Sacrifice_of_Isaac-Caravaggio_(Uffizi) |
There is
another slant on this, which when I first heard it, made a light come on. It’s
all about an ancient blood covenant.
You will recall
that when God made the blood covenant with Abraham, that the people would
inherit the land, God instructed the patriarch to slaughter animals and then
divide them so that there was a path between the carcasses. That night a
smoking pot and a torch was seen to pass along the path. (Genesis 15). As
I understand the rules around covenant at that time, each person had to pass
between the slain animals. Thereby each person was pledging that they would
keep their part of the covenant. And the only way to break the covenant was the
death of one of the parties. However in this passage Abraham does not pass
between the animals, God does – twice. Meaning that God was making a
covenant with both Abraham and himself. So if the covenant was broken then
God has to honour his pledge, not Abraham. God eventually did this, when
he had Moses bring the people out of Egypt.
Later on God told Abraham the sign
of the covenant was circumcision – which again is a blood covenant.
After Moses
read the law to the people in the desert and when they accepted the law, Moses
then sprinkled blood from a sacrifice on them. (Exodus 24) – another covenant
sealed with blood.
At the last
supper Jesus said of the wine: this is my blood which will be poured out for
many, so he was again initiating a blood covenant (albeit with a substitute
substance) for the disciples and through them, us.
The physical part of
the blood covenant was his death on the cross. So it’s not so much that he dies
for our sins, but rather that he was making a blood covenant with God for
us. As he was both human and divine he, like the old covenant with
Abraham, was making a pledge, both as God and as man.
His physical blood
sealed the new covenant and thereby opened for us, our part of the covenant, which
is salvation, forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Hence the idea, that
he died to save us.