Hebrews 9:22 provides the main reason Christians believe that if Jesus had not shed His blood for us, we could never have been forgiven for our sins. Hebrews 9:22 refers to Leviticus 17:11 as saying this:
… without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins.
So there we go! The blood of Jesus is important – necessary even – for the forgiveness of sins.
End of story. The question is answered. The post stops here.
Except … hmm … something doesn’t seem quite right with that quick and tidy answer …
For example, I forgive people all the time without requiring that they shed blood for me. And I’m really glad that people forgive me all the time without asking that I open a vein or kill my cat for them.
So if I can offer forgiveness without the shedding of blood, and so can other people, what is going on with God? Doesn’t He freely forgive (Col 3:13)? Since when are there conditions for unconditional love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness? Is God’s forgiveness of a lesser sort than ours? Or maybe His forgiveness is of a more powerful type of forgiveness that requires blood?
And if God’s forgiveness is greater and so requires blood, then my next question is, “Why blood?” I mean, if God is the one making the rules, and sin is a serious affront to His holiness, then why did He decide that blood would appease Him? Why not require … I don’t know … spit? Or hair? Yes, I like the hair idea.
Why didn’t God simply say “Without the cutting of hair, there can be no forgiveness of sins”? Of course, that might not be fair to bald people, but I digress …
What’s the deal with blood?
Yes, yes, I know. I’ve been to “the seminary.” They tell us:
It’s because the life is the blood.
That’s from Leviticus 17:11. In the Bible. And since we have a verse, the discussion is over.
But wait! That’s no answer. The question still stands. So okay, God wants blood, and it has something to do with the life of a person being in the blood. But God makes the rules, so why did He decide He wanted blood? Why does God want to kill people (or animals in the place of people) because people sin?
In fact, come to think of it, the issue isn’t with blood any more. The issue now is with God. Why does God want blood?
I could follow this line of reasoning further, but I think you get the point. In fact, some of that conversation might sound very similar to conversations you have had with atheists. At least, much of what I wrote above echoes conversations I have had with atheists. Atheists are atheists for a variety of reasons, but some of them have real issues with a god who demands blood so that He can forgive sins.
And you know what I tell them? I say this:
God Doesn’t Want Blood
God doesn’t want blood. God wants life! It is WE who think that God wants blood (when He doesn’t).
The idea of God demanding blood is borrowed from pagan religions. Jesus went to the cross, not to reinforce and support this idea, but to expose and redeem it. That’s a huge idea which would take us down a whole new rabbit trail.
But if God doesn’t demand blood, then how does God forgive? Doesn’t Hebrews 9:22 teach that God needs blood in order to forgive us? No, it does not. Let us read carefully what Hebrews 9:22 says in context.
1. Hebrews 9:22 contrasts Jesus with Moses
The first thing to notice about the context of Hebrews 9:22 is that the author is clearly contrasting the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law with what Jesus accomplished in His death on the cross.
One way to note this is by looking back to Hebrews 9:15, which is the opening statement in the larger context of this discussion about sacrifice and blood. In Hebrews 9:15, the author writes about the “redemption of the transgressions.” The word used there is not the normal word for “sin” in the NT, but is parabaino (STR: 3847), and means to overstep or go beyond the boundaries.
The TDNT says that parabaino is closely connected with sin in the New Testament, but primarily in the sense of using human tradition to disobey the law of God while claiming to be the fulfillment of the law.
In other words, parabaino takes place when someone tries to explain and apply the law of God, but actually ends up doing the exact opposite of what the law says.
The author of Hebrews indicates that Jesus came to redeem sin, that is, to redeem the parabaino type of sin. More specifically still, Jesus came to redeem the sin of misusing the law. It is this issue that concerns the author of Hebrews.
2. Hebrews 9:22 says there is purification and forgiveness Without Blood
Second, it is important to note that even in Hebrews 9:22, the author pretty adamantly states that there is purification and forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood. The author says, “almost all things are purified with blood …”
If we went back to read the Levitical law, we would see that purification and forgiveness was extended under a variety of circumstances, including the washing with water (Lev 15:16-17; 17:15), anointing with oil (Lev 14:29), burning flour (Lev 5:11-13), giving money (Exod 30:11-16), or releasing an animal into the wild (Lev 16:10).
And in fact, when it comes to intentional sins, there was no offering of any kind which was prescribed by the law. All the sacrifices and offerings of the law are for unintentional sins only. This means that when an Israelite sinned intentionally (as they most certainly did, just as we do), the only way they could receive forgiveness from God was to look to Him for it in faith (just like us)!
The author of Hebrews knows all this, which is why he says that almost all things are purified by blood.
3. Hebrews 9:22 is not about Sin; but about the Covenant
Of course, even this requires further modification, for it is not true that almost all things required blood for purification. A quick reading of the Law reveals that most things did not require blood.
So what does the author of Hebrews mean?
The context indicates that the author specifically has in mind the tabernacle and the religious items within the tabernacle (Hebrews 9:21). The author is talking about the initial dedication ceremony of the first tabernacle built by Moses. This purification and dedication ceremony initiated the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 9:18-19).
So the author of Hebrews is not giving a general principle in Hebrews 9:22 for how we receive forgiveness of sins, but is instead referring to how the covenant of Moses was initiated by blood.
4. Hebrews 9:22 says that Shedding of Blood came from the Law
Fourth, notice that the author of Hebrews specifically states where the instruction about offerings of blood came from. He does not say, “and God commanded that all things be purified with blood, for without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
No, Hebrews 9:22 specifically states that this these things are “according to the law.” Of course, those of us who hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture don’t see much difference between something the law stated and something God stated, and yet we must be careful because numerous Old Testament prophets emphatically declared that God is not the one who gave the law or commanded that the people offer sacrifices, and He was not pleased with these sorts of religious rituals, nor did He ever want them (cf. Jer 7:21-23; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8).
This is the same point the author of Hebrews makes in 10:5-6.
Reconciling the words of these inspired prophets with the modern understanding of inspiration and inerrancy is a difficult task indeed. I have a way that works for me, but again, to travel down that rabbit trail would take us too far afield.
But however we understand that thorny issue, we can all agree that in Hebrews 9:22, the author is simply contrasting how the law inaugurated the Mosaic Covenant with how Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant.
5. The Shedding of Blood Never Brought Forgiveness!
In light of this contrast, notice fifthly, that the author of Hebrews deftly shows how the Mosaic covenant, with all its bloody sacrifices, was never able to accomplish what it promised.
The author of Hebrews points out that it is “impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). Though it was the law that promised the forgiveness of sins through blood sacrifices, the simple fact that the law required perpetual sacrifices revealed that the law could not deliver what it promised.
Nobody was ever actually forgiven through the blood of a sacrifice! So according to the author of Hebrews, though the law required blood for forgiveness, blood didn’t provide any forgiveness! The law didn’t work!
6. Hebrews 9:22 is not about Forgiveness OF SINS
This leads to a sixth point about Hebrews 9:22 which should not be missed.
I intentionally misquoted Hebrews 9:22 above. I quoted it as saying that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
But Hebrews 9:22 does not include those final two words. Hebrews 9:22 says nothing about sin. Yes, sin is mentioned in Hebrews 9:26-28, but only in reference to the sacrifice of Jesus. The first time the author references sin in connection to the sacrificial blood of the Mosaic covenant is in Hebrews 10:4, where, as we have just seen, the only connection between sin and blood is that sin cannot be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats.
So what is the blood for in Hebrews 9:22? Again, as we saw above, it was for the purification of the tabernacle and its vessels when Moses inaugurated the first covenant. Modern western Christians are so infatuated with sin, that we see sin everywhere and believe that our biggest problem in the world is sin and that God is sitting in heaven trying to figure out how to stop us all from sinning.
I believe that nothing could be further from the truth.
God is not nearly as concerned with sin as we are.
Before the majesty of God’s holiness and love, all the sin of the world is little more than an annoying flea jumping around on the ground by his foot. Sin is not that big of a deal for God. The only reason He is concerned at all about sin is because sin hurts and damages us, and since He loves us beyond all imagination, He wants to do something about that annoying flea, because it has bitten us and injected us with all sorts of harmful toxins.
Also, God must do something about sin because sin is a big deal for Satan, and Satan uses sin to lay claim to our lives, which is something God does not want. But this too is another rabbit trail which we must avoid for now. The bottom line is that sin is not a big deal for God, and sin is not the issue in Hebrews 9:22.
7. Hebrew 9:22 isn’t even about “Forgiveness”
But what about the word “forgiveness” in Hebrews 9:22? Doesn’t that indicate that sin is the issue? No, it does not. This is the seventh point about this important text.
The word which the author uses here is the Greek word aphesis. This word does not mean “forgiveness” in the way that modern, English-speaking people think about forgiveness. Instead, aphesis is something closer to “deliverance” or “release.”
It has in mind the picture of someone who is enslaved and in chains, and someone else come along with the key to unlock them and set them free. I have written previously about aphesis.
In Scripture, we are freely forgiven of all our sins, past, present, and future, completely and only by the grace of God. We are, however, called upon to obey God so that we might enjoy the freedom from sin that He wants for us. Sin injects us with toxins that further enslave us, which God wants to liberate us from.
This sort of release often requires something on the part of the one who is being released, lest they fall right back into slavery after having been released! In this way, aphesis is a symbiotic forgiveness. It not only requires that the liberator unlock the chains; it also requires that the liberated run away from what had chained them.
8. The “Release” of Hebrews 9:22 is a Release of the Covenant
In Hebrews 9, it is not people who are being released, but the covenant itself! This eighth point is that the blood of Hebrews 9:22 has absolutely nothing to do with the removal of sin.
Instead, the blood was for the enactment of the Mosaic Covenant. The author of Hebrews could not be more clear. He says that a testament, or will, is not put into effect until the one who wrote it dies (Hebrews 9:16-17). My wife and I have Wills, and as is the case with all Wills, they do not go into effect until we die. A “Last Will and Testament” has no power while we live.
So after Moses wrote the Covenant, or the testament, he enacted a death over it to make it effective and active upon the people (Hebrews 9:19-21).
Whose “Last Will and Testament” was this? It was God’s! It was God’s covenant to the people.
But since God Himself could not come down to die and so enact the covenant, Moses symbolized the death of God with “the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop” (Hebrews 9:19).
The “release” in Hebrews 9:22 then, is the release of the covenant.
Prior to the shedding of the blood of the bulls and goats, the covenant was not active. It was under lock and key. A death was needed to free it, liberate it, or enact it.
And since God was the “testator” (Hebrews 9:16), but God could not die, Moses killed calves and goats to symbolize the death of God, and in so doing, enacted the covenant of God with His people, Israel.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with sin.
Nor does Hebrews 9:22 have anything with the conditions of forgiveness, for as we have seen above, the covenant offered numerous ways for people to receive purification from sin, and when it came to forgiveness for intentional sins, the Israelites believed on the grace of God for forgiveness just as we do.
9. The People were also Released from Slavery
But the “remission” or “release” of Hebrews 9:22 is not just of the covenant. The implementation of the first covenant with Moses took place after the Israelite people had been delivered and redeemed from captivity in Egypt.
From a purely legal standpoint, they were runaway slaves. And according to the laws of slavery, as long as a slave is still living and has not yet been set free, the slave is still a slave, even if they run away.
So the redemption enacted as part of the Mosaic covenant was the redemption of the slaves from Egypt. The death of the calves and goats symbolized the death of the Israelite people to their former life of slavery in Egypt.
Through the Mosaic covenant, the people of Israel died to their old identification as slaves to the household of Pharaoh (i.e., Egypt), and were raised again to a new identification as members of the household of God. This is why the water and the blood was sprinkled not just on the book of the covenant, but also on all the people (Hebrews 9:19).
They were dying to their past and were being born again into a new family. As members of this new family, they had new household rules to live by, which were enumerated in the Mosaic covenant.
10. Hebrews 9:22 in the context of Hebrews 9-10
All of this together helps us understand the discussion in Hebrews 10 that follows about how the New Covenant, which was enacted through the death of Jesus, is far superior in all ways to the Old Covenant which was enacted through the blood of animals.
This also helps explain why Hebrews 10 talks about sin so much. Though we have seen that Hebrews 9:22 is not talking about the forgiveness of sins, we often get confused about the rest of Hebrews 9 and on into Hebrews 10 because there are many references to the sacrifice or offerings of Jesus Christ for our sins.
The best way to understand this is to remember what we have learned from Hebrews 9:16-22 about why the blood of the calves and goats was sprinkled over tabernacle and its instruments, along with the book of the covenant and the people, on the day the Mosaic Covenant was instituted among them. The blood was to inaugurate the covenant and indicate to the people that they had been set free from slavery.
All of this is exactly the same with the death of Jesus.
Jesus did not die to rescue us from the wrath of God. Nor did Jesus die to secure for us the forgiveness of sins. God has always freely forgiven people of their sins.
No, the death of Jesus on the cross was to inaugurate the new covenant of God with the entire world, and to indicate to all people that we were no longer slaves to sin.
That second point is critical. Jesus did not die for God because of sin. Jesus died for sin.
God’s holiness did not demand that Jesus be put to death. No, it was the devil that demanded death and blood (cf. Hebrews 2:14-15). Sin was the certificate of ownership which the devil held over the heads of humanity.
By dying, Jesus cancelled this debt of sin so that the devil could no longer have any claim upon us. This happened because just as all sinned in Adam, and so became slaves to death and the devil, so all died and were raised to new life in Jesus, and so were liberated and redeemed from our slavery to death and the devil.
Just as the Israelites in the wilderness died to Pharaoh, and were raised to new life in the family of God, so also, all people in Jesus died to sin, death, and devil, and were raised to new life in the family of God. This is the basic meaning of the discussion in Hebrews 10 about the sacrifice of Jesus for sin.
But the discussion goes beyond this as well. The author of Hebrews intentionally subverts the sacrificial elements of the Mosaic covenant by transitioning away from images of blood and death, and writing instead about offerings and purification.
Let just a few of these be noted.
Following immediately after Hebrews 9:22, we read that Jesus also purified the heavenly sanctuary. And just as the first ceremony indicated the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant and the death of the people to their past enslavement to Egypt, so also, the actions of Jesus indicated the inauguration of the New Covenant and the death of the people to their enslavement to sin.
In Hebrews 10:1-4, the author emphasizes the complete failure of the Mosaic law to do anything about sin. In Hebrews 10:2, we are informed that if the law could have taken away sin, the people would have stopped making sacrifices, for they would have had no more consciousness of sins. Yet the sacrifices themselves are a reminder of sins, even though they do nothing about the sins.
Then in Hebrews 10:5-10, the author indicates his understanding that the sacrificial system was never intended to take away sins, and that God Himself never wanted such sacrifices or took any pleasure in them. Again, God is a God of life; not death. What God did want, however, was a life lived in obedience to the will of God, which is exactly the “offering” which Jesus brought. This understanding of “offering” and “sacrifice” as the life of Jesus rather than His death is critical for the rest of the chapter. While it is true that Jesus died a bloody and gruesome death on the cross, it is critical to recognize that the death of Jesus on the cross was for sin, while the life of Jesus was for God. God did not want nor desire the death of Jesus. God always and only wants life.
