As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. Zechariah 9:11 (NKJV)

Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. Hebrews 9:18 (NKJV)

After Adam and Eve sinned, the Bible tells us in Genesis 3:21 that God made clothing for them from animal skins. It seems likely that they watched while the animals were killed and skinned, for they would have to learn the process in order to teach it to others, and to replace their own garments. What a shock it must have been for Adam to see the loving creatures that he had named, now slaughtered and bled. And this occurred concurrent with seeing the world drastically change due to their disobedience. Nevertheless, the significance of this matter goes far beyond their utilitarian need for clothing.

In fact, in chapter three, verse seven, we read that Adam and Eve had already sewn fig leaves for themselves as a covering. Then what was the reason that animals were killed to clothe them, outside of the practical matter of animal skins being more durable than fig leaves? The answer is that the covering God made for them was more than just clothing; it was a spiritual covering for their sin. The clothing covered their new-found shame in being naked, which was not shameful to them prior to their disobedience (2:25), but it also covered their guilt before God, and allowed Him to continue a relationship with them.

The Gravity of Sin

God did not want to see His own creation, His animals, destroyed. Shedding blood, even that of animals, was a drastic measure, but it was taken because if man sinned, something had to die, and if it was not the man, then it had to be a substitute. Not only was this required in God's judicial system, which we only glimpse since we are still in the flesh, but it was also an object lesson for man. Sin was so serious, that if man sinned, blood had to be shed. Even as we read in Hebrews 9:22 (NKJV), "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." And, in Ezekiel 18:20 (NKJV), "The soul who sins shall die." Blood is mentioned because it signifies life, and even modern science teaches us that the life is in the blood.

God took no pleasure in seeing animals die. And of course we know that it caused Him pain to see His Son die upon the cross. But until Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice, the animals had to die as a temporary covering. Adam and Eve understood this, and they taught their sons to offer animal sacrifices to the Lord, even before the law was given in Leviticus. But Cain did not offer a proper sacrifice; we read in Genesis, chapter four, that he brought vegetables to God instead of making a living sacrifice. When God did not receive his sacrifice, Cain was angry, and God rebuked him, saying, "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." Genesis 4:7 (NKJV)

Persecution of Those Who Keep the Covenant

We might wonder, why was it that God was so displeased with Cain's sacrifice? The answers are manifold. First, Cain was disobedient, even though he did keep up a form of religion. And here we see the beginning of the harlot church. For Cain acknowledged that God did exist, but he refused to make the sacrifice that He knew God required, and was in effect touting his disbelief in God's authority and His promised way of salvation. Therefore, although Cain was willing to give a sacrifice, he was not willing the give the proper sacrifice. He would not give what represented life, that is, the blood, for he was not willing to give his own life to God, as Abel was. And so, jealous of the one who was willing to serve God properly, he killed Abel.

Here we see a picture of Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees. They wanted to worship their own way, and when it was pointed out that they were not obeying God's will, they sought to kill the one who not only pleased God, but also was God. In 1st Samuel, chapter two, we read of the corrupt priests, Hophni and Phinehas, who took the best of the sacrifice for themselves, instead of giving it to the Lord. And we may see from this how some of us today want to also give the leftovers to the Lord, instead of the best that we have to offer. The sacrifice that God requires from us is one that requires the giving of life, as we will see as we continue this study of the covenant.

The Cutting of the Covenant

In Hebrew, the word covenant literally means "to cut". And so we see that when God made a covenant with Abraham, the sacrificial animals were "cut", and Abraham's flesh was "cut" in circumcism. But before we study this in detail, let us look at what this custom has meant to other cultures, in the hope of understanding the gravity and magnitude of it in our own lives as Christians.

Generally, it is not advisable to study a pagan ritual to understand a Christian truth; but in this case, while we certainly do not in anyway endorse the use of it, we will find it instructive. This is why it has been mentioned in other books by authors who have attempted to bring biblical understanding by studying it among non-believing cultures. Native tribes of Africa, Asia, and many other countries have practiced some form of the blood covenant for thousands of years. Satan has distorted the original intent of this biblical concept for these cultures, and in some of them it has become a gory ritual. Nevertheless, its practice has had a profound effect on the concept of commitment between people.

Men have primarily cut the covenant with each other for protection. Two tribes might be living next to each other, and realize that if they covenant with each other they will be more formidable against a common enemy. Many times a weaker tribe will seek to covenant with a stronger tribe because it fears that if it is attacked no one will come to its aid. In this we might see how the covenant we make with our Lord is so precious – He being so much stronger and not needing us, but condescending to help us.

Blood covenants have also been made between two people who are very good friends and want to use it as a way to seal their friendship. In some cultures, blood covenants are made between people who are business partners, or have similar business interests. Whatever the reason, however, the blood covenant has one universal characteristic – it is representative of the most binding agreement two people can make with each other, which becomes apparent as we see how it was used in Africa in the 1800's.

The Blood Covenant in Africa

In 1869, the well-known missionary Dr. David Livingstone had been in Africa for many years, but little had been heard from him since 1866. Finally, the New York Herald called upon Henry M. Stanley to find him. Stanley was a journalist and explorer, and it took him until 1871 to find Livingstone. (He greeted him with the now famous salutation, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?".) In the course of the search, Stanley had several occurrences in which he made a blood covenant with different African tribes. The first time Stanley was somewhat ill, and he was under siege by a truculent tribe which he and his men were not able to fight. His interpreter asked him why he did not make a blood covenant with them, and explained to him what it meant. But Stanley, as we can easily understand, was horrified at the thought of cutting himself and drinking another man's blood.

