In the Old Testament, the priests were making sacrifices daily, with extra sacrifices on the Sabbath and other holy days. Individual Jews brought sacrifices for sin and as a part of taxation. There was so much blood in the Temple that moderns are asking, "What happened to all that blood?" In the Old Testament, blood played a very big part of atonement for sin. In the New Testament, the amount of blood changed, but not the importance. At the last supper, Jesus told His disciples, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). In Acts, Paul told the Ephesian elders that the church of God was "purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). In Romans we learn that God displayed His Son publicly "as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Rom 3:24-25). On the basis of being "justified by His blood" we are saved from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9). In Christ, He told the church at Ephesus, "we have redemption through His blood" (Eph 1:7), that we are "brought near by the blood of Christ" (Eph 2:13). God in Christ is reconciling all things to Himself, "having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col 1:20). The author of Hebrews says, "According to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22) even though "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10:4). Our entry into heaven is predicated on "the blood of Jesus" (Heb 10:19). We are not redeemed with perishable things, Peter says, "but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:18-19). In Revelation Jesus is described the one "who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood" (Rev 1:5). I detect a long-running theme.
There are those who complain that God is a bloody God. There are those who complain that it's too gruesome, too "dark ages," too arcane. There are some that complain, "I don't get it" and dismiss it out of hand. But given the repetition and the sources (like Jesus Himself) and the gravity given blood for the remission of sins, I would argue that God in His Word is quite serious about us being saved by the blood of Christ. I would argue that mythologizing or "adjusting" what the Word says about the topic so it's not so bloody will fail to approach the topic from God's perspective. I would argue that if we want to take God seriously, we will want to take seriously what He takes seriously, and this topic of the shed blood of Christ is not merely serious; it's critical. You cannot have a high view of Scripture and a low view of Christ's shed blood in any rational view.
7 comments:
Here's an example. You note that there is text in the Bible that says...
"In Acts, Paul told the Ephesian elders that the church of God was "purchased with His own blood""
But what specifically does that mean? Did God convert blood into billions of little coins? Who did God "pay..."? The devil? God's own self? ("Hi, Me, here's that money I owe you, God." [God, turning around quickly] "Thanks, me. I appreciate your business.")
IF God is "paying" God, then God doesn't really even need to make the purchase because God already owns everything that God owns, right? How can this be anything BUT figurative language?
And if you can at least allow that it's at least SORT OF figurative (there is no exchange of blood for eternal life literally), what does it mean FIGURATIVELY?
Where are the details?
Dan, your sarcasm and generally unkind approach is deeply appreciated as always ... which is why you don't get to post comments here. However, given the time of year, the upcoming Resurrection Sunday, and the importance of the matter, I am making an exception.
First, I didn't say the blood was a payment; Scripture does. REPEATEDLY. You don't like it. You prefer "figuratively" by which you understand it to mean ... NOTHING. Do I think that Christ weighed out the blood drops as they fell until they equaled the amount owed, then scooped it up and handed it to God? "Here. Keep the change." Of course not. The picture that THE BIBLE gives is that a debt was owed for my sins (Col 2:14) that I was required to pay. That debt was my life. On the cross the perfect Man and the Son of God (both are required for this) paid that debt with His life ("blood") by dying on my behalf when He didn't have to. The debt I owed I owed to God. The debt Christ paid was paid to God. Was the debt, woodenly literally, BLOOD. No. Because the Bible CLEARLY states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev 17:11). So is "blood" figurative? Sure! It is His life. But it is not meaningless because sin is not meaningless; it's fatal.
So, your version says Christ did not pay for sin by His blood. You simply dismiss the whole pile of Scriptures that say He did. My version says that Christ AS A MAN (Php 2:5-8) paid the debt of MANkind owed to God to set aside the wrath God justly held against us. Your God without wrath simply sidestepping judgment of sin because your sin without consequences or depth is a pretty picture, but it doesn't fit one bit with the God of the Bible, and trying to talk me into rejecting the God of the Bible isn't helping matters. This Sunday, Christians celebrate the miraculous Resurrection of the Son who died for us and paid our debt so we can live with Him and you haven't got one single part of that, so I pray for you, but I won't agree with you.
We now return to Dan not commenting.
The "Christian Left" would have us believe "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross." (H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America)
Would I be wrong if I suggested the notion that the reason why blood is used is because blood is something of high value. By extension, Christ's blood is something of the absolute highest value.
As always, if one is going to say that "purchased with His own blood" is figurative, then wouldn't the burden be on the one who is suggesting that the phrase means something other than it's plain meaning to explain what the alternative meaning is? Further, wouldn't the onus be on that person to explain why their version is the more accurate version?
It seems insufficient to simply assert "you're wrong", without even offering a better alternative.
What Bible is H. Richard Niebuhr reading? God without wrath? Men without sin? Kingdom without judgment? Christ without a cross? Every one of those segments are anti-Christian. How can you deny the wrath and judgment of God, the sinfulness of Man, and the cross of Christ is say you have anything to do with Christianity? At some point, don't you just acknowledge that you don't believe in this religion and either go to another or make your own?
That was the point, David. Niebuhr's quote is in regards to liberal theology that assures us God has no wrath, Man's sin is irrelevant, God has no justice, and Christ's cross was irrelevant. It is "Christianity Lite" -- a void. He wasn't recommending it; he was mocking it.
I stole that Niebuhr quote because it's so good. Indeed, I copy/pasted the entire comment and saved it in a file. It's exactly what Dan's alternative to truth is.
We're told the wages of sin is death. All OT purification dealt with either sinful acts or touching bodily fluids or dead animals...all of which are connected to eternal death, both physically and spiritually which aren't really separate from each other. The sacrifices required the spilling of blood in order to stand in for the lives of the sinner. The smearing of lamb's blood on the doors of the Hebrews in Egypt was to deter the Angel of Death.
The connection between the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin is beyond doubt except to those who believe "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross." Those like Dan.
I await his Easter Post which likely will have no reference to the Resurrection. It never does.
Post a Comment