Building upon this truth, Hebrews 10:11-18 moves on to compare and contrast the covenant enacted by Moses and the covenant enacted by Jesus Christ. After explaining that the sacrifices and offerings of the priests could never do anything about sins, Hebrews 10:12-13 shows that Jesus not only dealt with sin once and for all through His death, but actually perfected forever those who are in Him. The author then makes the absolutely shocking statement that God (and Moses) knew from the very beginning that the Law of Moses was obsolete and useless for doing anything about sin.
The author of Hebrews points at what the Holy Spirit said through the prophet Jeremiah about the new covenant (Jer 31:33-34), and then ties this together with the word “remission” (aphesis) which was used in Hebrews 9:22. In so doing, the author indicates the truth that Moses knew from the very beginning that his law was temporary, obsolete, and ineffective for doing anything about sin.
In Exodus 20, after God had given the 10 Commandments, God wanted to speak to the people of Israel Himself. But they were too scared of God, and declared that they would rather have Moses to speak to God for them (Exod 20:19). What follows in Exodus 21 through most of the rest of the Pentateuch is called “the Mosaic Law” for good reason.
It was how Moses believed God wanted the people of Israel to live out the 10 commandments. But forty years later, Moses saw that what he had given to the people was a complete failure. He had been with them for forty years (Deut 29:5), and knew that the law would be completely ineffective in helping them follow God and live rightly (cf. Deut 31:16-21).
As a result, Moses knew that what he had given to the people would be replaced by what God had wanted all along. Before Moses died, he prophesied that his law would pass away and would be replaced with the law of God written upon men’s hearts (Deut 30:6-20). Long before Jeremiah ever prophesied that God would do away with the written law and write His law upon our hearts and minds, Moses had said the same thing (cf. Deut 30:6, 14). Paul understood Deuteronomy 30 in this way as well (cf. Rom 10:7-8). In fact, in a recent book on the Pentateuch,
John Sailhamer has argued that one of the central points of the Pentateuch is to show that the law was ineffective, obsolete, and not what God had wanted for His people at all. God wanted faith, humility, mercy, and righteousness, which are the things the law could not provide.
But Jesus provided what the law could not, which brings us back to Hebrews 10. Jesus lived the way God intended, and in so doing, accomplished several things.
First, Jesus crucified the law of sin and death (Hebrews 9:26-28).
Second, Jesus revealed what God had always wanted for His people (Hebrews 10:16-17).
Third, Jesus revealed how God’s people could live for love and life instead of sin and death (Hebrews 10:20-23).
In Jesus, we learn that God no longer wants death, and He never did. God always and only wants life.
Hopefully, all this provides a deeper understanding of what Hebrews 9:22 is actually teaching (and not teaching) about the shedding of blood and the forgiveness of sins.
God always forgives sins freely. He does not need or want blood.
Note: This article by Brad Jersak on Hebrews 9:22 is also helpful.
The cross of Jesus is CENTRAL to everything!
Transform your life and theology by focusing on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus:
Fill out the form below to receive several emails from me about the death and resurrection of Jesus.
(Note: If you are a member of RedeemingGod.com, login and then revisit this page to update your membership.)
Jay D Timm….Jim Jim Noetzelman, Jim Jim Testerman…..Larry Lynn Wathne this is for you guys
I’ve been writing about this in a book I one day hope to publish. People are gonna think I’m ripping u off!
If all of that was unnecessary then why the cross to begin with?
By the death and resurrection Jesus defeated sin and death so we could have eternal life.
Amen
Why on a cross? In a court room? Why do we have to accept Jesus to be saved?
Had a chance to read entire article so I deleted previous comment. Thanks! Hard to get these posts in at work!
Did it sort of answer your question?
Yes it did thanks. The atonement of Christ has been the linchpin of Christianity. I appreciate fresh insights. Some things are difficult to wrestle with to say the least.
In #6. It is very dangerous idea that you say”sin is not a big deal to God? ” Whoa… it is a BIGDEAL for God who send his ONLY SON to die for our sins that brought death, dominion and everlasting punishment.
I loved this article, and despite the difficulties in arriving to such a conclusion I find it easier to quote the f
Verses by the prophets of the OT, which assures that God never gave the law of sacrifices, it is human and imitating the pagans, as the Jews were worshiping many Gods of the Canaanites.
Micah 6:7, Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” Pointing to the story of Abraham to give his son as a sacrifice.
Micah 6:8, He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?, which coincides with what Peter told Cornelius “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to Him, Acts 10:34-35
b) Isaiah 1:11, What to me is the multitude of your told sacrifices? says the LORD;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. ( hopefully the religious fanatics do not add he loves the blood of Jesus as a sacrifice of blood to God). See my note on God does not love blood in the next chapter.
c) Psalm 51:16-17, For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Which resonate with the New Testament sacrifices “Hebrews 13:16, “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God”.
d) Jeremiah 7:22, For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. (There is no mention of Moses).
e) Hosea 6:6, For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
f) Amos 5:22, Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them.
g) Amos 5:25-27, Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god—your images that you made for yourselves ( the arc of the covenant a classic and elaborate symbol of pagan worship)., and I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts. ( did they worship pagan Gods?)
Hello! If you go back & read the article again it states “sin is not a big deal FOR God”. Big difference. I actually made that mistake the 1st time reading through this but then went back & reread that sentence. It is a big deal to Him because it brings death, bondage, enslavement, etc.
To the author, nicely done! I would encourage folks to read through this several times, meditate on the Scriptures given & ask Holy Spirit to teach you.
Blessings!
Wesley, It’s not original with me either. This is sort of a collection of points I have heard from Greg Boyd, Brad Jersak, Raborn Johnson and numerous others on similar topics.
Greg Boyd’s work is phenomenal, as is Bruxy Cavey’s. And I truly enjoyed this piece, thank you for writing it! It will be helpful with friends who yet see the cross from the Penal Substitution Viewpoint; I pray their hearts are ready and open to hear!
Thanks mate. Just great. It’s great to have clear simple teaching. So often I get lost when people start trying to show what you always thought about the bible was wrong. But this made perfect sense.
One question.
I’ve got 5 translations of 9:22 in my house.
Some have sin as the last word, some just end end ‘no remission’
Or no forgiveness.
So is “SIN” actually in the original?
Agreed: “The idea of God demanding blood is borrowed from pagan religions. Jesus went to the cross, not to reinforce and support this idea, but to expose and redeem it. “
James, Thanks. Yes, the words “of sins” is not in the original Greek anywhere. The last word is aphesis, which is translated as “forgiveness” or “remission.” I talk a bit more about aphesis in the longer post. People probably get the idea of sins by looking down to 9:26 or back to 9:15. But again, the 9:15 word isn’t the normal word for “sin,” and the 9:26 is talking about what the priests did.
Anyway, much here to think about for a while …
Eric, thanks for reading!
and what manuscripts are you using? the only real manuscripts, the majority text, says “of sins”. You are giving a false testimony of the word of God. I pray God have mercy on you and made you reconsider this folly.
Don’t you know that there are fake bibles out there based on bogus manuscripts that are used to make new fake bibles?
This is a problem of lacking faith in God and his promise of preserving the word for ever, the inspiration of scripture and it’s purity without error. If people actually believed those doctrines they would not go around collecting fake bibles with false readings and they would not be confused or puffed up thinking they have discovered some great truth that nobody else knows about, ergo this post, claiming to be the only one that really know how to interpret scripture, everyone else throughout history has been deluded. I’ll tell you who are the ones deluded here, and is not traditionalists.
I pray you all repent of your lack of faith and your error.
Origen and then Anselm affirmed blood sacrifice as dogma for the church. “Saved by the blood” = Anselm
I just re read this properly, so much to process I will be in it for weeks. What really surprised me was the statement that the OT sacrifices were only for unintentional sins. Thats completely new to me.
This point is not correct in this post. Leviticus 6:1-6 talks about guilt offerings for intentional sin. And we know that God punished people for their sin, even as early as the golden calf. It was not just the enemy taking life. It was the wrath of God purifying the camp from the sin of idolatry.
A friend of mine–strong believer & godly man–referred me to this post and your site. Lots to process here. I really appreciate your authenticity and passion and focus on God & His word. We need more of that in our world!
I do not agree with your conclusion in this post(and others) that Jesus’ death did not satisfy the wrath of God. As it took you pages and pages of writing to develop your conclusion on this matter, I don’t believe I could give mine in a short post (I probably have nothing new to say that you haven’t read already)! Suffice for now is to say this: it is my opinion that 1) Scripture is clear that God’s wrath and holiness demanded a sin payment, 2) as I read your articles you seem to be trying to use every logical, illustrative, and theological trick to convince yourself it’s not true, but it’s like you’re losing the argument with yourself, 3) I really enjoyed that you broadened the truth of salvation through Jesus past justification (which many fundamentals focus on) to include redemption, sanctification, covenant marriage, adoption, etc.
Just as you do, I believe that this is more than an intellectual exercise, but that believing in the truth of God’s wrath–as well as His love, mercy, grace, etc.–is crucial in living a godly, worship-filled life. I know that you don’t agree with me, but I believe Scripture is clear that this doctrine of God’s holiness and righteousness breeds a depth and nuance of respect and honour of God that we would otherwise miss (Acts 5, Numbers 16, Ezekiel 28).
Thanks for listening to my rant and rave, and I welcome any dialogue. As we all have limited time, I may not respond promptly, but I will chew on anything that’s written, and then respond. May we grow closer to the Lord together!
AMEN!
I wrote this so long ago that when I just got the email notification I had no idea what I had written and where it was!!
Jeremy I found your article insightful and has given me a lot to think about. Certainly challenges all my past theological teaching and upbringing. Much of it makes sense, what I struggle with is comparing what you allude to in Scripture with Christ in the last supper talking about the bread and the wine to his disciples. Wine and sin…bread broken body. Any insights Jeremy on this is appreciated.
Yes, I was just thinking about this over the past week or so. I take the symbolism in the Last Supper to show us that in His death, Jesus was revealing that scapegoating death and bloodshed is the basic human sin and is unnecessary for the forgiveness of sins. His body and blood are signs of the new covenant, that death and blood are not what God wants or desires.
I really need to write a full post on what is bouncing around in my head on this… I know that preceding paragraph is rather disjointed and confusing…
In his book, Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross, Mark Heim writes that “Jesus’ new covenant in his blood is an end to the justification for shedding blood.” That is basically what I am also trying to say, but in a way that more clearly explains what I *think* he might be saying.
This article is ridiculous. Not only does it twist the author of Hebrews’ main point, but it denies it.
Penal Substutionary Atonement is at the very heart of the Gospel (Isa. 53, rom. 3, 2 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3, 1 Peter 2-3).
To deny this crucial component of the Gospel is to deny the very Gospel itself. Sin is a big deal to God (as seen in pretty much any book of the Bible). Faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus is the means by which sin is atoned for and we are reconciled to the Father.
I agree with your answer and would like for you to direct me to the sources that helped you to understand the Penal Substitutionary atonement for all human sins so I can learn more of what you know or believe. Who or what persons and books taught you this? Because I feel your sources can help me on questions like: was it 3 or 6 hours the land turn dark? And the land was all of the Country Israel or the whole Earth when the Divine Father Separates Himself from The Dive Word Jesus.
On Sunday when you eat the Bread without any rising ingredient and fruit of the Vine what is your understanding of His shed Blood? Why was that necessary to His Father that the work of His Body (the true Bread of Life) also must release the Blood in it? His Blood from it? There would be no forgiveness of Sins if this didn’t happen. What is your understanding of this? He must give up His inner Life too?
He was dead but to be assured of that a roman soldier threw a spear at His body in which both water and blood poured out. Was this to prove His Death and/or to prove His Humanity matching our own because He has blood in Him Too? His Human Body would be Changed by His Father in Heaven into Immortality. But His Blood being shed is what makes this possible for us Too: Immorality.
As High Priest He offers His Blood to the Father for the redemption of human souls. Is His Blood a form of a Will not written on paper that testifies to His Body’s Death that after the death of the testator His wealth is distributed to His beneficiaries. The World’s People are the Beneficiaries of Christ Immortality.
Some books that helped me are the Conflict of the Ages series and the speaking well of God series with God in all 66. They are both free online. I would start with the Conflict of the Ages series.
A good source that addresses your questions is the conflict of the ages series which is free online. Patriarchs and Prophets and the Desire of Ages would help, as would Acts of the Apostles.
Whether the requirement of blood atonement is a myth or not is the central argument in understanding whether God has a wrathful or loving nature. It is probably my biggest stumbling block in moving forward in my faith and understanding of the point of Jesus’ sacrifice.
Is sin really such a “big deal” that it required the sacrifice of Jesus to cancel it out?
OR
Or is it the condemnation of ourselves and amongst each other that is the “big deal” that Jesus came to put an end to?
In other words, did Jesus come to wash away the sin or to end the real condemnation that comes from the illusion of payment needed for sin?
I hope you respond to Kris’ Oct 4 comment when you get a chance.
Sin is a big deal. You only have to look at Genesis to see that man’s disobedience to God was what caused Adam and Eve to be banned from the garden and in need of redemption. While this fellow has made some interesting, thought-provoking points, I believe that any argument can run amok if we lose sight of the full counsel of God on the subject. I could expound for hours, but alas I have to go for now.
Jeremy? Where’d you go?
Here I am!
I will have to read this article over and over again to fully get the logic you are saying,however I concur with Janis on disagreeing with your assertion that son is not a big deal to God. That statement contrasts so much of the Bible view point.
I like your confidence and your sense of humour but going by what JESUS CHRIST himself said in MATTHEW 26:28, you are very wrong.
God made the world and has the right to call the shots & if He says blood is required for forgiveness, it’s His call & He has His reasons.
To be fair to Jeremy and the proposition he has put forward one needs to read his book on the atonement of God. It stands or falls by what Gods word is really saying. In this book the whole issue is addressed and provides much more insight from scripture. I have always believed in the penal version of the atonement which unfrotunately came out of the reformation (mainly calvin) look at his life and see how many people died in Geneva during his reign…. blood and punishment. I now believe that is not what the early church adopted. They understood that murder, punishment and rebellion was always in our hearts and that colours much of our thinking. Especially when we think how God will treat us (like how we can treat each other). I am a firm believer in going back to the original hebrew and greek for meaning as our constrained english is not a good lens of what God is really saying. Furthermore if Jesus is God then we must view scritpure through the lens of Christ. ie His teaching, his life and his actions which flowed through to Apostles and the early church. eg we see wrath of God as a angry God, but in the greek it can mean something very different. Jeremy addresses that in his book from scripture. If God was not angry with us but rather deeply distressed over the consequences of sin on us and others it puts a whole new view on things. I was always told out of scripture that its trueth will set you free. I have found that to be very accurate.
Thanks, Grahame! Yes, a more detailed explanation is found in the book. Glad you read it and found it helpful!
