life, and blood. The connection does not depend solely upon Christians looking backward and inventing similarities. New Testament writers themselves use Old Testament Passover categories to explain Christ.

And the investigation is about to take another step. Passover has shown us blood associated with deliverance from death. Exodus 24 will explicitly call blood something new: “the blood of the covenant.”

That is where Part 8 must go next.

Bibliography

• Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary. 3 vols. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.
• Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.
• Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1967.
• 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.
• Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991.
• Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.
• Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
• Jewish Publication Society. Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985.
• Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
• Meyers, Carol. Exodus. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990.
• Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
• Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.
• Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
• The Holy Bible. King James Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. New York: National Council of Churches, 1989.
• The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Translated by Lancelot C. L. Brenton. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986.
• Waltke, Bruce K., with Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.
• Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50. Word Biblical Commentary 2. Dallas: Word Books, 1994.
• Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
• Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
• Wright, N. T. The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s Crucifixion. New York: HarperOne, 2016.

Endnotes

1. Exodus 1:8–14 establishes the political and historical background of Passover. Pharaoh fears Israel’s growing population and responds by enslaving the Israelites and subjecting them to increasingly severe forced labor.
2. Exodus 1:15–22 adds an important context for the later judgment upon Egypt’s firstborn. Pharaoh first commands the Hebrew midwives to kill newborn Hebrew sons and later orders that every Hebrew son be cast into the Nile. The final plague therefore occurs within a story in which Egypt has already directed systematic violence against Israel’s children.
3. Exodus 4:22–23 establishes the firstborn framework before the plagues begin. God calls Israel “my son, even my firstborn” and warns Pharaoh that if he refuses to release God’s son, his own firstborn will die.
4. Exodus 8:22–23 demonstrates that God is capable of distinguishing Israel from Egypt without blood or another visible household marker. God specifically separates Goshen during the plague of flies.
5. Exodus 9:4–7 provides another example of divine distinction when Israel’s livestock are preserved while Egypt’s livestock suffer judgment. This strengthens the conclusion that Passover blood was not necessary merely to inform God where Israelites lived.
6. Exodus 10:21–23 provides a third example. Darkness covers Egypt while Israel has light in its dwellings. By the time Passover occurs, Exodus has repeatedly demonstrated God’s ability to distinguish His people without a physical sign.
7. Exodus 11:1–10 announces the final plague against Egypt’s firstborn. This judgment fulfills the warning God had already instructed Moses to give Pharaoh in Exodus 4:22–23.
8. Exodus 12:1–5 specifies the Passover animal. It is to come from the sheep or goats, be male, one year old, and “without blemish.” Israel therefore does not choose the animal entirely according to personal preference; God defines what is acceptable.
9. The Hebrew term translated “lamb” in some Passover discussions should be handled carefully. Exodus 12:5 permits the animal to be taken from either the sheep or the goats. Referring broadly to the Passover “animal” is therefore sometimes more precise when discussing the original Exodus instructions.
10. Exodus 12:6–7 distinguishes two actions central to Part 7. First the animal is killed. Then its blood is taken and placed upon the side posts and upper doorpost. The animal’s death alone does not complete God’s instructions.
11. This distinction between death and applied blood is significant to the larger investigation. The blood exists because a life has been taken, but God requires the blood produced by that death to be displayed separately.
12. Genesis 9:4–6 provides important earlier background for interpreting blood. Long before Passover, Scripture had already associated blood with life and accountability for human life. Passover therefore does not introduce blood into a biblical narrative where blood previously had no meaning.