However, conditions worsened for him, so he asked what the benefit of a covenant would be, and was told that it would put everything that the other tribe owned at his disposal – but it would also put everything he owned at their disposal. Inherent in the agreement was that neither would exploit the other. They would not ask for anything unless it was critical, but at the initial making of the covenant, each would make the other a gift. The negotiations ensued, and the chieftain asked for Stanley's milk goat. Stanley did not want to give her up, because the goat's milk was important for his failing health, but since the chieftain would take nothing else, he finally agreed. In return, the chieftain gave him his seven-foot copper-wound spear. Stanley did not think much of this gift at first, but later he found out that the spear represented some evident authority – everywhere he traveled in Africa people submitted to him because of it.

Stanley was relieved when he found out that he did not have to personally perform the ritual; the chieftain used a stand-in from the tribe, therefore he was able to use a young Englishman as a stand-in for himself. Nevertheless, this in no way lessened the obligatory nature of the covenant. That covenant, we should understand, meant that if one of the tribes was attacked, every person in the other tribe and everything it owned, would be put at its disposal. They would give them weapons, food, and shelter, and they would fight for them, and give their lives for them, down to their last drop of blood. Hence the term, blood covenant. It also meant that as familial brothers are said to have the same "blood" because they share the same parents, those who entered into this ritual were ostensibly related, hence the term, "blood brothers".

To seal this covenant, the young tribesman from the African tribe cut his arm and squeezed it until blood ran out of it into a goblet into which wine was already poured. Then the young Englishman made an incision in his arm and his blood dripped into the same goblet. The Chieftain's "priest" stirred the bloods together and then handed the cup to the Englishman, who drank part of it. Then the young tribesman drank the rest.

Do we cringe at this ritual as we study it? Does it seem repulsive? Perhaps so, but let us remember the one who said, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." John 6:56 (NKJV). In human practice it may be hideous, but it gives us a reflection of a godly concept that goes far beyond our typical understanding about commitment – the commitment that God has made to us, and that we have made (whether or not we realize it) to Him.

Next, the African "priest" pronounced dreadful curses that were to befall Stanley and his men should they ever break the covenant, and Stanley's interpreter did the same upon the Africans. Does this also sound strange to us? Let us consider the curses and blessings that are part of the Old Covenant recorded in Deuteronomy chapters 11, and 27 and 28, which were shouted from Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal as the covenant was sealed. Let us also remember how in Exodus 12:23 the Lord told the Israelites to put the blood on the lintel and on the doorposts, and the destroyer would pass over them. And in Joshua 2:18, where Rahab the Harlot is told to put the scarlet thread outside her window so that she will not be destroyed. All of this represented the power and protection of the covenant.

These two were now blood brothers, and their agreement was meant to be indissoluble. But if one of them did break the covenant, the other was then released from it. However, that was unlikely to happen in Africa, because if a person broke the covenant his own family would seek to kill him. It simply was not done. Before this, Stanley's men had to guard all their valuables, but now no one would touch anything – for the penalty for stealing from a blood brother was death. The chieftain was now friendly, doing all he could for Stanley, and Stanley was amazed at how this ritual had so completely changed his attitude toward him – for he did not quite understand the magnitude of the covenant.

The question is, do we understand the covenant? When we come to the Lord's table, are we going through a ritual which we think little about, or do we think mainly about what God has done for us, and what He will do for us. It is not bad for us to remember what He has done for us, but should we not also realize what is required of us in this covenant relationship? Is the covenant one-sided? Is it only about His commitment to us, and not about ours to Him? Why does He say for us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice if there is no commitment required on our part? (See Romans 12:1) If there is nothing for us to do, if in grace He wants nothing from us, then why was Cain not accepted? Is it not possible that our relationship with God is lacking because we are not fulfilling the covenant, but we do not realize it because we have not understood the depth of it?

It is not just our physical lives that God wants, for if we have any faith we will gladly offer that – just to die and go to heaven may not be too difficult. But what about to obey and stay in this world? God told Cain that he must master sin, but is that no longer necessary? Under the New Covenant is obedience no longer required because of grace, meaning that we do not need to concern ourselves with overcoming sin? If this is truly what we think, indeed we are blinded. Without an understanding of the covenant, we also fail to understand what God requires of us, and why He has told us that the path is narrow and the way difficult (Matthew 7:14).

Our example is Africa in the 1800's, which was a pagan country known to have almost no Gospel light. And yet neither Livingstone nor Stanley had ever heard of the blood covenant being broken. It was considered sacred, and it was honored in that culture. Another reason it was considered unbreakable was that even in that desperately wicked society, man wanted something to believe in, and so he attempted to do the best he could to make a godlike commitment. How much the soul of man thirsts for the commitment only God can make! Even the world respects the man or woman who cannot be bought, and will not back down once having identified himself or herself with a worthwhile cause. The cause of Christ is the most worthwhile of all, and so His followers should be the most dedicated and committed.