Jeremy it changed my life and the life of a number of Christian friends. Few books have had that effect. Be encouraged and dont stop please.
Hi Jeremy,
Just discovered your site and was so interested to read the same questions I have recently been asking. I’m looking forward to re-reading Hebrews in the light of the shedding of blood being more about how a Will is put into effect and about the tabernacle, but it seems to me that that just puts the puzzle (why blood) up one more layer. In other words, the question is no longer “Why does forgiveness require blood?” but “Why does enacting God’s will (or any will) require blood/death?” I won’t do to say that’s what wills are, because that begs of the question of why does God choose a vehicle that requires death to represent His actions.
Also, I may disagree that the Israelites were runaway slaves. It seems to me that God took a lot of time through Moses and Aaron to get Pharaoh’s permission. The fact that Pharoah reneged only caused more consequences to fall on the Egyptians, but could not change the fact that he most certainly released them.
Lastly, for now, I think your argument about deliverance from slavery in Egypt needs to include the blood of the Passover. Before the covenant was enacted with animals symbolizing God’s death, the blood of the Passover had already been applied to the house of Israel. How does that fit with your schema.
In Genesis blood was not involved until Adam and Eve needed clothes to wear because of their feelings of shame through the knowledge of Evil that God made them clothing through animal skins meaning death entered into the context because of Evil.
Without the knowledge of Evil they would have remained naked and unashamed.
Why does God’s Will or to enact something require Blood? or Why does it require blood after the Evil entered into what He made and called Very Good? Universe, Earth.
Evil caused Adam and Eve to die instead of living and never to die. Evil=Sin. produces, causes death. There has to be another Adam since the first failed. The first just had to eat from the right tree and live forever. No blood involved.
This Last Adam because there will be no other Adam after Him will secure eternity through His Blood Shed.
Thanks for your response (especially since no one else did).
While I don’t disagree with anything you said, I don’t see how it addresses the question of why there is no remission of sin without blood, which is what Hebrews states. This website posits that it was not about sacrifice but about a Will (as in last will and testament), which is another analogy used by the author of Hebrews.
This does not explain that Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, nor the fact that the analogy of a last will and testament requires a death which in Jesus’ case certainly involved the shedding of blood. So the question remains, why does the remission of sin require blood.
Hebrews was quoting the Old Testament law which stated there was no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. This wasn’t a new concept, this was a law that God commanded Israel in regards to sacrifice. God himself said it is the lifeblood that makes atonement (Leviticus 17:11). God said the life of the creature is in the blood, so God absolutely did require life for sin. This was God’s curse from the very beginning, cursed unto sin and death. But it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that the payment of sins is met. A lamb slain without spot or wrinkle from the foundation of the world.
I re-read your initial comment and what I would like to add is that death ultimately is the only way we could have been redeemed. Without death and resurrection we would have been separated from God forever. The scriptures say all of creation was subjected unto futility against its well, and it eagerly waits for the sons of God to be revealed. This is about redemption, without death, without being born again into newness of life, we would never have had a way to be with God because God is perfectly righteous and without sin. Now God didn’t have to give Adam and Eve a law at all, but God desired to glorify himself. Without the law we would have never sinned, but without having sinned we would never have grasped mercy. Jesus said him who is forgiven little, loves little and the scriptures say God is love. And now having seen clearly the work of God from the very beginning through his Son we can know what love is, we can know God in a way even the angels did not.
The law of God is a law of love and God is love. There is nothing wrong with the law. The law existed before Adam and Eve. Lucifer first sinned. The law of God is intrinsic to creation, it is innately in everything and everyone that God made. To violate it is to develop a foreign nature that is outside of God. This is sin. The written law is simply words explaining the spiritual laws that are intrinsic to creation. Without the law nothing exists. Everything hangs on the law of God. God didn’t give Adam and Eve the law simply to glorify Himself. He is not arrogant. The law is glory and it existed and was obeyed even before created beings were fully cognizant of its existence. The creation exists by law/love. Without love there is only death and chaos.
Nakedness is never seen as a good thing. It is not. They were naked and unashamed, because they were covered with robes of light ✨ representing God’s righteousness. They lost those robes once they sinned, so then they needed clothing. But there was no need for clothes when you’re covered with light.
ok I’m not sure exactly what you are saying, but it sound like heresy to me.
In God’s Word here is what God says he accomplished specifically BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST: conscience purified, been brought near to God, ransomed from futile ways, freed us from our sins, the forgiveness of sins, cleanses us from all sin, the forgiveness of trespasses, redemption, robes washed white, ransomed for God, sins taken away
If you say God never ‘wanted blood’ ok that was not the original intent of his perfect creation, but because of sin there must be blood according to all these scriptures that speak of the blood.
yes, please read all of Hebrews, and see in 9 and 10, more in context, of why Jesus had to shed his blood to the death.
sins put away BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF
been offered once TO BEAR THE SINS OF MANY
we have been sanctified THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS
Christ had offered for all time A SINGLE SACRIFICE FOR SINS, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For BY A SINGLE OFFERING he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
how much more will THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, THROUGH HIS FLESH
outside of HEBREWS other scriptures (please look up in context):
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST
knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins BY HIS BLOOD
For Christ also SUFFERED ONCE FOR SINS, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God
For while we were still weak, at the right time CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY
HE HIMSELF BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY ON THE TREE, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS in accordance with the Scriptures
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for THIS IS MY BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out for many FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then CHRIST DIED FOR NO PURPOSE. O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was PUBLICLY PORTRAYED AS CRUCIFIED.
and THE BLOOD OF JESUS his Son cleanses us from all sin
In him we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.
John the Baptist, on first seeing Jesus said ‘Behold the LAMB OF GOD who takes away the sins of the world’
for you were slain, and BY YOUR BLOOD you ransomed people for God
John, it is probably not a good idea to call someone a heretic if you don’t know what they are saying…. but regardless, you bring up a point that others have stated as well. There are numerous other verses in the Bible that talk about the blood of Jesus. Those other texts require some explanation as well. I will write a blog post which does so. Stay tuned!
Amen, John S., don’t forget Isaiah 53 too!
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
~ Isaiah 53:5-6
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
~ Isaiah 53:10-12
Jeremy is a heretic in your mind, because you mistakingly think that he is speaking lightly and disrespectfuly of Jesus death. I think you are missing a big picture of God’s love. Few years ago I would have agreed with you 100%. Now I focus more on God’s love and am beginning to look at the same facts from perspective of love, not vengeance and retribution. It is not that God required blood – it is that we sinners wouldn’t approach Him without some compensation provided from our part for all our wrongdoings (and that compensation for serious crimes has to be, in our mind, a serious one: what is more serious than blood (life)of an innocent creature, in exchange for all our dirt and death we see in ourselves).But that is sinners perspective! Law is „not for the righteous“!! God is righteous! Law does not satisfy Him! Also, guilty people tend to run (away from God, not to Him). Throughout the OT blood seemed to be, in sinners mind, an agent to clear their sinners’ conscience, at least outwardly and temporarily. Blood of bulls and goats was actually ineffective in that sense, although it did give to religious minds sense of relief. The sense of need to pay the debt is simply ingrained in sinful humanity! (look at the 2nd debtor from Jesus’ story, the one who wouldn’t forgive the debt of his fellow man. But the owner forgave both, freely!). But blood of Jesus is effective. Why? NOT because God wouldn’t accept us without it, but because WE wouldn’t dare to approach Him without clear conscience or some compensation on our part. Blood is a concession to us sinners, not requirement of God! But how does it clear our conscience? Is it literal blood bath?! I believe not. I believe it „clears our conscience“ when we recognize the enormous love of God for us sinners (to the extent that He willingly and unconditionally gave His life for us) that such a love melts and influences our heart, making disappear our internal sense of guilt. It’s like our eyes get opened to the mercy that doesn’t require anything from us. Confronted with such enormous offer of love, our conscience gets unburdened, not because it is literaly washed by Christ’s blood, but figuratively: the realization that innocent blood of God’s Son was shed FOR ME, unconditionally, makes me aware of God’s love, makes me feel loved and accepted in God’s eyes. Again, NOT because I wouldn’t be accepted before God without blood – but without blood, without that extreme measure of sacrifice, it is ME, still sinner, who obviously WOULDN’T be ABLE to SEE that I am accepted!! The enormity of His gift, the extreme measure He took to show me how He loves me – cannot but open my eyes,heart and mind, which results in cleaning my conscience of all burdens and makes me run to God, not from Him. But our flesh and poisoned mind seems to prefer to embark on religious path, that’s the case with churchianity across the world. We think as if God, potentialy, puts another debt on our account, in form of Jesus sacrifice. Because WE religiously think like this: IF someone DOESN’T accept Christ – uuups – God just added to their enormous debt another debt, a HUUUGE one, the debt of Jesus blood, which makes them even more guilty and more burdened with SIN! But no. It’s a wrong view of God! We think of God’s free offer (forgiveness) as a potential debt (in case we refuse it)! Wrong! God is not a blackmailer. In psychology and psychiatrics it is called PROJECTIOn. We attribute to God our thinking and attitudes. Wrong. Jesus’ blood cleans our conscience in sense that it convinces us of love that does not condemn us. Does not. Period. God does not add to our account of guilt (in case we refuse Him).
“God does not add to our account of guilt (in case we refuse Him).”
If you refuse Christ Jesus’s blood sacrifice on the cross, then you perish. Eternally. What is the only sin that leads to eternal separation from God and our loved ones who pledge allegiance to Christ? Refusing Him!
Lol, as if I can’t read, “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission”, and cannot see the imputation of sin to Christ and the imputation of righteousness to faith. God clearly taught this from the beginning, when He slew an animal to cover Adam and Eve, when He received Abel’s sacrifice and instituted the Old Covenant, dripping with blood in Exodus and Leviticus. Christ died a substitute, a ransom, a curse. He bore the wrath of God, so that God could punish sin and forgive at the same time, raising Him from the dead as Lord. He is worthless if He doesn’t redeem, and if sin doesn’t need to be punished, then God has played the fool in giving His Son to die. I’m surprised to see otherwise orthodox men hold to teaching that violates the entire teaching of Hebrews. “This is the new testament in my blood”, “Drink you all of it”.
There is no denying the shedding of Christs blood put an end to the power of slavery to sin, power of death and power of satan. The issue of forgiveness is apparently the sticking point here and Tatjana has very well described how it has unfolded. God didnt want or need his Sons blood for forgiveness of us He was already willing to give it. It is us who couldnt accept forgiveness without blood because of the murder in all our hearts. The only person who wanted punishment and blood from what I can see was Calvin, his life reflected this in the many deaths he was involved in. His writings reflected his views. The first century Christians saw God through the eyes of Christ and only saw love not wrath or retribution. Look at the Greek meaning of Gods wrath in the context of what the NT originally said and it does mean what we think, it means God was extremely distressed over the consequences of the sin we commit not angry with us. Hence the need to end slavery to sin. This is the new testament in my blood”, “Drink you all of it” means all the above, freedom from slavery, power of death and Satan. Forgiveness is also there and comes from God. Nothing that Jeremy has said that I can see violates Hebrews
Is the Shedding of Blood Required for the Forgiveness of Sins?
Ephesians 1:7 – In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Colossians 1:14 – In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
I can drop a couple of proof texts with no explanation too!
“Can I kill my enemy’s babies and be blessed?”
Psalm 137:9 – How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your (Babylon) little ones
against the rock.
“Does the shedding of blood take away sins?”
Hebrews 10:4 – It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
“Did God command the Israelites to sacrifice?”
Jeremiah 7:22 – For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Context is everything. By the way, Jeremy isn’t arguing that blood doesn’t play a role in redemption (Christus Victor is a good example of an atonement theory that argues that blood plays an important role), but that blood is required to forgive. Ironically, the passage in Colossians you gave (in vs. 13) is used to argue for Christus Victor, and the “through his blood,” in that verse isn’t present in the most reliable ancient manuscripts…but that’s besides the point.
In Ephesians 1:7 I will highlight “according to the riches of his grace.” If he receives His payment of blood, is it forgiveness? If I pay off a credit card with another credit card, am I debt-free? No. It takes the release of a debt for it to be forgiveness, not the payment of it.
Not to mention, that in the OT, there was no sacrifice available for willful sins, only for sins one wasn’t aware of. For those willful sins, they had to rely on…
GRACE.
Personally, I do disagree with several of your points. I am neither Reformed or any other “Theology” though I see the value in each of these theologies to enhance or growth as God’s people and his kingdom! I see what you mean by saying in comparison to God sin is not a big deal for he is Holy and Righteous. However, this undermines what you have just admitted about God. Also too many scriptures both old and new refute this no matter if it is English, Hebrew, or Greek. Second, the point that God did not give the law and that he really did not require sacrfices is to throw out way too much scripture. I know the verses you are talking about, one in particular is the one from Psalm 51 when David says sacrfices you do not require but a broken and contrite heart. To interpret this from your view point is to complete miss the point of what David is attempting to say, for he later says, then you will be pleased with sacrifices. Key word being pleased. It is interesting here that he states specifically burnt offerings and whole burnt offering. These were NOT for sins but thanksgiving and offering made to God becuase he was God and they wanted to worship Him. Most of the time the other verses that you refer to say the same thing. The point David and the others are making and the NT makes as well in reference to even Jesus is that you can go through all the motions of God given things (works!) but if there is not a broken and crushed and humbled heart before God it is meaningless! He is attacking religion not the law or the sacrifices! Also you said that the law promised forgiveness, I get the point you are trying to make but any good Jew and any proper reading of the law can see this was not God’s final solution! Even the fact when the temple was destroyed and they worshipped in synagogues without sacrifices demonstrates that they grasped this point. They understood that this must be pointing to something bigger and better that could truly take care of the sin problem. As you have mentioned before they needed a better covenant and they knew this but the law was all they had and what pointed towards something better. Romans even states that in times past God looked over the sins! To say that the law promised forgiveness but did not give it is treading on dangerous ground. I get your point. Perhaps it is merely we have different ways of approaching it. Lastly, you seem to be saying that the cross was all about Christ’ death was to condemn our infatituation with death and blood. I get what you are saying, And completely agree with your point that Christ’s death and shedding of blood ushered in the New Covenant. However, this statement flows out of your belief that sin is not a big deal to God and yet, apparently this sin of pagan death and blood is a big deal to God, enough for God to give us an illustration of how much he hates it by shedding his own son’s blood. This actually contradicts your argument in my opinion. God hates the pagan concept of death and blood for forgiveness so i’m sending my son to die to reveal this to you. Now I believe in penal substitution atonement but I also believe in what you are saying in regards to the New covenant and the shedding of blood being needed to usher in that covenant. The thing is about the cross is that we often reduce it to one thing. We pick one verse(s) and build a whole theology upon it. But the cross and resurrection is so grand and huge and pivotal that the Bible does not reduce it to one element. The Bible is clear many times that we were children of wrath but that in Christ, we the unrighteous have become righteous in Christ. That he faced the death we deserved. The Hell we deserve (whatever you might think that looks like or is! ) How we also had an enemy that held a certifcate against us but Christ disarmed those authorities! We also had a enemy who caused us to fear and yet Jesus defeated this enemy as well. This is just the beginning! How do all this work, I cannot begin to understand of imagine but I do know this, Christ’s death was more than just to demonstrate God hated death and blood. It ushered in a new covenant, a righteousness becuase he took on my unrighteousness that cost him his death in my place (so sin is a big deal), God loved me so much that despite the fact I was his enemy (and he saw me in that way) he pursued me to make me right with him! This is love that despite my rebellion against him and how I deserve his wrath, He sent his son to die for me and usher in a new covenant of righteousness in Christ alone. I appreciate your points especially the one about the new covenant and a few others but in my opinion in your interest to demosntrate the value of hte cross and to shy away from sin and the wrath of God you have actually cheapened and devalued the Love God has for us. Something that from your writings I know you cherish and value immensly. Cheapening sin and God’s anger towards it only cheapened the cross and God’s love. (I know this sounds like it comes from my reformed background but believe me I am not reformed!)