13. Genesis 37:31–33 provides an earlier example in which animal blood functions as evidence that death has occurred. Joseph’s brothers kill a goat, dip Joseph’s garment in its blood, and Jacob concludes that his son has died even though Joseph remains alive.
14. The comparison between Joseph’s blood-covered garment and the Passover doorway should remain a thematic observation rather than being presented as an explicit literary connection. In both narratives animal blood is visibly displayed while the son associated with it remains alive, but neither Genesis nor Exodus directly links the two episodes.
15. Exodus 12:13 calls the blood a “token,” traditionally translating the Hebrew ‘ot, meaning a sign or mark. The blood therefore has a signifying function assigned to it by God rather than operating as an unexplained magical substance.
16. Exodus 12:13 also contains the central declaration, “when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Because earlier plagues demonstrate that God already knows how to distinguish Israel from Egypt, the statement should not be reduced to God needing an identification marker.
17. Exodus 12:22 instructs Israel to use hyssop to apply blood from the basin to the lintel and side posts. The people are then commanded not to leave their houses until morning. Their response therefore includes both applying the appointed sign and remaining where God instructed them to remain.
18. Exodus 12:23 states that when the LORD sees the blood, He will pass over the doorway and will not permit the destroyer to enter the house to strike those inside. The immediate function assigned to the blood in this passage is protection from the approaching destruction.
19. The claim that God sees in the blood “a life already surrendered” should be identified as a theological inference rather than a direct quotation from Exodus 12. The inference draws upon the fact that the blood necessarily comes from the animal’s death and upon the earlier biblical association between blood and life.
20. The blood should likewise not be described as possessing independent magical power. The Passover instructions originate entirely with God: He selects the sign, specifies the animal, commands its death, determines where the blood is placed, and promises the resulting protection.
21. Genesis 22:7–14 provides the strongest earlier example of explicit substitution. Isaac faces sacrifice, but God provides a ram, and Abraham offers it “in the stead of his son.” The text explicitly states what Exodus 12 leaves less direct.
22. Passover contains a structure that resembles substitution without using Genesis 22’s explicit “instead of” terminology. A firstborn faces death, an animal dies, its blood is applied, and the firstborn survives. The distinction between explicit statement and theological inference should be maintained.
23. Exodus 12:24–27 identifies Passover as an enduring memorial and calls it “the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover.” Passover therefore genuinely belongs within biblical sacrificial language even though it should not automatically be equated with the later Levitical sin offering.
24. Exodus 12 does not prescribe confession of individual sins over the Passover animal, identify it as a ḥaṭṭā’t or sin offering, involve the later Aaronic priesthood, or place its blood upon the tabernacle altar. The immediate problem addressed by the blood is threatened destruction.
25. For this reason, “sacrifice,” “atonement,” “substitution,” “protection,” and “redemption” should not be treated as interchangeable terms. The biblical investigation needs to establish when Scripture itself introduces and connects these concepts.
26. Exodus 12:29–32 records the fulfillment of the announced judgment. Egypt’s firstborn die, Pharaoh summons Moses and Aaron, and Israel is finally commanded to leave Egypt.
27. Exodus 13:1–2 immediately follows Passover with God’s claim upon Israel’s surviving firstborn: “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn.” Their preservation from death results in a special claim by God upon their lives.
28. Exodus 13:11–16 connects the firstborn with redemption and explicitly grounds the practice in the Exodus from Egypt. Israel’s children are to be taught that God killed Egypt’s firstborn while delivering Israel and that firstborn sons are therefore redeemed.
29. Numbers 3:11–13 later develops this theology by taking the Levites “instead of all the firstborn.” God explicitly recalls the night He struck Egypt’s firstborn as the basis for His claim upon Israel’s firstborn.
30. Numbers 3:40–51 further develops substitution and redemption by counting the Levites against Israel’s firstborn and requiring redemption money for the numerical difference. This demonstrates that the firstborn theme did not end on Passover night.
31. Exodus 12:43–49 establishes a direct relationship between circumcision and Passover participation. An uncircumcised male may not eat the Passover, while a foreigner wishing to participate must first have the males of his household circumcised.
32. This connection is particularly important after the Bridegroom of Blood episode in Exodus 4:24–26. Circumcision and Passover are not identical blood events, but Exodus itself eventually connects covenant circumcision with eligibility to participate in Passover.
