Blood sacrifice...

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

Is there a discernible reason behind requiring blood sacrifice to atone for sin?

We see it in the OT, with blood of all manner of animals being use as propitiation for sin, and in the NT with the idea of Jesus being a substitutional sacrifice on the cross, but....why? Is there are rational behind the use of blood which we can discern?

On the face of it, blood sacrifice looks pretty barbaric (especially when it uses the blood of an innocent to protect someone guilty - that is a strange definition of Justice at the very least) so I'm wondering if there is a rational behind the specific requirement for it that we can find in scripture...

And please, not "God said so" arguments. I'm not doubting what is written. I'm looking to understand the reasoning behind that choice of process.

Throughout the Bible, the punishment for sin is death. This starts right back in Genesis 2, when God said to Adam, "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die" (Genesis 2:17).

This is also affirmed in the New Testament. Hebrews 9:22 says, "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

Why not? It is not the physical act of shedding blood that is the key. If that were the case, Jesus could have just had a cut on the arm and shed blood for us all! Shedding blood is just a way of referring to the fact that without DEATH, there is no forgiveness of sins.

In Paul's letter to the Romans, he writes, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

Blood has to be shed because the punishment for sin is death. However this leads us to another question. Why is the punishment for sin so serious? Isn't death a bit over the top?

To answer this question, we need to look at what sin is. Sin isn't just a few silly things that we've done that can be ignored. Sin is rebellion against God, and it is so serious because of the greatness of the one we are rebelling against.

In most countries, the severity of a crime depends not just on your actions, but also who you are committing the crime against. In the UK, hitting someone would count as common assault. Hitting a police officer is a separate and more serious crime. Hitting the Queen would land you in jail for a long time! The seriousness of the offense depends on the one to whom it is against.

God is the one who made us and gave us life, and continues to give us life and breath each moment; He is our Creator. Years ago, if someone committed treason against their government or their monarch, the death penalty would have been given. How much more then, if each one of us has rebelled against the one who made us and enables us to exist. Is this a treasonous act, worthy of the death penalty? We may think this is harsh, but that's because we're not unbiased. We're the ones who deserve to receive God's justice!

That's the crime each one of us is guilty of and the punishment does fit the crime. So why can't God just let us off? Why can't he ignore sin? It is not because he lacks compassion or mercy or a desire to forgive. It is because God is a God of justice.

"Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you" (Psalm 89:14).

If he were to ignore all sin, it would be as outrageous as if every murderer in the country was let out of jail with their criminal records wiped clean. Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done. If it was possible to ignore sin, don't you think God would have done so? If there was any other way to forgive sinners while still upholding justice, would he not have taken that option rather than coming in the flesh and suffering the unspeakable agony of dying on the cross?

God is not a harsh God who just tells us that this is the punishment and leaves us to it, although He would be within his rights to do so. But the Bible tells us that God is

"the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin" (Exodus 34:6–7).

He is merciful and gracious to his very core, and this is why he came down to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to pay the penalty that our sin deserves. He didn't have to do that, but he longed to bring sinners back to Him.

 

[Chinchilla]

Matthew does not say that Hosea had Jesus in mind when Hosea 11:1 was originally written

He does mean that when he says fulfilled . All prophecy is about Messiah or God .

 

[2tim_215]

The reality is that we are all sinners and all guilty. I rejoice over what Jesus has done for me and thank God for His grace (unmerited favor). Without it, it would be hopeless for me and everyone else in this world unfortunately. We need to just accept it and be thankful. It's a bit ironic when we consider all that Jesus went through and the fact the He gave His life and shows how wicked men can be in murdering Him. It was man who murdered Jesus and not God yet God knew man would do it but apparently some of us don't realize what He did for us and who was responsible for murdering Him.
Jeremiah 17:9-10 (KJV)
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

The above verse is Old Testament. Had Jesus not sacrificed Himself for us, God would have had to punish us. Instead, we have the ability to repent and just confess (acknowledge) Jesus and believe that He was raised from the dead (wouldn't be able to do this had He not died on the cross and shed His blood) and we have the promise that we will live in heaven (the New Jerusalem) for all eternity. Not much of a price to pay for us. (Romans 10:9). Of course, we need to repent for our sins first (everyone has them although many will not admit it) and God is faithful to forgive us.
1 John 1:9-10 (KJV)
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
It's the only case where God ordained the sacrifice of the innocent for the unjust and it took one who was innocent in order to make a way for us to God although anyone who makes a death sacrifice for others is a noble act (see our military and for example the Navy Seal who just died trying to save those children in Thailand). So it does happen but not to the extent that it did with Jesus. Two questions. How many here would be willing to give their life to save another let alone humanity? How many of those who would have led sinless lives?