The Law did not solve the problem. Ergo, Jesus had to 1) come to show what works , 2) give new commands centered on love of God the Father and Jesus the Son of God and 3) establish a new covenant as the ultimate solution to what to do about sin. Jesus is the solution and all that He had done and shown us is the truth.
No one could live under the law and you are correct that the Law did not fix the problem because the Israelites disobeyed God and wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. As a matter of fact, the Israelites’ sins were not forgiven but were rolled back a year according to Leviticus 16:15
The penalty for sin is death as sinners we all deserve to die but God in his mercy and grace sent his only son to take our punishment on himself.Though his blood we are forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness.When Christ spoke the words it is finished the term he used was a legal one that means the cancelling of a debt that was owed Christ paid our debt in full through his blood and death on the cross.brentnz
Sacrifice and blood shed stuff aside, why in first place did God go so angry on Adam and Eve? Disobedience to God’s word is a sin of course, which we know now because Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and from them we got this so called knowledge. But before eating that fruit neither do they know that it’s wrong to disobey God’s word. For they had no knowledge of good and evil. Now the point is why didn’t God give His free forgiveness to them considering this point that they had no knowledge on that, so that all these sins,laws stuff, sacrifices and blood shed wouldn’t have been now. Please clear this doubt of mine which always troubles me.
When our children disobey, how do we feel? We didn’t give our kids a reason, it was just do what you are told. God was angry maybe because of what Jesus would have to go through.
The shedding of blood was necessary. We don’t understand all of God’s reasons but it sure is made clear in the scriptures that Jesus is the only way into heaven.
Did you ever stop to think that the shedding of blood was for the sinner and not God. That man would not settle for anything less. All God ask is to believe that Jesus died for us. I think it is something man needed and not God. Whatever God wants its not up to us to say one way or the other.
They knew it was wrong to disobey God. That’s exactly why it is a sin, an intentional sin, because they knew it was wrong. It was a big deal because it was a simple command to obey, and disobeying it changed their nature and they also proved that they were untrustworthy.
Without the shedding of blood there is is no forgiveness. Yes this is true. The idea being that God demands justice, if He didn’t, meaning there is no penalty for sin then God is not being faithful to Himself and we know this isn’t so. So… For God to be just, exacting punishment for sin by the shedding blood I.e. Death, has to occur. Since God wants people to be with Him and all people’s sin must be punished to be be consistent with Himself, justice. The only way to do that was for He, Himself, through Jesus to pay the price demanded, death. Since the price was paid at the cross and God has the power over death, He is able to raise Jesus from the dead now having paid the price for our sin Himself. God is now able to offer mercy for our sin knowing that Justice has been served by Jesus death. And so God can forgive us of our sins because the penalty of sin has been exacted. There will be a penalty for sin, either we pay the penalty ourselves or we depend on Jesus to pay it in our stead. The choice is ours of course.
You are correct that the blood of Christ forgives sins and Hebrews 9:22 makes a pound. The author is clearly in error. As Hebrew 9:22 indicates; Without the shedding of the blood (which is CHRIST’S blood), there is no forgiveness and make no mistake about it. Plus Romans 5:9 clearly states that we are saved from the wrath of God through Him, period. And you are right about the penalty of sin. Either we choose to pay it ourselves which is the hard way or we depend on Jesus to pay it for us which is the easy way and you are right it is our choice. Plus, Jesus’ blood is sufficient enough for me, no matter how often I make mistake.
If God ALWAYS forgiveness sin…the Jesus died in vain. The sprinkling of blood could not cleanse the conscience. That is never mentioned in this post which reopens this post to scrutiny. When reading this I thought it was from a Universalist web site. The Most Holy of Holies, All Things of that Place, the actions taken in it..and the High Priest Himself are in ‘Truth”…Christ Jesus our High Priest. Hebrews 9: 21In the same way, he sprinkled with blood the tabernacle and all the vessels used in worship. 22 According to the Law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 23 So it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.…Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement (I do get the inference that bringing other things up , opens up a whole new can of worms every time, so to speak); on the other hand, it is true today that God does not want our blood. Why did God set up a sacrificial system if He didn’t want blood to begin with is another long course..it’s all types of Christ summed up..if the argument on the other hand is people talking about a blood thirsty God, then points well taken..to me (only) it’s just the way it’s been phrased in the writing that was disconcerting. (and I did see what was written in regard to the word ‘forgiveness’ in the writing, though it never mentions atonement, justification, or reconciliation.
Exactly. In the Old Testament; the sprinkling of the blood did not wipe out sin. It just delayed it for a year.
With Christs blood that was shed for us that pays for our forgiveness.
just because pagans sacrifice to false gods doesn’t mean the true God is no better for requiring blood shed. Go back to Abraham and his deep sleep, and the fact that God made clothes for Adam and Eve, pretty sure it was animal hide, and God didn’t crochet a cotton outfit. Perhaps this first covering put the idea into man’s head, but it still originates from an action God took because of sin.
additionally, if anything the pagans stole the idea from Israel and it perverted into other things, like children or chickens to appease a god.
fyi jeremy here is my reply to hebrews 9:22 live feed. ty
fyi, please friend me so I can comment on live streams.
Really good episode.
Thanks!
yes, now I can comment here. I’ll try the live feed next time.
Glad to hear it!
I think Peter Ruckman called this the bloodless gospel way back in the 70’s
The blood of Jesus is central to how I understand the biblical gospel, so I definitely don’t have a bloodless gospel.
if I understand correctly, the blood of bulls and goats covered but never completely eliminated sin. Because Jesus is perfect, His one time death, perfect blood shed not only eliminates sin from the believer completely, but also ended forever the ritual of sacrifices.
Deby Crabtree Simpson I think It’s Romans 3:25 that says God set forth a propitiation by faith in his blood. Cain’s sacrifice was rejected Abel’s was not ..blood. Esau was rejected…no blood. Abraham…blood. Adam and Eve….blood. Issac…a lamb…blood Passover…a lamb….blood. Judgement poured out on all those who didn’t have the blood. Before the Law of Moses men couldn’t come to God without a blood sacrifice. Under the O.T. it’s all about the blood atonement. Lev 4 the man puts his hand on the head of the lamb, slits its throat, the priest catches the blood in a cup and pours it on the altar. The entire OT, no one can come to God without a blood sacrifice. In the NT Jesus is our blood sacrifice. We cannot come to God any way but through the blood of Jesus. Jesus was even sweating blood in the garden. That’s why Paul preached Christ crucified. All through the bible blood was a foreshadowing of Jesus on the cross and his ultimate sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
I haven’t read everything on this but I will when I have more time.
Been in church all my life. I believe and have a relationship with Jesus and the Father. But I had this thought. Having to have the shedding of blood for salvation seems so barbaric. Why would God demand this?
When He said we should not kill.
Who said you should shed your blood? Where is that in the Bible? Only Jesus had to shed his blood for our sins. He never required you to do the same, otherwise he would not have come to die a cruel death on the cross. Now, why blood is needed for our forgiveness is another question. We would have to answer many questions that we shouldn’t like: Why do we have to breath? Why weren’t we created in such a way that we wouldn’t require breath? And that stupid questions that have no meaning to be asked in the first place.
Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk?’ 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.
Yeshua’s blood was not required to forgive sin.
For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Heaven and Earth haven’t passed away so the Torah (law) isn’t obsolete. Its this law that will be written on the hearts.
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
He didnt say “hey they are abolished or obsolete”.
He summarized them into 2 categories. The 1st 4 commandments are about loving YeHoVaH and the next six people.
Very good points, and texts, Lee. Thank you!
I can see how your answer would satisfy people who believe. But this is one reason among many for why I doubt the existence of the biblical god. The doctrine is an absurdity as I cannot believe a wise loving god would not understand how such an absurd idea would cause doubt for the rest of us living on Earth, nearly 70 percent of the current population. For those of us unconvinced that Jesus even existed, the belief that we will be punished for being honest in our doubt is very absurd. If it was true, then why would the blood of Christ not cover all humanity’s sins regardless of belief? Why not universal salvation especially if eternal hell was real.
Mark there is two issues here. Firstly history is a great teacher and therefore when you consider the historic writings, eye witness accounts of both friend and foes of Jesus, there is more evidence of his existence than there is for Julius Caesar. About 25 yrs ago the Supreme court of the US was convened with a defense and persecution team and a jury of non believers to consider the facts of this case. Did he exist, die on cross and was he the son of God. All the evidence was considered and at the end of the trial, the jury found it was all true, and a number of them converted to Christianity. Secondly Jesus dying on the cross was for everyone and his sacrifice is for everyone. But its a gift. It can be accepted or rejected through a persons free will. God provides uncontrolling love to all and the gift of free will which he never treads on. Its there if you want it.
It takes faith to doubt. You have to be convinced that something is wrong, which of itself takes a lot of faith. Secondly, if you pour a colorant into a glass of water is stains the whole glass not just part of it. That’s what sin did, it stained everybody.
If your problem with God is that he requires faith from you and you feel inadequate it’s because you need evidence for your faith. People saw Jesus in the flesh and still did not believe. They saw Lazarus raised from the dead and still did not believe. Lastly Jesus said “Blessed are those who believe without seeing”. That’s why it’s called faith.
Universal salvation is true and eternal hell is not.
A lot of questions have been answered here, but so far not the original question “why blood.”
The issue of sacrifice is NOT just shedding of blood, but DEATH; specifically shed blood unto death at the hands of another; and in the form of a punishment; and that punishment of an innocent being without blemish.
If it was just shedding blood they could’ve cut into an animal let it bleed, use that blood, but let the animal live. If it was just shedding of blood unto death, Jesus could’ve fallen on his sword; If it was just death, then strangulation or even natural death would’ve sufficed. If it was just inheritance, then any death could’ve sufficed, even natural causes, since shedding of blood to the point of death is not required
for an inheritance. And “an eye for an eye” does not suffice because the sacrifice is blameless.
There is much more to this quest…
And so far, the answer of “why blood?” has not yet been answered.
There is something very unique and different about the physical Blood of Jesus. Not just His Blood but the Blood of His Death.
You touched upon “life is in the blood,” but did not go far enough but should’ve because therein lies the key to the answer.
Keep seeking and ye shall find!
Onward to the answer “why blood?”
But not just blood, the question should really be WHY INNOCENT BLOOD?
One can never say everything in a single post. But the question you ask is answered elsewhere on this blog, and also in my book, “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.”
You, sir, are off your rocker. You should read 1 John 1:7 and leave the theological backflips where they belong… the garbage.
You, sir, should think before you judge. I obviously have read 1 John 1:7. I have even studied it in the Greek and taught it dozens of times to various audiences. I’ve written on it as well. So rather than judge, you should recognize that I have a different way of understanding 1 John 1:7, and maybe seek to understand what it is.
I really appreciate the original language expositions. Thanks.
To me, the crux of the debate over Atonement theology might be summarized as follows:
If we refuse to metaphysically “die to our sin” then the blood of Christ means nothing to us (see Hebrews 10:26-31).
The concept of cheap grace (which the PSA has the potential to foster) relies on distracting our attention from our absolute need to “die to sin” by emphasizing a presumed need for God to obtain a payment, penalty or death for sin. We should never get the “to” and the “for” mixed up. Hebrews 6:1 reveals the true “foundation” of “elementary teachings about Christ” involves “repentance from dead works”. Amazingly, it does NOT say that the foundation is forgiveness from sin or from the penalty which God wants to dole out for sin. James 1:15-17 makes it clear that the natural end-result of sin is death.
I believe that God forgives many people of their sins but since those people do not effectively repent and abandon the path of death, the forgiveness thus means nothing to them and it accomplishes nothing for them except perhaps a false sense of security. When Atonement is made out to be all about a legal ledger of some sort, ethereal accountings for “sins”, and about judicial punishments or substitute punishments, then it distracts the focus from the location of the real problem: our heart, mind, soul, will and conscience. King David saw through the metaphors and symbolism very well in Psalms 51:16-17.
Paul also spoke of a “sacrifice” in Romans 12:1-2 but it was not the old bloody symbolism of the Mosaic system, or even of the symbolic blood of Christ, but what he referred to there is what was actually behind both of those symbolic “bloods”. The true meaning was never meant to reside in the literal, but instead, entirely in the reality which must be found behind the symbolism.
If we miss this then we succumb to innumerable rabbit trails of inaccurate theology and of distorted views of God’s character. The seemingly reliable concrete and tangible elements of Atonement must be “sacrificed” or given up to the abstract and intangible concepts and principles behind them. In other words, Paul might say that we must move from the “milk” to the “meat”. Ironically, when we allow ourselves to become enamored by the milk and by the tangible concrete elements of biblical symbolism, it becomes easier to view others as “heretics”. Hence, when we are tempted to call someone else a heretic, we might well examine our own beliefs. Maybe it is we who have failed to digest the real meat.
The word wasn’t given to gentiles to understand. The word was given to the Jew first, and also tried the Greek. Meaning you have to cling to the Jews if you don’t know who they are or accept them how would you accept the messiah when he came for the lost sheep to began with and to the gentile whom would accept him. The messiah was the law in the flesh he walked it perfectly. We keep the law walking in the spirit and not the flesh and when we fail because we’re not walking in the spirit we ask the messiah for forgiveness and continue the walk in the spirit. The law was perfect but man can’t keep the law without the messiah. And it wasn’t to say so long to the covenant because the Jews / Israelites have an everlasting covenant with our Elohim
Hi Jeremy,
Do you believe God/Jesus bought us with His own blood (Acts 20:28)?
Also, do you accept that Jesus’ blood cleanses us of ALL sins? (1 John 1:7)?
And further more God NOT tell the people of Israel to build a Temple and make sacrifices. look at Jeremiah: 7:22 in the KJV bible.
I get what you’re saying, but I do have one question for you. Now I have not studied in a seminary and I don’t have the background in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic Text. If sin was not such a big deal, than why did God just not forgive Adam and Eve of their transgression? Then we would still be living in our utopian garden. Why did God have to cover their nakedness with animal clothing and banish them?
