- Jun 29, 2019
- 747
- 197
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
What part do we play in Jesus’ crucifixion? 1 Corinthians 6:20 infers that in the eyes of God and Jesus, we are a commodity, having been bought with a price. Commentators say the price is the blood of Jesus. Furthermore, it is implied that Jesus bought us with his blood. His blood was the ransom he paid for freeing us from, among other things, the world’s sins and the Law that kept the House of Jacob, descendants of Abraham, under control. It would have been the Law to anyone who claims Abraham’s inheritance, but for Jesus having bought us with his blood.
This angle of the Bible almost implies that Jesus one day approached God, asking Him to give His people to him in exchange for his blood, perhaps saying ‘I will pay you with my blood in exchange for setting these people straight.’ So what happens?
John 3:16 comes along and says that God gives the world his only son, that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. Seems that in exchange for Jesus’ offering pay God with his blood, God turns us over to Jesus, saying to him perhaps to ‘Go. The people are yours.’ And why would God approve of this transaction with Jesus? It’s because, as it says in John 3:16, He loves us. Apparently, He loves us enough not for us to fall victim to the sins of the world contaminating us to the point where we wouldn’t be fit for His Kingdom.
Granted, the plotline is a little confusing. Did Jesus approach God to send him among the people, that they may be saved, or did God say ‘Jesus, go to the people.’ Or did God say ‘Jesus, you may go to the people in exchange for a price you must pay for them. That price is your blood’? The confusion lies in whether Jesus approached God first, or was it the other way around?
Some say that the blood Jesus paid was the ransom price in exchange for gaining possession of us for him to reform. It almost seems like a bet has been made, with Jesus using his own blood for the bet with God. Can’t help but think of the musical “My Fair Lady,” in which professor Higgins makes a bet with a colonel that he can train Eliza Doolittle to speak properly. So, no matter how Jesus enters the scenario of saving us, could he have made a bet with God while God was in one of His exasperation moods with us similar to His lament in Isaiah 1, a bet that he, like Professor Higgins, could have made a bet that he could reform us Eliza Doolittles, so to speak, so we can enter God’s Kingdom?
What is a bet, but a transaction that involves uncertainty as to the outcome, for if the outcome is known, does a bet really exist? But in a bet, the uncertainty might be known to one side. Perhaps God, being all-knowing, knew what the outcome would be. Some may say that with each new generation of people, the bet is ongoing as to the outcome. Each new class of people coming into the world is inundated with the Word of God through Jesus. The Word of God continues to speak with each new generation, but does each new generation hear it?
This angle of the Bible almost implies that Jesus one day approached God, asking Him to give His people to him in exchange for his blood, perhaps saying ‘I will pay you with my blood in exchange for setting these people straight.’ So what happens?
John 3:16 comes along and says that God gives the world his only son, that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. Seems that in exchange for Jesus’ offering pay God with his blood, God turns us over to Jesus, saying to him perhaps to ‘Go. The people are yours.’ And why would God approve of this transaction with Jesus? It’s because, as it says in John 3:16, He loves us. Apparently, He loves us enough not for us to fall victim to the sins of the world contaminating us to the point where we wouldn’t be fit for His Kingdom.
Granted, the plotline is a little confusing. Did Jesus approach God to send him among the people, that they may be saved, or did God say ‘Jesus, go to the people.’ Or did God say ‘Jesus, you may go to the people in exchange for a price you must pay for them. That price is your blood’? The confusion lies in whether Jesus approached God first, or was it the other way around?
Some say that the blood Jesus paid was the ransom price in exchange for gaining possession of us for him to reform. It almost seems like a bet has been made, with Jesus using his own blood for the bet with God. Can’t help but think of the musical “My Fair Lady,” in which professor Higgins makes a bet with a colonel that he can train Eliza Doolittle to speak properly. So, no matter how Jesus enters the scenario of saving us, could he have made a bet with God while God was in one of His exasperation moods with us similar to His lament in Isaiah 1, a bet that he, like Professor Higgins, could have made a bet that he could reform us Eliza Doolittles, so to speak, so we can enter God’s Kingdom?
What is a bet, but a transaction that involves uncertainty as to the outcome, for if the outcome is known, does a bet really exist? But in a bet, the uncertainty might be known to one side. Perhaps God, being all-knowing, knew what the outcome would be. Some may say that with each new generation of people, the bet is ongoing as to the outcome. Each new class of people coming into the world is inundated with the Word of God through Jesus. The Word of God continues to speak with each new generation, but does each new generation hear it?