Had Adam not fallen then there would have been no need for atonement and Cain wouldn't have murdered Abel and murders would not have continued throughout our history. We have a sin nature and it's a real struggle to overcome it. Jesus gives us a way. Simple, live good, honest lives and all will be well for us.

 

[Inkfingers]

Throughout the Bible, the punishment for sin is death. This starts right back in Genesis 2, when God said to Adam, "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die" (Genesis 2:17).

This is also affirmed in the New Testament. Hebrews 9:22 says, "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

Why not? It is not the physical act of shedding blood that is the key. If that were the case, Jesus could have just had a cut on the arm and shed blood for us all! Shedding blood is just a way of referring to the fact that without DEATH, there is no forgiveness of sins.

In Paul's letter to the Romans, he writes, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

Blood has to be shed because the punishment for sin is death. However this leads us to another question. Why is the punishment for sin so serious? Isn't death a bit over the top?

To answer this question, we need to look at what sin is. Sin isn't just a few silly things that we've done that can be ignored. Sin is rebellion against God, and it is so serious because of the greatness of the one we are rebelling against.

In most countries, the severity of a crime depends not just on your actions, but also who you are committing the crime against. In the UK, hitting someone would count as common assault. Hitting a police officer is a separate and more serious crime. Hitting the Queen would land you in jail for a long time! The seriousness of the offense depends on the one to whom it is against.

God is the one who made us and gave us life, and continues to give us life and breath each moment; He is our Creator. Years ago, if someone committed treason against their government or their monarch, the death penalty would have been given. How much more then, if each one of us has rebelled against the one who made us and enables us to exist. Is this a treasonous act, worthy of the death penalty? We may think this is harsh, but that's because we're not unbiased. We're the ones who deserve to receive God's justice!

That's the crime each one of us is guilty of and the punishment does fit the crime. So why can't God just let us off? Why can't he ignore sin? It is not because he lacks compassion or mercy or a desire to forgive. It is because God is a God of justice.

"Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you" (Psalm 89:14).

If he were to ignore all sin, it would be as outrageous as if every murderer in the country was let out of jail with their criminal records wiped clean. Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done. If it was possible to ignore sin, don't you think God would have done so? If there was any other way to forgive sinners while still upholding justice, would he not have taken that option rather than coming in the flesh and suffering the unspeakable agony of dying on the cross?

God is not a harsh God who just tells us that this is the punishment and leaves us to it, although He would be within his rights to do so. But the Bible tells us that God is

"the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin" (Exodus 34:6–7).

He is merciful and gracious to his very core, and this is why he came down to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to pay the penalty that our sin deserves. He didn't have to do that, but he longed to bring sinners back to Him.

I get that the wages of sin are death.

What I disagree with is the idea that an innocent dying in the place of the guilty is either justice or mercy. Justice is punishing the guilty. Mercy is letting them off. Depravity is punishing the innocent so that the guilty can go free.

Imagine it happening in a court. You've just captured Dahmer or similar and he's about to be executed when an innocent person volunteers for it and Dahmer goes free. That's neither justice nor mercy.

This is why I do not believe in Penal Substitution and thus why I no longer consider myself to be Calvinist - this isn't just an intellectual exercise for me, it has had real repercussions.

 

[Colter]

He does mean that when he says fulfilled . All prophecy is about Messiah or God .

What you are saying is that, in the last hours of his life, God the Son lost faith in the Father, as if what he (the Son) was allowing to happen wasn't supposed to be happening. He flat out told his enemies that to prove his authority to teach to "tear down this temple (his body) and in three days I will raise it up again".

Jesus allowed himself to be killed for all to see, and he returned from the dead.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The issue is not with Christ willing to sacrifice His life for others, but the issue is with a judge (God) willing to torture, humiliate and murder an innocent person to allow the guilty to go free.