What a great question that illuminates some crucial issues. Do you think that Adam and Eve repented? Does blaming someone else equate to repentance or instead to defiance and rebellion? Maybe God did have an attitude of forgiveness… but it could not be received, because of unbelief and other bad attitudes. Have you ever considered that question of “if you are forgiven, does that automatically make you a trustworthy person?” I would suggest that the primary problem with “sin” is not what God says but what we say—not God’s attitude but our attitudes. In John 9:39, Jesus said that he came “for judgment”, that the “blind” might see… And what did humanity need to see? The false gospel says that we needed to see that God is so angry with our sin that He needed some kind of bloodshed and death, in order to forgive us. The correct Gospel point out that God IS forgiving, by nature (Psalms 86:5, 1st Corinthians 13, etc.) and that the real problem with sin is that is creates destruction, by natural consequences – destruction of relationships and then everything else. And the only cure for this is a restored faith-relationship with God. Notice that the word forgive is conspicuously absent from John 3:16, John 17:3 and so many others. The crucial redemptive element is a transformation of our hearts from rebellion to trust in God. And when we trust, we naturally begin to escape from the natural consequences of sin.
L.D great response. It was always the violence in our own hearts that called for blood sacrifices or scapegoating. The false doctrine you mention is reason why the institutional church has lost its salt. Who wants to follow a hateful and angry God.
Maybe this Analogy will help:
Sin is ‘cancer’ of our souls. The law serves to diagnose our ‘disease’ (but it can never cure our cancer). Our condition is terminal, not because of any dictates of the medical chart or the Doctor. It is simply a natural fact. Sin causes a terminal condition of the heart, and that is what we need a cure for. Ultimately, we needed a heart transplant. Jesus was that transplant. This is not true on account of him “keeping the law” but because he didn’t need the law. He did not need the diagnostic tools which detect sin. Why? He maintained a perfect faith-relationship with the Father at all times—the source of a pure heart. So why did Jesus need to die? Because OUR beliefs about “justice” demanded it, not his. God decided to allow humanity to flex its judicial muscles in OUR futile attempts to scapegoat the sin problem. We accused Jesus of being a law-breaker and a blasphemer, worthy of a law-dictated and law-imposed death. God allowed US to do this because God knew that WE did not understand how to forgive others or truly love others. We did not know what that “looked like”, in real life and real time. It was only as we beheld God the Father and son displaying the ultimate love and forgiveness, even in the face our injustice to them, that we could begin to receive the heart transplant. The ultimate display of love and forgiveness was to “give up” life (i.e. “sacrifice” life) in order for the heart transplant to save others. And “God was IN CHRIST, reconciling the world unto himself…” (2nd Corinthians 5:19). Hence, God the Father essentially participated in suffering from our false-justice, so that He could convince us and the universe of its falseness, and lead us into His restorative justice. “The Blood” is merely a metaphor to indicate this restorative justice and this transplant process. It was always about the metaphor, not the literality (i.e. see Psalms 51:16-17, Isaiah 1:11, Hosea 6:6, etc.). This is a liberating and transformative view of God’s character. This is the true Good News or Gospel. Certainly, God is disturbed by our cancer condition. And He is disturbed when that condition hurts others. Love seeks to cure the cancer, whenever and wherever possible… and where that fails, Love will ultimately act to protect the innocent.
Why do you equate Christ shedding His blood for us on the Cross with “a hateful and angry God?” Someone earlier said something about Calvin killing people and implying that the belief in the need for shedding of blood as the reason he killed people. I’m too lazy to scroll back up and find the post.
I don’t view God as “hateful and angry” when I believe that Christ died for all sinners and that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins.
I view Him as merciful and loving because Christ made the ultimate sacrifice: He became a man, lived a sinless life, and died for me so that I may have life.
I don’t need to know the answer to every single question. Can we, in this life, ever know the answer to every single theological question? I simply believe God and have put my faith in Christ Jesus. I pledge allegiance to Him every single day and hopefully that decision is reflected in my daily life.
Sin is a big deal because it changes our nature and makes us untrustworthy. Adam and Eve could not even repent without the grace of God. They developed a nature of both good and evil.
So Christ’s physical death on the cross was completely unnecessary… only His spiritual death was??? …so why didn’t God just “turn His back” for three days and then it would be finished… NO NEED FOR THE CROSS???
Johan,
I don’t know of anyone saying what you seem to suggest here. the best summary of the Cross I have heard recently said that “The Cross is not ONE thing, it is MANY things”. This eluded to the fact that the subject is complex, with great subtleties and nuances which are not served well by the use of reductionism or simple-mindedness. May I suggest the following verses for careful study, so as to illuminate this topic — Hebrews 8:13, Romans 7:1-6, 5:13, Galatians 5:1, 3:19, Hebrews 2:14-17, 12:1-2, Colossians 2:13-16, Revelation 12:10-12, Ephesians 2:15, Philippians 2:12-13, Hebrews chapter 8-9, 2nd Corinthians 3:3,6-7, and the entire book of Galatians, especially regarding the retiring of “the schoolmaster” or pedagogue, as connected to the “death of the testator” in Hebrews.
Thank you Jeremy for the exegesis. God did not need the blood of his son to appease himself; He is not a Lamia. Also, I believe Jesus did not ‘die for sin’ but Jesus did die ‘because of sin’. It was through the wickedness of man that Jesus died the time he did. It was man that killed him, not God. If Jesus Christ was a man, (that he actually was), of course he would still die anyway, but perhaps not as early as he did. But for the single fact that Jesus allowed himself to be killed when he could in fact have disappeared, or incapacitated his killers, he thereby saved his disciples from being killed; otherwise, how would the gospel have reached us today. By this, I believe Jesus ‘died for us’, not that he would shed his blood for sin.
Just for a wider perspective on things, here are a couple of verses on salvation which do not mention blood at all:
“…humbly accept the word God has planted in your hearts, for it has the power to save your souls” (James 1:21, NLT).
“Since you have purified your souls by obedience to the truth so that you have a genuine love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from a pure heart” (1st Peter 1:22, BSB).
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Also John 1:10 onwards, But to as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. Who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
So the Word was made flesh, and the life of the flesh in the blood. So the Word gave His blood. It seems like there is a meeting of two worlds and an exchange taking place. A redemption of those who are made of flesh and blood who were the captives of Satan. Blood is required to redeem us from sin caused by Satan because we are made of flesh and blood and the life is in the blood. Maybe it is that simple. If we were not made of flesh and blood, then blood would not be required.
If another class of created beings had sinned – AND were redeemable, maybe something else would be required.
You say that “ God wanted faith, humility, mercy, and righteousness, which are the things the law could not provide.” I disagree on this, these are things that the law actually demands. If you look at the law you will see that it requires faith to carry out the works of the law (is James ringing a bell?), you will also see that it requires humility (love your neighbor as yourself), mercy (helping your enemy), and righteousness, which is nothing more than following in the ways of God, which are described as His laws, His commandments, His instruction (Psalm 119 for inspiration). The animal sacrifice was a type and shadow, and enacted by God from the beginning when he sacrificed an animal to provide a covering for Adam and Eve after they sinned. God offers forgiveness freely, but to be allowed in His presence we have to be purified and washed clean by blood of atonement. This is why the High Priest had to have blood sprinkled on him before entering the holy of holies. God’s ultimate plan is that we will be spending forever in His presence (the holy of holies), but while He has forgiven us, it requires a blood sacrifice to purify us. That’s where Jesus (Yeshua) steps in. Also note that Jesus not only showed us how God wants us to live, but He did so by following the complete covenantal law of God as given to Moses at that time. He was required to as a matter of fact. How do I know this? The Bible is clear that Jesus lived a life without sin, which is breaking the law of God. That law was still in effect, which means He lived it without breaking it. He also never taught against it, but only man’s interpretation of it (the Talmud). He also said that He did not come to change the law in even the slightest matter (Matthew 5), but to fully teach it, or declare it (fulfill). He did this by living it.
So, where does that leave us? After Jesus died, we are still expected to follow in His footsteps to live a life that is pleasing to God. Jesus lived by Torah. The Torah is God’s instruction manual for how to love Him and how to love others. It’s our basic education on those two subjects of you will. Galatians should be chiming in you war right now about the “law being a schoolmaster…”! Yes, that’s correct. The law shows us how to live a life that is pleasing to God. When we look at it we should know that we cannot ever live a life like that without His help. God forgives us when we fail to meet His standards, but to spend forever with Him we have to become holy like He is holy, and this can only be done when we are washed clean through the atoning blood of Jesus.
Nothing in there says we stop trying to live the law, only that we are forgiven when we don’t. After all, it is God who decided what is good, what is righteous, what is sin, and what is not. And we only know this through the law (Romans 7).
Ben,
I said that the law could not “provide” those things. I would not deny that the law “demanded” many things, even under threat of punishment… but that does not mean that those things were attainable through a focus on compliance to law. Nor does it mean that law and compliance to law were ever God’s primary or ultimate concern or agenda. Notice that in Galatians, Paul never equates “the schoolmaster” with the Father. They are separate entities, for a reason. It’s a liberating thought.
Nor does it mean that literal blood was ever God’s primary or ultimate concern or agenda. Notice a few key verses:
“For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors…” (1st Peter 1:18, NLT).
“So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord. And the Lord—who is the Spirit—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image” (2nd Corinthians 3:18, NLT).
I want them to be encouraged and knit together by strong ties of love. I want them to have complete confidence that they understand God’s mysterious plan, which is Christ himself (Colossians 2:2, NLT).
This same Good News that came to you is going out all over the world. It is bearing fruit everywhere by changing lives, just as it changed your lives from the day you first heard and understood the truth about God’s wonderful grace (Colossians 1:6, NLT).
If God’s primary or ultimate agenda was really the written law and/or literal blood then He would not have paid the ransom but instead demanded and received the ransom. Yet, that message is incoherent, when viewed against 1st Peter 1:18, Hebrews 2:14-17, Colossians 2:13-16, Romans 7:1-6 and Ephesians chapter 2 and 2nd Corinthians chapter 3 and Hebrews 8:13 interpreted by Deuteronomy 4:13 and 5:1-22 and 27:26 and 28:15 and 31:26 and Galatians 3:10, 13, 19, 24 and John 1:17, Luke 16:16 and Matthew 11:13, 28-29 and Acts 15:10 and Hebrews chapters 8-9 regarding the “death of the testator” (of the covenant, the law).
Notice that John 1:17 does not equate “the law” with God but with Moses. This is a key interpretive principle when reading all of John’s writings. In 1st John chapter 3, for example, John gives us a definition of “the commandments of God” or “God’s commandments”. The same definition needs to be applied to the book of Revelation, where it also refers to “the commandments of God”. This was written around 95AD, not 1300 or more BC. It was not written by Moses but by the pen of John, “the beloved disciple” who spent 3 and a half years in the very presence of our Lord—the one who came to bring new “government”, as prophesied by Isaiah.
Instead of eagerly discovering the new governance, so many Christians are stuck in the old governance which Moses mediated. In John chapter 9, the “disciples of Moses” were so stuck that instead of seeing Jesus as the Messiah, proven by the healing of a paralyzed man (something never before seen), they instead condemned Jesus because he had “broken” their precious law by working on the Sabbath day.
All true LD. The Law was tied to Moses who had the job of placing it in the hands of the Hebrews. It was given to try and control their behaviour as they did not want that close relationship with God and in so avoiding a loving relationship with Him and each other. They were violent just like their neighbours. On the other hand redemption and deliverance is tied to God the Son Jesus who brought the new covenant to the world based on love, mercy, forgiveness and grace. His crucifixion demonstrated it was us who demanded his death because of the murder in our hearts to be our escape goat not God the Father. Jesus disarmed the Satanic Kingdom, took possession of the keys of death and hell on this earth and broke the slavery of sin that came through Adam and Eve. Thus as it is written Christ is more than sufficient for all of us in this life and the next.
One of the most amazing and ironic proofs that literal blood was never desired by God, in order for us to make peace (to “atone”) with Him is the Scapegoat ceremony described in Leviticus chapter 16. This represented the culmination and pinnacle of all the other ceremonies involving sacrifices. All the “sins” of the people were symbolically transferred to the head of this goat and then it was banished from their society – sent into the wilderness. It was not killed. No blood-letting was necessary. And yet, apparently, it accomplished what all the previous blood-shedding and killing could not do. Think about the significance of that!!!
The “sacrifice” of lambs and other animals was only a symbol of the repentant person giving up (sacrificing) their sin, their rebellion. It was a tangible symbol of repentance and humility, on an individual level. It meant that the person desired to expel sin from their life (i.e. “create in me a clean heart, oh God – Psalms 51).
The Scapegoat ceremony represented the same dynamic on a corporate level. And in Psalms 51:16 and 40:6 we read how King David understood that the symbols were only symbols and not what God was really interested in. It has always been about our heart. To literalize the blood is to miss the point and to misunderstand the heart of God. The things which are truly required for us to make peace with God (and with ourselves) are the recognition that we need forgiveness, and a humble and repentant attitude, also willing to forgive others. It’s just that simple, isn’t it?
True but in trying to achieve that, often people do it in their own strength so they either fail or become self righteous achieving some form of humility but not Godly. Its God the Holy Spirit that leads us to repentance and forgiveness we choose to do it or not. Ultimately though if we simply pursue a close relationship with Christ, humility and repentance are a by product of that. So it seems to me by focusing on Christ, be led by the spirit, walk in the spirit and rest follows.
I liked your comment very much and I have thought about this concept a lot. In addition to the sacrifice of animals being a symbol of repentance and humility before God, which you describe very well here, I think it also reflected obedience, which was a requirement by God in order for the Jews to receive His blessings and protection in the Old Covenant. I am also reminded of 1Samuel 15:22 “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” If human beings had listened to and obeyed everything that God had said and commanded of them from the beginning, there would never have been any need for blood sacrifices at all. “The life is in the blood). I remember when God had to kill animals in order to provide Adam and Eve with their first clothing which provided them with God’s (physical) covering and protection, but was also a spiritual symbol of man’s sin and God’s provision. Since mankind was (is) born in a state of sin from Adam forward, humans have been incapable of obeying God (and as a consequence, hurtful toward one another),thus the sacrifices proved to be a necessary reminder to His people that they were indeed sinful and in need of forgiveness and redemption which God provided in the Final Act of the Redemption of Mankind, and in His perfect timing, through the once-and-for-all blood sacrifice of the One Unblemished and Perfect Lamb of God. “The life is in the blood.” His was the only perfect blood that came from God Himself at Christ’s miraculous conception. One perfect life’s blood (or death) in exchange for the eternal lives in heaven of every human being who believes in what God has done (“whosoever will”) is an offer that humans cannot refuse and would be foolish to do so, and one that believers will be eternally and sincerely thankful to God for in the forever future.
God bless!
-Pam from Seattle
The law never said healing could not be done on the Sabbath or that healing was work. That’s human Levitical tradition added to the law. There was nothing wrong with the law of God, and it cannot be eliminated. In fact, one of the reasons why Jesus died was to show that God’s law is perfect and cannot be changed. The law shows us God’s character. It is a law of love.