33. First Corinthians 5:7 provides one of the strongest New Testament controls for the Christian interpretation of Passover. Paul explicitly states, “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” The relationship between Christ and Passover therefore comes from the New Testament itself rather than solely from later Christian interpretation.
34. First Peter 1:18–19 describes believers as redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Peter brings together redemption, Christ’s blood, and the imagery of an unblemished sacrificial animal.
35. First Peter’s language should not necessarily be restricted exclusively to Exodus 12 because the requirement of unblemished sacrificial animals appears throughout the Torah. Nevertheless, the combination of lamb imagery, blood, redemption, and lack of blemish strongly belongs within the sacrificial world Passover helped establish.
36. John 1:29 records John the Baptist identifying Jesus as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Scholars debate precisely which Old Testament lamb traditions stand behind this title, so Passover should be considered an important possible background without excluding other sacrificial imagery.
37. John 19:31–36 emphasizes that Jesus’ legs were not broken during the crucifixion. John then treats the preservation of His bones as fulfillment of Scripture. Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 prohibit breaking the bones of the Passover animal, while Psalm 34:20 also provides relevant language. The precise relationship should therefore be presented carefully.
38. John 10:17–18 distinguishes Jesus from an involuntary animal victim. Jesus says that He lays down His life willingly and possesses authority to lay it down and take it again. The New Testament therefore presents His death as voluntary self-giving.
39. Mark 10:45 similarly says that the Son of Man came “to give his life a ransom for many.” This is especially significant to our investigation because Jesus Himself describes His mission in terms of giving His life.
40. The developing conclusion that blood matters because it represents life will become explicit in later Torah material, especially Leviticus 17:11. Part 7 should therefore treat the connection as strongly prepared by Genesis and Passover while allowing Leviticus to provide the fuller explanation when the investigation reaches it.
41. Matthew 26:26–28 records Jesus identifying the cup with “my blood of the new testament,” or covenant. Mark 14:22–24 and Luke 22:19–20 preserve closely related covenant language. These statements move the investigation beyond Passover toward Sinai.
42. Jesus’ covenant language has a major Old Testament background in Exodus 24:3–8. After sacrifices are offered, Moses takes blood, applies it in the covenant ceremony, and declares, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you.”
43. Exodus 24 therefore represents the next major stage in the investigation. Passover has shown blood functioning as God’s appointed sign associated with deliverance from destruction. Sinai will explicitly identify sacrificed blood with covenant.
44. The Christological method used throughout this investigation should remain controlled by the texts. First establish what an Old Testament passage accomplishes in its own setting. Then determine whether the New Testament explicitly applies that category or function to Jesus. This avoids turning every Old Testament detail into an unsupported prediction while still allowing genuine biblical patterns to emerge.
45. At the conclusion of Part 7, the developing evidence can therefore be stated cautiously. Blood has been associated with life, accountability, covenant identity, threatened death, sacrifice, deliverance, and redemption. Passover adds the clearest example so far of God deliberately commanding sacrificed blood to function as a sign associated with preservation from death.
46. The next question follows naturally from this progression. If Passover blood marks the place where death does not enter, why does Moses later take sacrificial blood and put it directly upon the people while declaring, “Behold the blood of the covenant”? That question carries the investigation into Part 8.

#WhyDidGodChooseBlood, #Passover, #PassoverBlood, #PassoverLamb, #WhenISeeTheBlood, #BloodOfTheLamb, #BloodAndLife, #Firstborn, #Exodus, #Moses, #Israel, #Deliverance, #Redemption, #Substitution, #BloodCovenant, #BiblicalCovenant, #JesusChrist, #Jesus, #LambOfGod, #ChristOurPassover, #OldTestament, #BibleStudy, #BiblicalTruth, #Scripture, #Christianity, #CauseBeforeSymptom

Why Did God Choose Blood, Passover, Passover Blood, Passover Lamb, When I See the Blood, Blood of the Lamb, Blood and Life, Firstborn, Exodus, Moses, Israel, Deliverance, Redemption, Substitution, Blood Covenant, Biblical Covenant, Jesus Christ, Jesus, Lamb of God, Christ Our Passover, Old Testament, Bible Study, Biblical Truth, Scripture, Christianity, Cause Before Symptom