You have never gone through confession and repentance of sin obviously. Those of us who have do see the experience as you describe. In a word, it simply isn’t as you say it is looking from the outside. We on the inside know how it is.

But what is clear is that you don’t want to understand but simply accuse God of evil. You’re not the first. Started in the garden.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I get that the wages of sin are death.

What I disagree with is the idea that an innocent dying in the place of the guilty is either justice or mercy. Justice is punishing the guilty. Mercy is letting them off. Depravity is punishing the innocent so that the guilty can go free.

Imagine it happening in a court. You've just captured Dahmer or similar and he's about to be executed when an innocent person volunteers for it and Dahmer goes free. That's neither justice nor mercy.

This is why I do not believe in Penal Substitution and thus why I no longer consider myself to be Calvinist - this isn't just an intellectual exercise for me, it has had real repercussions.

Calvinism will not stand the intellectual challenge for sure so abandoning it is a good step.

Now an important question is do you believe your sins can be forgiven by the sacrifice of Christ however it works. Do you have to know how this works in the justice of God first? Why? You are good and felt better before you know anything about digestion.

I would not be asking anyone to jettisoned intellect. But there is time to trust the promises that one later fully understands. Because if one never accepts the claims on the Gospel, one will never understand it at all ever. Requires knowing Someone, not right teaching.

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

I get that the wages of sin are death.

What I disagree with is the idea that an innocent dying in the place of the guilty is either justice or mercy. Justice is punishing the guilty. Mercy is letting them off. Depravity is punishing the innocent so that the guilty can go free.

Imagine it happening in a court. You've just captured Dahmer or similar and he's about to be executed when an innocent person volunteers for it and Dahmer goes free. That's neither justice nor mercy.

This is why I do not believe in Penal Substitution and thus why I no longer consider myself to be Calvinist - this isn't just an intellectual exercise for me, it has had real repercussions.

Self-sacrifice is love. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). We did not ask or expect Jesus to pay for our sins; God volunteered it. It has been said many times that the highest virtue is to die so that someone else may live.

While it may seem like Christians are celebrating Christ's death on the cross, we are actually celebrating His victory of resurrection and defeat over death. I think the more appropriate reaction to His death should be gratitude.

 

[miamited]

Hi inkfingers,

Thanks for your response:

I get that when its the guilty party, but when its the innocent sheep, or dove, or cow, or Christ, how then?

Alright then, you have a choice to make. You can accept that in God's sight it is just in this instance just because God has said so...

Or you can stand on the seashore and shake your fist to the heavens and declare to God that He's an unjust God.

Here's what the Scriptures say about where you and God stand in relation to each other: Does not the potter have the right to do what he wants with what he has made?

You are absolutely correct that in a human court of law it seems unjust for the innocent to take the penalty of the guilty. But in God's court, where He gets to be the final say, He has decided that the blood of His innocent Son can pay the penalty for the guilty sinner. That's what God's word says, the just for the unjust. Now, if that not being fair causes you to stumble in your faith, then you're going to have to take that up with God. This is why God spent some 1,000 years working through Abraham and his progeny to have Israel write down His oracles. So we would know what to believe is the truth. Not so that we would necessarily agree that the way of God's truth was how we'd have handled it.

I absolutely agree with you that the just taking the punishment of the unjust doesn't seem fair, but I'm aware that being merciful trumps fairness. Fairness is that you die for your sin. Mercy is that you don't have to. In this instance God is being more than fair in His mercy. He is allowing His Son to take your punishment. But here's the really good news. Because His Son was sinless he doesn't have to fear the second death and because some trust God and what He has determined as fair and merciful, they don't have to either. In the end, God gets what He desires. A day in which He can stand upon His throne and declare that now the dwelling of God is with men and they shall be His people and He shall be their God.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Inkfingers]

Calvinism will not stand the intellectual challenge for sure so abandoning it is a good step.

Now an important question is do you believe your sins can be forgiven by the sacrifice of Christ however it works. Do you have to know how this works in the justice of God first? Why? You are good and felt better before you know anything about digestion.