Absolutely spot-on. That’s the workings and the glory of the Gospel. And it’s why the New Covenant is really new, since the time that he walked among us in the flesh. As seen at the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah have nothing to do but pass the baton of authority and gracefully bow out.
This is fantastic, Jeremy. Wish I had seen this sooner. I’m sharing it on the Raising Hell Book Group page on Facebook (are you a member?) Thanks!
Hi Julie,
I’m not! But I just asked to join!
You’ve done an excellent job deconstructing this old canard.
I’d go further. This book is missionary philosophy and should not be taken literally. It is a case example of tailoring one’s arguments to fit a given belief system to get one’s foot in the door. Consider it a missionary manual. It should not be considered scripture in the same way the Gospels are. Much of Paul — if by convention we are going to call this a letter of Paul’s, which like Timothy and Titus it most certainly is not — stylistically it doesn’t read as Paul, who is far more dialectical and ironic in his rhetoric — is an attempt to fathom the horror of the Messiah executed by the Roman Empire. How does one wrap one’s head around that?
How lovely so many authors have shared with us the way they reconciled it for their time and framework. But I am not bound by that derivative theology in the LEAST. That’s a frequent mistake of Christianity, putting the cart before the horse, the secondary before the primary. Gospels first and interesting interpretations for consideration later. Of course there are moments when I recognize the Holy Spirit popping up here and there in these interpretations, because all literature, as II Timothy says (all literature, not just holy writ), is profitable.
Your interpretation of the blood sanctification of the tabernacle as a manumission ceremony that inaugurated these people as a people unto their own with a law taking them out of the jurisdiction of the Egyptians is a fascinating anthropological suggestion. Perhaps Egyptian law and religion needs to be studied further to see if there are hints amongst their priesthood that this kind of rite would have had to be respected amongst them. We would have to study their policies towards foreign peoples especially in the land.
‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.’
‘We’ reconcile nothing. ‘We’ need to do what the Word of God says: ‘repent and believe the Gospel’. ‘We’ are His workmanship, not the authority. He is the Lord, our Maker.
Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. That was not written by Paul. Even if you ignore the verse in question, and books written or said to be written by Paul, this statement and many others from the gospels and Revelation takes us right back to the Old Testament with the very detailed sacrificial system, and raises many questions. Our job as flesh and blood is to repent and believe so the Holy Spirit can revive us and we can be born again and grow in grace and the knowledge of God.
You’re premise from the start is wrong! Why did David say in Psalm 51, when repenting for his sin with Bathsheba,… against thee, meaning God, and thee only have I sinned. All sin is ultimately against God. The standard of righteousness is God or its meaningless. We might as well be simply saying we’re sorry when we offend someone. Remission means it’s removed from our account. We’re all sinners so we cannot remit our friends sins. All our sins are still recorded in God’s accounting books so they don’t go away simply by apologizing when we offend one another. The whole context of Hebrews is Christ’s priestly work on our behalf on the cross. The blood from all the animals sacrificed in OT times for peoples sins was symbolic because it was a picture of the blood of Christ that alone can remit sins Heb. 9:11-12…. The blood of the Holy spotless lamb of God, Jesus Christ, was exactly and precisely the only way our sins can be forgiven
Certain key questions about atonement and blood become illuminated by Church history–i.e. by the Catholic institution of “indulgences”. Calvin and Luther “protested” (hence, the word protest-ant) this system. Why? Didn’t this system presume that the primary issue with “sin” was a legal-penal one–a need to mitigate God’s attitude/mind/heart towards our sin? Ironically as it may seem, the legal-penal model of atonement (PSA theory) commits exactly the same ideological error. The false idea is that atonement is all about changing God instead of changing us (changing His wrath or His “justice” or His legal record, etc. instead of changing and transforming our mind/heart/soul). Now, which of these options do you suppose that Satan wants to distract us from, by causing us to focus on the other one?
What in your view how does one become born again?
How do you reconcile your point that blood is not required for remission of sin with Matthew 26:28? What is Jesus saying in Matthew 26:28 please?
What does the word remission (of sin) really mean? (i.e. Mark 1:4, 15, etc.) The root word of remission is remit. I often receive bills which say; “remit payment to ____”. Remit means that I must give up something (money). The bill never gets erased by the company saying; “O.K., we will remit the payment” (which would mean paying themselves with their own money!). They might simply cancel or forgive the payment but it is ludicrous to think of them paying themselves with their own money, for something that they did not owe. And yet, so many people falsely view atonement as God (Christ) paying God (the Father) for a debt that God was holding against humans. They then fail to follow the deductive reasoning to its natural conclusion—that God the Father was hence requiring this “payment”, meaning the death of Christ, in order to cancel the debt. In other words, the reasoning ends up inferring that God killed Christ in order to cancel a “debt” which He might instead have simply forgiven, as shown in the Matthew 18 parable, the Prodigal son parable and in Jesus’ declarations to the woman caught in adultery (John 8) and many others examples of Jesus offering forgiveness without any mention, qualification or requirement of blood “payment”. When, all along, the key concept of “remission of sin” is that we sinners need to be convinced to “give up” (remit) our love-affair with sin. Notice that the historic foundations of the word “redeem” (Exodus 21:8) is about a servant changing masters. Romans chapter 6 reiterates this theme, this Hebrew idiom over and over. Redeeming us is all about getting us to WANT to, and to freely choose to change masters—changing from being a slave to sin to being a “servant” of God, which means being His son or daughter. The legal-penal model completely misses this point… and in fact works to subvert it, through distraction of ideas which also serve to distort God’s true character and purposes.
Wonderful analysis on what has been a tricky verse! As usual translation and context shine a lot of light. Thank you for sharing. Was not surprised to see a link to Brad Jersak at the end 🙂
Glad I found your website, I look forward to reading more.
Nice Sermon. I really glad that Jesus died for us and that God is willingly to forgive us.
Hi!
I am curious because my husband says that in John 3:16 the translation of “world” actually means nation of Israel. Is this true? And how would that change what you have said about Jesus’ death being the new covenant for the world? Thank you!
1 Corinthians 15
King James Version
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
I believe we are saved by grace through faith in the death, burial, resurrection on the 3rd day, and the forgiveness of sins by the blood atonementwith the finished work of Jesus on the cross.
You can believe whatever you wish… but I think faith in the blood atonement for the forgiveness of sin is an essential requirement for salvation.
1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Romans 3:25
Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Acts 20:28
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:20
And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Ephesians 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Hebrews 10:12
But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
Hebrews 10:19
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus.
Hebrews 9:12
He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Hebrews 9:14
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Leviticus 17:11
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”
Matthew 26:28
“For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood.
Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”
Romans 5:9
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Shotgun hermeneutics does not prove a point.
Would you agree that some people interpret Hebrews 9:22 as ostensibly saying that God cannot forgive (or refuses to) unless and until punishment is administered, specifically “shedding of blood”, meaning death? Doesn’t this belief about God’s basic character and attributes conflict dramatically (and dangerously) with so many other scriptures which speak to us about God’s gracious, generous and unselfish nature, which includes an inherent attitude of forgiveness (unless or until that forgiveness is abused—i.e. Matthew 18, etc.)? I’m thinking of numerous cases where God the Father and/or Jesus apparently forgave people before they even asked for any forgiveness. Perhaps the critical aspect here is not the giving of forgiveness or the ostensible receiving of it, but instead; the question of what we do with it (i.e. like what the servant in Matthew 18 did with it, versus what the woman caught in adultery did with it). When we yearn for God to re-create in us a “clean heart” (Psalms 51), we are doing the right thing with the forgiveness that God already gave us. And perhaps when our mind and soul are not transformed by God’s grace, the problem resides with our lack of effective use of God’s forgiveness, not with a lack of His forgiveness being offered. Isn’t this view of God’s character so much more winsome than the twisted idea of a Cosmic Punisher who is obsessed with blood? Which view of God’s character more effectively “draws” us to God? And which view of God do you suppose Satan likes to promote… even within churches? It’s rather sobering, isn’t it?
Each of these verses deserves proper exposition. And among other things, one must decide if the reference to “blood” is literal versus metaphoric. So, take Hebrews 9:14 for example. Our conscience (an intangible thing) is “cleansed” by “the blood”. Is “blood” here meant to be literal? Is that even possible—to actually cleanse, meaning to make something clean, with literal blood? Have you ever tried that?
A similar question must be asked about Revelation 12:11. Is it literal blood that the saints use to “overcome” Satan? Such thoughts call for a great deal of mystical or magical type thinking. The more biblically-consistent and logical answer to me is that the blood here (as in many other places) is figurative.
Now, if anyone wants to really go deep and drill down of the key question—”what was the primary purpose of the Cross?” – then please correlate the following verses and provide a logical and consistent exegesis:
Acts 5:31 says that the purpose was to “bring Israel to repentance…”
Colossians 2:15 says that the Cross “openly shamed the principalities and powers”
Colossians 1:20 says the purpose was to “reconcile all things to himself” and to “make peace” with everything (meaning everyone?) including heavenly as well as earthly beings.
1st Peter 1:12 says that even angels have desired to “look into these things”
To me, the PSA theory of atonement utterly fails to answer the questions raised by these, and the teaching of these verses. The key is to realize that Satan’s attacks have always been against the character of God. Jesus’ entire ministry revolved around bringing people to view God as our loving “Father”. John 17 combined with 1st John chapter 4 equates “salvation” with knowledge of God and relationship to Him as “love”, not to some scheme of sin-transfer and punishment of Jesus. The entire book of Acts clearly repeats the fact that men (under the influence of Satan) falsely accused Jesus, tormented him, denied him justice and they murdered him.
So again, do we form atonement theories which put God in some kind of collusion or cooperation or similar purposes as these evil men? Or are such theories perhaps a diversion from truth which Satan is pleased with, since they infer things about God’s character which are not true? It’s worth some deep reflection and meditation.
I have a theory about “what is the primary purpose of the Cross?” Some time prior to mankind being formed from the dust of the earth and receiving the breath of life, there was already life in the Cosmos.
In Luke 10:18 Jesus himself states “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” Scripture gives evidence of this angelic being (Isaiah 14 & Ezekiel 28) falling from a prominent position in the Elohim. If we start our investigation at this point we broaden our approach to many of the topics that have been discussed. What if the Law and Sacrifices, which were types and shadows or copy of the heavenly things, served as a witness of heavenly realities (Heb 8:5). If this the case, this conversation has a much deeper plot and twist and we are simply the beneficiaries of a much bigger story.
Romans 5:1 states “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people because all sinned”….go with me for a minute….then we might suppose, sin and death (which originated in the Lucifer) entered into Adam/Eve in the garden. The serpent was already there according the Genesis. So the equation would look like this…Satan Coveted=Sin Nature Developed=Mankind Created In The Image of God=Ate The Fruit Of That Nature=God Removed Them From Eating From The Tree Of Life.
Romans 5:14 states “death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking the commandment, as did Adam, who is the pattern of the one to come.” Galatians 3:22 says “scripture has locked everything under the control of sin.” Romans 11:32 says “God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
With those verses in mind lets look at Romans 7:9. “Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the law came, sin sprang to life and I died.” We are informed the law is good, but sin used to law to condemn us. But the interesting part of this dialogue is the wisdom and omniscience of God in all of this.
Up until the point the law was given people were unaware of the depth of their sin nature. When the law was given, the sin nature reared its ugly head to further shame us, which led to legalist religion…acting Holy without being Holy. The issue at this point was that we needed our inner nature redeemed, which the law was unable to do. Romans 8:3 states “what the law was unable to do because it was weakened by the flesh (sin nature), God did by sending his own Son (Inseparable from the Father in regards to Deity) in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh (sinful nature which originated in Satan) in order that righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Colossians 2:13-15 states “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
What was our legal indebtedness? Thats the big question. My conclusion is that we owed the fleeting pleasures of the Sin Nature its debt, which is death, and the Law of God was given to condemn sin in the likeness of our Nature that Jesus cloaked himself in via his incarnation. He basically came to not to simply be crucified, but to crucify in the process of being crucified.
God told us that from the beginning “you must not…or you will die”…hence, obtaining the rebellious and imprisoned Nature of Satan. Hebrews 10:5 says “when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me,”. So in effect, the body of Jesus became cursed by the Law of God (his own law given to Moses) in order to disarm the Sin Nature and He used to devil to do it. As Romans states “sin used to law to condemn us, but “by now dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written code.
So, why was the Law of God given? To disarm Satan by putting to death his only weapon, which was our sinful nature. When we are co-crucified with Christ and we shed of that old self-life dominated by the prince of darkness, we put off the curse of sin through the body of Jesus. And he raises us from the dead by placing within us the Holy Spirit to Unite us back to a Father that has always been on a rescue to mission to save us by luring all of hell to the cross by making a spectacle of them by publicly disarming him and his demons.
The law was present before sin. Sin is a violation of the law. Before sin, all intelligent beings were following the law, naturally. They were not fully aware that the law existed but they were always following it’s spirit. They became more aware of it when sin showed up as a contrast. For example, look at a law such as do not kill. Most people do not need to be told that murder is wrong. We know this implicitly. Yet it is written in the law of God and in the law of many nations for those who don’t seem to know it. The law of God is the law of love. It existed before sin.
Michael,
I took hermeneutics in seminary with an outstanding German theologian and your Scriptural citations are not “shotgun hermeneutics” as Jeremy tries to brush aside. His syllogism is full of wholes of which I have little space in this blog to discuss point by point. Your Scripture citations are totally based on Father’s eternal truth which Christ, the Lamb of God, slain before the foundation of the world, fulfilled to the letter.
I don’t know and I don’t care. God is God. He is what He is and does as He wishes and if He wanted me to know, He hasn’t told ne yet. Why hasn’t He told me? Don’t know. Doesn’t matter to me.
Best to keep it simple and trust God.
But if you are ever inclined to want to know more, God is willing to discuss it with you.
He said, ‘Come now and let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red as crimson they shall be as wool’. I guess God is expecting many of us to say, ‘Huh? How? to red sins becoming white as snow. So He lets us know we can reason with Him if we want to.
But we can trust His heart based on what He did on Calvary. That should be clear to all, whether we study it deeply or not. It is simple and profound. It is complex and simple at the same time.
Amen, and Thank You.
God forgives and Jesus saves. This is the love of God, not His wrath. He came to set the captives free.
Sin is a deadly disease and Jesus provides the cure. I particularly liked the sin injecting toxins analogy.
If God forgives freely without punishing sin, He is unjust. But God is just & punished Jesus for my sin.
Punishment does not change our nature to sin again and again.
We are all born with a sinful nature. When we ask forgiveness by the blood of Jesus, a major internal TRANSFORMATION takes place. Jesus imparts His nature in us, His ways become our ways, His likes and dislikes miraculously are imparted in us. The internal change for the sinner is so extreme it is called being BORN AGAIN. Yes we will sin, but our new internal nature will redirect us.
Sadly your sending your souls to hell without the blood. First thing God did when ADAM and Eve sinned, was kill an animal, no doubt blood lined and covered their nakedness, and sin.
God sent His son, Jesus was purposed to be the lamb of God for our sins.
The actual text of Genesis does not say that God killed an animal. That is only a human assumption, like so many other errors. The text says that God fashioned tunics for them. Remember that this God made Adam from dust. Do you think Him incapable of making tunics from dust… this God who is described as the author of life, not death?
To whom was the letter to the Hebrew church given?Right! So who was Jesus being compared?Right! When was Jesus crucified?The Passover,right?Why the blood on the door sides and lentle?So the death angel would “pass over”that home.Without the shedding of blood to cover our sins we could never stand before a perfect God.What further sacrifice need be given?In fact,the apostle,Paul tells us in the first letter to the Corinthian church(5:7) that Jesus is our Passover.Why a system like this was set up,we don’t know but,we do know that someone who is willing to die for us to make us acceptable to his Father loves us with a love that prevents us from being separated from Him!(Romans 8:38-39)!And no further sacrifice or the shedding of blood needs be done.How could it be necessary after the perfect sacrifice was already offered and that scene is described in the gospel of John(20:11-12)!It is the picture of the real “mercy seat”that was the top of the Ark of the Covenant.If that old system were still in effect,why would the thick curtain in the temple have been rent from top to bottom,showing us that system was finished?
James after reading Jeremys explanation of Hebrews 9 and 10 and him taking it back to the the original Greek words its very clear to me Jesus died for sin. Jesus died to take back from Satan what Adam and Eve gave away through their rebellion ie dominion of the earth and loss of dominion over their behaviour. Indeed God is very concerned over the effects of sin on us, not so much on sin itself. Jesus broke the yoke of slavery of sin which was upon us. He heralded the new covenant (brought it into being) by his death and shedding of blood .
Jeremy states ” Jesus did not die to rescue us from the wrath of God. Nor did Jesus die to secure for us the forgiveness of sins. God has always freely forgiven people of their sins. No, the death of Jesus on the cross was to inaugurate the new covenant of God with the entire world, and to indicate to all people that we were no longer slaves to sin.
That second point is critical. Jesus did not die for God because of sin. Jesus died for sin.
God’s holiness did not demand that Jesus be put to death. No, it was the devil that demanded death and blood (cf. Hebrews 2:14-15). Sin was the certificate of ownership which the devil held over the heads of humanity”.
In fact people will say God needed to have his wrath satisfied but sending Jesus to the cross, but the word wrath in this context in the NT does not mean fury but rather extreme frustration over the effects sin has on us and others. So God is not angry with us and never was. He loves us. So who crucified Jesus? It wasn’t God, it was the Jews and the Romans they wanted blood and death. No doubt Satan was behind their behaviour, it wasn’t God the Father.
Great comments, Grahame. You and Jeremy seeing two facets of the same diamond, I think.
I stumbled across a pearl:
in Micah 6:7 there is a distinct flavor of the Lord mocking the practice of blood sacrifices, both animal and human. The implication is that the Lord never desired such things. The associated implication is that men invented and/or needed these things. And the next verse tell us exactly what the Lord has always desired of us. It has nothing to do with blood or killing or death or punishment or any sort of substitutional form of any of those things.
Thank you L.D. simply put quite a few years ago now Jeremys books and postings convinced me that the punitive atonement through Christs crucifixion was not biblical and generally only arose much later championed by Calvin and others. It was indeed a light bulb moment for me and I haven’t looked back. Mind you a lot of people I know are not very happy about that change in me. But God is love so eternal punishment doesn’t sit well in that fact nor did He require his sons blood to satisfy His anger.
The devil is a thief…he did not own mankind..mankind belongs to God..Jesus died because He loved mankind and died in man’s place because of what sin was doing to men.He took the sin DNA Adam put on man and exchanged it for HIS DNA to all men. Salvation is a GIFT…not a reward for behavior…nothing of yourself can gain mercy..you just live by the faith OF CHRIST who believed if He lived the life of perfect obedience and took our sin He would bestow His righteousness to us…the Holy Spirit raised Him from the dead to confirm that.
The thing is that 2 things happened when Jesus died. Satan, through the Jews through the Romans, crucified Jesus. God sacrifices Jesus.
Note people and demons were mocking Jesus and telling Him to come down from the cross, of He is God and has all power. It would serve Satan if He came down. But He did not. Him staying vindicated God’s character and redeemed humanity. He solved a lot of problems in one step.
James,
You posit that Jesus was crucified “to make us acceptable to his Father”.
I don’t know of any scripture that states this. On the contrary, numerous verses say that the purpose was to ransom us from Satan’s power and from sin. And other verses say that it was to “draw us” to God (not vice versa) and to reconcile us to Him, not vice versa.
Your proposed syllogism essentially portrays God as self-serving and willing to use violence to further his personal agenda. I honestly believe that every single early church father and apostle would have labeled that idea as false.
Thank you for this exegesis of the Word. However, how do you explain these verses in the light of what you have shared:
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26:28 NKJV
But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
I John 1:7 NKJV
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
I John 2:1-2 NKJV
Ben,
Not sure if you were responding to me, but let me try answering your great questions, beginning with that last verse you included — 1st John 2:1-2.
Verse 1, in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English is particularly helpful. It says, in part; “We have ‘The redeemer of the accursed’…” This follows Paul’s theme in Galatians 3:13 that we needed to be redeemed from “the curse of the law”. The big question is: how did this take place? Was it, as so many have postulated or presumed; that some type of literal transference of “sins” took place (i.e. God playing some kind of shell-game with sins and with punishments? I understand that if one desires, one can certainly take various metaphors literally and so construct such an idea, but I don’t think that is what the Bible actually teaches, when we measure all the metaphors by the revealed character of God. John chapter 17 is all about the character of God and the power of “life eternal” (verse 3) and it says nothing about blood or punishment or even forgiveness, and nothing about God’s wrath or even “justice” or judgment — really amazing, isn’t it?).
Now, 1st John 2:2 in some translations, uses the word propitiation. Check out the interlinear. This Greek word is used only in this one verse of all scripture. It appears to be an abbreviation of the Greek word used in Romans 3:25; “hilasterion”, which is used only once in all of scripture. Paul was using a metaphor regarding the mercy seat which sat atop the Ark of the Covenant. This now provides an important linkage of ideas to Hebrews 9:15-17. In verse 15, it speaks of “sins committed under the first [Old} Covenant”. In the next two verses it explains that “the death of the testator” is what enabled the blessings of the covenant to be inherited.
**This is not a picture of blood representing punishment paid for someone else’s sins, in any literal sense. It’s a picture of the Old Covenant which included “the curse” being ended. The entire Covenant and curse was fulfilled by Jesus and thus ended, legally speaking (see 8:13 also). Hence, with the curse gone, nothing was left for Satan to use to condemn those who “sinned under the Old Covenant”. This makes perfect sense out of Hebrews 2:14 and Colossains 2:14-15. Hence, Jews who were “under the Old Covenant” (we never were) were saved from sin in a way that we never had to be. Yet, there are at least three other ways that we are “saved”.
So much more could be said, including the symbolism of the Ark. Did you realize that God’s presence was always represented as being above the Ark, even above the wings of the shielding angels? The symbolism prohibits us from seeing God as synonymous with law or with the curse of the law. Paul was saying that Jesus served to cover over the law (he functioned as the lid over the Ark). It is a shame that some translations use the word propitiation, which evokes pagan ideas of “sacrifices” being used to change the attitude of a god. Our “Father in heaven”, as Jesus encouraged us to think of Him, never needed anything of the sort. Let’s always measure all the metaphors by His revealed character.
One of the problems with hearing preachers talk about blood sacrifice is Nicodemus being told by Jesus you must be born again before Jesus was crucified. Hebrews 11 tells about old testament saints who were found righteous by faith without the blood sacrifice of Jesus. I’ve read this over and over and I’m still struggling but it answers so many questions I couldn’t answer. Thank yo
” Justification by faith; Sanctification by blood. ” Old Testament saints experienced salvation through this format. So they did through their faith, claim the BLOOD OF JESUS in a distant gratification experience. Isiah 55; 9 & Job 19: 25
So beautifully written. I thank you for this article. My twin sister was asking this question and wasn’t sure about the answer, and here we found it!
The question and the Hebrew chapters are very well analyzed, in order to get to the answer. Thanks again and God bless you always.
Thank you for this article. It made me think deeply about this subject. Yes, God IS concerned about sin. He is holy, sinless, completely pure. (1 Peter 1:16; Rev. 4:8; Isaiah 6:3, etc.). The Bible says “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16 and other verses with the same theme or command. So sin is not a flea but a cavern that keeps us from God and all He offers. At the same time John 3:16-17 is an invitation of love and forgiveness as well as a statement of God’s intention to love and not condemn us. Read Rev. 3:20.
My understanding is when the Mosaic covenant was in effect, the blood sacrifices covered their sins(Forgave) but it could never change the person. I think it was also to show that they could never cease from sinning. This made them realize they needed a Redeemer without guilt or sin that could resist, reject all temptation, sin & then would qualify to give his perfect, obedient life as a ransom for ours. Jesus fulfilled the Law because no one else could. Only God the Infinite Creator could do that. It was good to read your take on this but I would have to research it myself.
I should have added that only the Holy Spirit that indwells all believers is who changes us. We have a choice to live by our carnal nature or the Spirit’s dictates & guidance. During the era of the sacrificial system, God’s ppl were not indwelt or filled with the Holy Spirit. Only a few were anointed with the Spirit.
Very Biblical point Kay. GOD, in layman’s terms , ran interference for man’s sin to keep Lucifer from wiping man off the face of the Earth as he ( Lucifer has done on many, many occasions ) Due to the detailed description of Lucifer’s damnation, judgement and nihilation, it was important to him to stop his destruction through an usurp of the judgement filter ( man ).
Amen. We should be like the Bereans and study to see what is true. Your comments are on point.
It does seem that since God is holy & just(justice being part of God’s character) that rebellion(sin) exacts a penalty & that one without guilt or sin would be required to give his life as a ransom for ours. If that was not the case, then it would appear ppl would not have to trust in Jesus’ atonement as long as they wanted & tried to repent of their sin, having a desire to be in right standing with the Creator God.
You are right. The thing is, sin changes us. But even if we repent, there is still something that needs to be done with the sins that we committed in the past. We cannot simply be sincerely sorry. When someone is killed, whether it’s murder or manslaughter the repentance of the killer does not resurrect the victim, even if her family forgives the killer. The resurrection of the victim would lead to full restoration.
I see sin in a similar way. Sin results in death. But being sorry for it is not enough to bring life, to bring resurrection, to change the nature of the sinner and heal the victim. The Bible says Jesus became sin for us. I’m still not sure what that means. Jesus assures us that He is the resurrection and the life. He resurrects fully, physically and spiritually. How He does it is a question for eternity.
Ever since Cain killed Abel God required a blood sacrifice the innocent died for the guilty. Romans 5:8 says Much more then being justified by his blood( Christ’s ) we shall be saved from wrath through him. Revelation one says unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins with his own blood Exodus 12 says when I see the blood I will pass over you. Acts 20:28 says God purchased the church with his own blood. Better go back and read before you spout such nonsense. No blood no salvation!
Mark,
One wonders if you accept anything in the Bible as metaphorical. For example, was God literally “in Christ”, according to 2nd Corinthians 5:19? And look at Romans 6:6-8. Can I please see your literal death certificate? Oops… it must not be literal.
Now, as for “wrath of God”, please consult Romans 8:7, John 3:20 and 17:14. Also see Romans 1:18, 24 and 26. Notice the direction of “wrath” in the first three. In the last two, notice what God is actually doing. It’s a stunning reversal of some “traditional” concepts but such reversal is perfectly consistent with Luke 6:35-36 and Matthew 5:33-37 and 1st John chapter 3-4.
Also, please show me where God told Cain to sacrifice anything.
You posit “No blood no salvation.” Have you read Psalms 40:6 and 51:16 and 2nd Chronicles 7:14 and Micah 6:1-8 and John 17:3, among so many other verses that have been previously mentioned?
To say, as you do, that “sin is not a big deal for God,” is heresy. If you were trying to make a point, find a better way to do it.
Jesus Christ died on the cross and was risen from the dead for our sins that we may be save, to give us eternal life with God and Jesus Christ. Because he loved us this doesn’t mean that we can keep on sinning. We must pray and ask God for help us to allow the holy spirit to help us to change our ways because we cannot change on our own we must pray to God and allow this to happen. And tell other people about Jesus christ the savior an how he loves them so much and how he died and was risen from the grave for them as well so that they may have eternal life with God, Jesus Christ. It is so important that you read the king James Version Bible to understand how every thing happen and came in place.
Amen, Margaret. We must pray and ask the Holy Spirit 🔥 for help to change our ways so that we hate sin and continuously put away sin. In Revelation it says no sin can entire Zion. We must love God and hate sin with a passion and have no desire for it to be found in us.
Perhaps the mention of the blood of the lamb in Revelations and robes being washed in that blood would be important to note
Be very careful stating that god did not command scarifices or the rituals because that is not what the prophets were saying. They were criticizing how Israel was using the ritual system without proper repentance.
I know what you’re trying to do. If you feel you are able to diminish the law and commandments then you can expel it from your theological interpretation. Avoid this method at all costs because the Hebrew is explicit and it exposes a weak position and failed attempt.
Instead put the law of moses in the proper context by learning the hebrew.
The promise of God to avraham was the land, not the Sinai event. Israel coming out of Egypt was far from God; they were pagan in every sense of the word. Avraham had the torah in his heart which is the promise of the renewed covenant in jeremiah btw. Israel in Egypt did not. Avraham didn’t have a diet to follow, Israel did. Avraham didn’t have atonement, Israel did. Avraham didn’t have animal sacrifice or clothing options, Israel did. Avraham didn’t have a temple, Israel did. The same applies to noah and adam. So why Israel? Because they didn’t have it on the inside.
You don’t need the Mosaic rituals if you have the spirit of the Torah inside you. If you don’t then you have to have the rituals as your tutor.
True. God commanded the sacrifices and they were needed to teach the people who did not yet have the law in the hearts. Killing the innocent animals was supposed to help the people see how awful sin was, and help them to hate sin and want to change and be righteous. It was supposed to help them develop a heart like God’s.
Scripture please regarding God always forgives all sins of man
Matthew 24-25 separating goats/sheep…why if all sins have been forgiven
The Bible does say not to argue with fools!
Liked your discourse on the blood atonement ! The entirety of the creation of man ( blood realm ) was and is the indictment and filter judgement of Lucifer by GOD. Man’s life is indeed in his blood but the spiritual realm does not use blood as its medium. Therefore, Leviticus 17: 11 explains how the unholy are judged by The Holy thru Hebrews 2: 14. NO being can transcend the 7th Heaven without first participating in the blood realm, including The Most High ( Matthew 28: 18 ) All other spiritual beings are denied forgiveness. May GOD richly Bless your Ministry
sorry Dude but I am pretty sure you r conveniently forgetting Leveticus 17:11 which destroys your argument. No offense
so in short.. what are u saying..is jesus god? do u believe in the trinity? does the bible teach 3 types of death? and last but not least is the original 66 books greek and hebrel perfect..
can wait for your response.
sela
I love the idea of this post. The idea is beautiful. However some scriptures have been left out intentionally. When you look at the scripture in Levitcus 14:29 that suggests something about oil, back up a few verses and you’d notice there was a lamb and oil. The lamb was slain and the blood spilled.