I would be asking anyone to jettisoned intellect. But there is time to trust the promises that one later fully understands. Because if one never accepts the claims on the Gospel, one will never understand it at all ever. Requires knowing Someone, not right teaching.

Penal Substitution IS Calvinism.

I'm saved by grace through faith, not through putting an innocent to take my punishment.

 

[Colter]

I get that the wages of sin are death.

What I disagree with is the idea that an innocent dying in the place of the guilty is either justice or mercy. Justice is punishing the guilty. Mercy is letting them off. Depravity is punishing the innocent so that the guilty can go free.

Imagine it happening in a court. You've just captured Dahmer or similar and he's about to be executed when an innocent person volunteers for it and Dahmer goes free. That's neither justice nor mercy.

This is why I do not believe in Penal Substitution and thus why I no longer consider myself to be Calvinist - this isn't just an intellectual exercise for me, it has had real repercussions.

I think that one of the difficulties in the Jewish converts to the Jesus movement was their old idea of "an eye for an eye". People still have a difficult time of getting something for nothing. They feel uncomfortable not giving something back of value in exchange. The idea of The Lord God of Israel being a "personal God", even our heavenly Father who Loves and forgives like a Father, was different than Yahweh as a national deity who could only parcel out forgiveness when something of value was offered in exchange.


"I require mercy not sacrifice" The "good news" that were are all in fact sons and daughters of a personal God was a stunning revelation to both Jews and Gentiles alike. In tern, we are ALSO all brothers and sisters, we are to forgive our brother like our Father forgives us. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."


But a major stumbling block for the Jews when it came to these startling pronouncements by Jesus was they simply could not conceive of sharing Yahweh (God) equally with the Gentile world whom they looked down of with utter contempt.

 

[Inkfingers]

Hi inkfingers,

Thanks for your response:


Alright then, you have a choice to make. You can accept that in God's sight it is just in this instance just because God has said so...

Or you can stand on the seashore and shake your fist to the heavens and declare to God that He's an unjust God.

Here's what the Scriptures say about where you and God stand in relation to each other: Does not the potter have the right to do what he wants with what he has made?

You are absolutely correct that in a human court of law it seems unjust for the innocent to take the penalty of the guilty. But in God's court, where He gets to be the final say, He has decided that the blood of His innocent Son can pay the penalty for the guilty sinner. That's what God's word says, the just for the unjust. Now, if that not being fair causes you to stumble in your faith, then you're going to have to take that up with God. This is why God spent some 1,000 years working through Abraham and his progeny to have Israel write down His oracles. So we would know what to believe is the truth. Not so that we would necessarily agree that the way of God's truth was how we'd have handled it.

I absolutely agree with you that the just taking the punishment of the unjust doesn't seem fair, but I'm aware that being merciful trumps fairness. Fairness is that you die for your sin. Mercy is that you don't have to. In this instance God is being more than fair in His mercy. He is allowing His Son to take your punishment. But here's the really good news. Because His Son was sinless he doesn't have to fear the second death and because some trust God and what He has determined as fair and merciful, they don't have to either. In the end, God gets what He desires. A day in which He can stand upon His throne and declare that now the dwelling of God is with men and they shall be His people and He shall be their God.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I'm not declaring God unjust.

I'm saying that Calvin et al are wrong for saying Christ is a substitute victim taking our punishment.

 

[JojoM]

Peter in Acts 2 gives the first and possible the best "Christ Crucified" sermon we have. The is the very beginning of Christianity on the day of Pentecost, but you do not here Peter say: "Rejoice for the messiah is dead" but Peter is getting across the message "you tortured, humiliated and murdered the Messiah which resulted in them feeling the worst pain they could experience and live (described as a death blow to their heart Acts 2:37).
That was the feel Peter was wanting them to experience and the feeling we can experience when we realize: "Christ was tortured, humiliated and murdered" because of us (our sinning).
The only thing keeping us from passing out from grief is the fact the greatest love possible is also being experienced, so we have extreme mixed emotions with the cross.

I do rejoice knowing that Jesus rose again from the dead.

Anyway, I also want to say, let us make sure to remember to be cautious in the threads here that we may not get trolled by the unbelievers. I notice some of them lurking around like a snake waiting to bite.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Penal Substitution IS Calvinism.

I'm saved by grace through faith, not through putting an innocent to take my punishment.