In the case of the flour, the flour was actually burnt with fire which is symbolic of God’s judgement on the sacrifice.
We have to be careful in not trying so hard to align spiritual intelligence with human ideologies and philosophies. We don’t have to always sound intelligent to atheists. We owe them God’s love. It is their choice to decide whether to believe in Jesus or not. It is not our job to attempt to sound intelligent for them, whilst leaving behind the truth of this gospel. This is wrong!
Amen.
Something to ponder….
Jesus said, unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no life in you. Eating his flesh and drinking His blood gives us eternal life. (John 6:53-54)
The blood (Jesus’ sacrificial death) absolutely matters in eternal salvation.
Without the blood of Christ there is no life, therefore no forgiveness.
I would love to know your interpretation of “drinking his blood” after measuring that text (John 6:53) beside John 5:24 and 17:3, among so many others. Notice the present tense… even past-tense of those who Jesus was speaking to as “having eternal life”… prior to the crucifixion and prior to any bloodshed by Christ. No mention of literal blood-shedding or ingestion needed, to have this “life”… nor such a prerequisite in Romans 10:9, Titus 3:5, Hebrews 10:22 and a host of other texts.
To me, these verses prove the imperative of accepting metaphors as metaphors, rather than pursuing literal interpretations which lead to mistaken ideas. Jesus was not trying to create vampires. Nor did his disciples carry around little Harry Potter style vials, in order to collect any blood that Jesus might shed, such as when his sweat included some blood, in the Garden of Gethsemane. The metaphor of blood is deep, not superficial. Perhaps it’s on a par with the “milk and meat” metaphor that Paul used, in order to foster more spiritual maturity and deeper understandings… rather than the typical jumping to superficial conclusions that some readers of scripture do; lacking sufficient knowledge, wisdom, “testing” and comparison with the “other witnesses”, before they form their ideas and doctrines into concrete.
Please also review the scriptures listed in my Nov. 30, 2022 post.
Stop being silly. No one but you and the crowd Jesus was speaking to would equate Christ’s words literally with drinking or eating. The drinking of His blood is receiving His blood and body as His sacrificial death on the cross. The shedding of blood, that is DEATH is required for forgiveness of sins.
Sin always requires death. Stop being hung up on the blood idea and understand that blood means death and the ratio has always been 1:1. After the fall, a death was always going to be required for sin.
Jesus’ blood shedding, ie substitutionary death on the cross, paid that requirement for His elect.
No blood shedding(read death) no forgiveness of sins. 2 Corinthians 5:21 might be helpful for you and your understanding.
Bernie Jesus in the upper room said do this In remembrance of me. He was talking about all of the meal with his disciples not just wine and bread. Ie communion with Jesus and believers together. Jesus used the metaphor of bread and wine so we could understand what he was achieving for us. Ie defeating Satan and breaking our slavery to sin. And fulfilling the old covenant and creating do covenant based on grace. Ask yourself who killed him. Not God it was humans. The punative atonement popped up with Calvin first church didn’t believe that
Dear Bernie,
Ah, yes… again we see the appeal to 2nd Corinthians 5:21 as the presumed proof-text to explain everything. As usual, Paul’s immediate context is ignored (i.e. verse 19, clearly referring to the –life — of Christ, and hence to his teachings such as the Prodigal son Parable) and Paul’s elsewhere use — and explanation of — the same metaphors is also ignored (i.e. Romans 8:3 and 2nd Corinthians 8:9). Worse yet, the words of Jesus must be ignored, in order to prop up the presumed proof-text as the foundation for a “doctrine” whose logical byproduct is the concept (however false) of an angry vindictive law-consumed God of condemnation who must have bloodshed and death before He acquiesces to offer any real forgiveness.
If the PSA theory were true, God the Father would have had to have been “judging” and condemning and punishing… at the time of the Crucifixion of Christ. The words of Jesus clearly refute this idea completely. Please review John 5:22 — prior to the Cross, the Father gave up all such things to the prerogative of Jesus. Now notice John 8:15 and 12:47 – Jesus refuses to take the prerogative that so many have assumed of God. In this last verse, as in John 5:45 and elsewhere, Jesus declares “Moses” be the accuser. Of course, we also know that Satan is “the accuser…” (Rev. ch. 12) and that our consciences accuse us (1st John 3:20, Titus 3:11, etc.).
So, John’s liberating Gospel begins by declaring that “grace and truth” came by Jesus, instead of the usual interpretation of “the law”, that he instead attributes solely to Moses (John 1:17).
So please, quit interpreting 2nd Corinthians 5:21 through the improper eyes of Moses and “the law” and instead, let Jesus give the proper foundation. Let his Parable of the Prodigal Son reveal the true character of God – never condemning of his sons, either one (wayward ones of different types), never demanding bloodshed or death or a substitute death, in order to forgive (because that is not what true forgiveness is anyway). The forgiveness was always there… only needing to be received… which only required a change of heart and mind (AKA “repentance”) of the wayward one, not any repentance of (or changing of the mind of) God!
Jesus declared Satan as “the father of all lies”. This would obviously include “the doctrines of demons”, which would be most effective if emanated from “the Church”. And so it has been. And Satan’s primary target has always been to distort our perceptions of the character of God (beginning with Satan’s lies in Eden).
The cure for this, and the source of life and light and truth can be found adequately explained only through the life of Christ and his teachings regarding God’s true character of love and grace. Without the life and teachings of Jesus, his death would only be more confusing than it has already been made by Satan and by certain men.
It is the love revealed through Christ’s life and teachings which can conquer all evils. Law and punishments and condemnations were never meant to do so… nor do they possess even the slightest potential to do so. Human nature is what it is — no one is truly motivated to “be reconciled to God” by any display of condemnation or punishments which supposedly comes from His hand. The inherent human tendency is just the opposite… which is what Satan uses to his advantage. But the correct view of Jesus, of the Father, and of the Cross defeats Satan’s nefarious purposes (Hebrews 2:14, Colossians 2:14-15, Revelation 12:10-11, etc.).
L.D
Excellent post and alluminates very clearly the reason Jesus came and what was achieved by the cross. Jesus said he was I am! thats why the Jews wanted him dead… so if Christ forgave sins before the cross so did God the Father. Jesus was motivated by love and compassion to people he encounted then thats what motivates God the Father. Not wrath, no wanting his sons blood
Grahame,
Thanks for the affirmation. I would add, somewhat embarrassingly, that it took me around 5 decades of study to see the deeper truth of scripture. I have found many friends and family devoted to PSA theory and the view of God’s character as punishing, because of longstanding misinterpretations of scripture, beginning in Genesis.
For example, where God warned Adam and Eve that if they “sinned”, they would die, even in that very “day”… the common interpretation is that God was supposedly warning; “if you break my rules, I will punish you with death”. Then usually follows an exegesis to explain that the word “day” means something other than “today” or within a short period of time. But this exegesis diverts our attention from the real issues!
Many people fail to stop and even consider the options of interpretation. In so many other scriptures, as in the Prodigal Son Parable, the devastating consequences of sin are represented as natural consequences, not as something from the punishing hand of the Father. So… what is the other option for interpreting God’s warning to Adam and Eve? Well, consider what happened to them, after they broke harmony with God, in fact distrusting God and even coveting His knowledge and authority related to “good and evil”? In the absence of any Divine intervention of any kind, Adam and Eve experienced loss of their previous peace and harmony. They began bickering and blaming others and they felt “naked” – likely a dual meaning of guilt and shame, as well as physical nakedness.
So, the central issue actually relates to the correct interpretation of what kind of “death” God was warning Adam and Eve of… and once again, the correct answer comes from the words of Jesus. John 5:24 is the pivotal verse where Jesus speaks to a group of believers and tells them that they were “dead” but now (in the present tense or even past tense) are alive with a life that he indicates is “eternal” (both in this verse and in John 17:3, among many other verses). The only rational exegesis is that Jesus was calling these people “dead”, at the time when their heart, mind and soul was in disharmony with God, because of distrust of Him and ignorance of Him. And when the chose to believe Jesus and trust God (in part because they now understood Him as good and loving and completely truthful, etc.) they became “alive”.
Clearly, Jesus was NOT defining “life” and “death” in the mundane physical sense that we humans tend to only think about. Jesus was referring to a higher form of “life”, perhaps best called “the spiritual life”. With this in mind, it gives us the liberating view of God’s character, in that the primary warning about sin was in regard to this higher form of life, and the consequences referred to were completely of natural origins, NOT something that God would impose as an artificial punishment.
In full disclosure, we can read of numerous cases where God imposed physical death on humans, yet we should be careful to not misinterpret any of these. On closer inspection, we can easily interpret the underlying reason as having to do with protection, rather than with punishment of a retributive nature. And amazingly, God plans to resurrect everyone, even His worst enemies, at the end of this world. Now, who else but a loving, gracious and holy God would bring back even those who will likely only argue with Him and try to destroy Him? Yet, this will happen. Why? I would suggest it is because God is not capricious or arbitrary or vindictive or even dictatorial. He has always governed in a collaborative fashion (numerous examples). Remember that “even angels long to look into these things” (1st Peter 1:12). Hence, “the judgment of God” is some kind of two-way street. From the very beginning, God has welcomed humans to make up their own minds about Him and whether they will trust Him or not. And the natural outcome of this is that we either begin living in the “life”, as Jesus defined it… or we live only the life called “the flesh” (just an animal existence) – the physical life devoid of the spiritual.
Another key issue exists, related to dispelling the idea of a God supposedly obsessed by punishment, retribution or “wrath”… and related to 2nd Corinthians 5:2… but due to space, and my uncertainty of other’s interest, I will end this post here. If anyone has further interest, I would be happy to elaborate further.
J.D.
If not for Jeremy Myers I would never have realised that the punitive atonement was incorrect although I found it was incongruent with much of the new testament
It is sad when “Christians” are offended about the shed blood of Jesus and instead teach that there are other ways and means to find forgiveness of sins.. The Bible teaches us that in the last days there will be deceivers who will teach a false gospel. But as a believer in Christ Jesus I still love you and will pray that Jesus will remove the scales that cover your eyes so you can see the truth in Gods Word. God Bless.
COMPARE the statement of Christ — Matthew 26, 27-28, as follows;
“Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’ ”
VERSUS statements in this article, such as:
1. ‘Is the Shedding of Blood Required for the Forgiveness of Sins? (Hebrews 9:22)’
2. ‘What’s the deal with blood?’
3. ‘Hebrews 9:22 is not about Forgiveness OF SINS’,
VERSUS
Hebrews 9:12, WHICH READS::
‘…with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
4. ‘God is not nearly as concerned with sin as we are.’
I find both this article and the website name ‘redeeminggod ‘ troubling
Did Paul originate the thinking about the shedding of blood to ensure the remission of sin if not the book of Hebrews?
Sin is a big deal to God. It is the thing that separated Adam and Eve from God.
The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:8
God provided a solution to the problem of sin.
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood, to be received by faith. Romans 3:25.
He himself bore our sins on his body on the tree … ; by his wounds you have been healed. 1 peter 2:24
Whoever believes in the son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the son will not see life for God‘s wrath remains on them. John 3:36
“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” – James
It’s so hard to believe someone can turn a glaring and explicit teaching on its head and make it say something that the author doesn’t intend to convey. This is real intellectual gymnastics here. unbelievable heresy. Is your goal to teach the truth or misrepresent it? Are you a minister of Satan?
This comment is for readers like me who came across this site after Googling the question – why the shedding of blood means no remission of sin (thank you for the Greek for release). This essay and the comments are confusing at times. They’re confusing because they have both light and darkness. Also, instead of being straightforward, in some places the author attempts to be clever – and then tries to say ‘ah, I caught you’ to the reader. This is not a joke. This is about life and death, sanity and insanity, whether you waste your time or fulfill your God-given purpose. (Bear in mind there are people who believe that hell will last for eternity, and that people will burn for eternity – it is not, but that is another thing.)
(To the person who said the sacrifices were all for unintentional sins/transgressions – not intentional ones, thank you for positing that claim, I will look into it.)
The sacrificial system was given by God Himself. It was His idea. It was supposed to be a symbol or type of the real thing – Jesus’ death and sacrifice.
About shedding of blood – blood is not supposed to be shed in any circumstance. When blood is shed it means something is wrong somewhere. Someone has a cut, there was a murder, or an accident, someone has advanced cancer, someone needs a blood transfusion, a woman is menstruating (incidentally for women who have painful menstruation, the pain is released when the blood flows), a baby is being born – oftentimes blood is shed there, a man who is God is sweating blood in Gethsemane at the thought of separation from His Father God because of humanity’s sin – humanity whom both He and His father loves so much and does not want to cease existing. All of these examples are things that should not and would not happen in a perfect world.
Everything in creation hangs on the word of God, the law of God, which is based on love. When that law, that love is violated then sin naturally begins to exist. Sin changes the character/nature of the sinner, to make that character unlike God’s perfect character. It is like a disease from which we need healing. Where does sin exist and who does it affect? The sinner, the person(s) or beings directly sinned against – God, humans, animals, AND the observers (humans, angels, God, other created intelligent beings) who witness the atrocities. The created beings are all changed mentally because of sin. Another thing is that they wonder if God made a mistake in His design, that sin could exist in the first place. No, He did not. But that is not enough for the minds of the created beings. They need to see/experience the proof of the natural/automatic result of sin – violating the law of God which was given by God Himself. They need to experience (not simply be told) that God is not wrong and He knew/knows what He was doing in creation – because Satan claims that God is wrong and many intelligent beings believe it. Jesus’ death AND suffering did that (many of the worst ways to suffer result in the shedding of blood – or some disease that weakens the life force) for humans, angels, and all created beings (animals and the other intelligent beings). He didn’t only speak and sin was no more, He acted as well (humans have to do things – we don’t simply speak and it is done) – so that everything will be clear in the minds of all intelligent beings and we can all (angels, humans, other observers) love and trust Him and His law again, fully. Since Christ’s suffering Satan’s sinful character became clear for the angels, now we’re waiting for the result of sin to be made clear to humanity (certain prophecies) will be fulfilled in that process).
Some things that helped me in my journey was the conflict of the ages series and speaking well of God series.
All created beings will one day know for sure that God (and His law which never changes and which indicated His character) is love.
God is love.
So it was never about the blood but the death of a life? Then why sprinkle the blood? I always thought the blood was necessary (not death) to seal the covenant. For an example Abraham circumcising him and his family, and the hym being broken during intercourse.
Wow, this is dishonest. Are you really saying that the god of the Old Testament did not command animal sacrifice? I’ve read my Leviticus many times over. Rewrite the text of the bible however you need, it still doesn’t change the narrative that at some point in the biblical god’s existence he loved nothing more than bathing himself in the smoke of burning animal fat.