I don’t doubt you on calvinism. It’s anti-intellectual from T to P.

What’s your faith in if not the work of Christ?

 

[miamited]

I'm not declaring God unjust.

I'm saying that Calvin et al are wrong for saying Christ is a substitute victim taking our punishment.

Hi inkfingers,

Yes, I understand what you're saying and I'm telling you that it has nothing to do with Calvin et.al. The Scriptures tell us that Christ is the sacrifice for our sin. The just for the unjust. Your argument isn't with Calvin, your argument is with God's word. So I stand by my post. You think you're shaking your fist at Calvin, but that's not who you're shaking your fist at.

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Isaiah wrote that Christ's blood would be for the salvation of the whole earth. So, your argument goes clear back to long before Calvin was even thought to be conceived by his parents.

Paul wrote that Jesus was our blood sacrifice:

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

So, your argument is with people much older than Calvin et.al.

The writer of Hebrews allowed the Christ was our sacrifice for sin:

Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

So, if you want to stand and shake your fist at God that He is unjust, then so be it. Me, I'm going to trust that His words are true and that because of the shed blood of His Son there is forgiveness for my sin.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Inkfingers]

Paul wrote that Jesus was our blood sacrifice:

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

So, your argument is with people much older than Calvin et.al.

The sacrifice of martyrdom, miamited, not of penal substitution taking a punishment for the guilty (the latter being what Calvin preached).

 

[1213]

...
And please, not "God said so" arguments. I'm not doubting what is written. I'm looking to understand the reasoning behind that choice of process.

Interesting thing is that God doesn’t seem to require blood, in the Bible.

 

[miamited]

The sacrifice of martyrdom, miamited, not of penal substitution taking a punishment for the guilty (the latter being what Calvin preached).

Hi inkfingers,

Well, you're now going far afield from your OP. Based on all the discussion so far, you seem to be one who has made up his mind as to the truth, that seeming to be because you can't wrap your mind around any justice where the innocent might suffer for the guilty, you're having some doubts about the teaching of the Scriptures that claim that in this instance, that is exactly what God has done.

Personally, I think you have become so focused on how wrong that aspect of God's mercy is, that you're unwilling to even try to understand 'why' God might consider that just. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it helps to have an understanding of 'what' God has done and is doing in creating this realm of life.

If we understand that when God spoke into this realm His first words, "Let there be ligh. That the ultimate goal for His speaking those words was, "And now the dwelling of God is with men", then we should be able to realize that all men have sinned and in order for God's purpose in creating this ream to come to fruition, according to God, there had to be a blood sacrifice for man's sin. Otherwise there would be no, "And now the dwelling of God is with men." However, you seem unwilling or unable to see that the Scriptures are an account of an entire plan that God has written out to us.

Is there a discernible reason behind requiring blood sacrifice to atone for sin?

We see it in the OT, with blood of all manner of animals being use as propitiation for sin, and in the NT with the idea of Jesus being a substitutional sacrifice on the cross, but....why? Is there are rational behind the use of blood which we can discern?

On the face of it, blood sacrifice looks pretty barbaric (especially when it uses the blood of an innocent to protect someone guilty - that is a strange definition of Justice at the very least) so I'm wondering if there is a rational behind the specific requirement for it that we can find in scripture...

And please, not "God said so" arguments. I'm not doubting what is written. I'm looking to understand the reasoning behind that choice of process.

According to you OP you have made the claim that the blood of an innocent to protect someone guilty is a strange definition of justice. For man that is true. But man isn't the judge and man doesn't get to make the rules. God is the Creator and the Judge and He has established, and had it written in His plan, that Jesus was to be and now is the atonement for the sin of mankind. Now, you can continue to rebuke that all you want. But it is what the Scriptures say.

How you ever dragged Calvin into this discussion, I'll never understand. This is not about what Calvin has said or taught or believed. This is about what God's word pretty clearly states.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Interesting thing is that God doesn’t seem to require blood, in the Bible.

Hi 1213,

You've really got to be kidding, right?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Chinchilla]

Interesting thing is that God doesn’t seem to require blood, in the Bible.

Why did God reject Cain's sacrifice from plants and accepted the meat sacrifice from Abel ?