One Died For All

[Fervent]

"The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Ro 5:18)
"No one can see the kingdom of God until he is born again." (Jn 3:3)
"we were by nature (Ps 51:5) objects of wrath. (Eph 2:3)
Whatever it is, it is our nature, we are born with it--it is a condition from birth.

It is not Jesus' death that deals with that fallen nature, it is the rebirth of our spirit into eternal life; i.e., God's life being imparted into our spirit, giving us a new nature to deal with, subdue our continuing fallen nature, not to totally eliminate it. We won't enjoy its elimination until the resurrection.

You do realize that assigning any kind of sin to Jesus himself in any way is historical Christian heresy, right?

Jesus, the second Adam, was born without a fallen nature as was the first Adam.
The first Adam acquired his fallen nature in his disobedience (the fall).
Jesus never disobeyed, and never acquired a fallen nature.

Being tempted is not sinful. It is yielding to the temptation that is sinful.
Jesus was tempted--by Satan, to disobey the Father (Mt 4:1-11), and constantly tempted to retreat from the cross, demonstrated from examples reported in Mt 16:21-23; Lk 22:40-44.

And being human like us, he did not conquer temptation without a struggle (Lk 22:40, see 11:4).
And being divine, it was his nature to do his Father's will (Jn 5:19), not a fallen nature which prefers oneself over God (Jn 5:30).

How can He give us a new nature if the old is left in tact? Did Christ not put the old man to death? How has Christ dealt with sin and condemned sin in the flesh, without taking on the nature corrupted by it?

 

[Clare73]

There is no indication that the death of the animal is the penalty/payment of sin,

merely an expedient manner of getting the blood which was the effective agent. Each sacrifice Jesus is explicitly linked with serves a distinct purpose, with passover being the representative/substitutionary sacrifice and that is apotropaic rather than atoning. The atoning value of the sin and atonement sacrifices came via the cleansing power of the blood,

the sacrificial animal was not corrupted by the sin as it was Azazel's goat in the atonement that sin was placed upon and the sin offering remained clean for the priests to eat.
The only sacrifice that served as a representative of wrath upon sin is burnt and that was destroyed utterly, with the smoke being the piece of atonement to God.

Let me edit my former response (post #294) to your post here, now that I am better understanding where you are coming from in your post.

And let me begin first by addressing comments you've made--not in the post above--regarding the illegitimacy of systematic theology, by pointing out to you that
Paul, the Pharisee is THE systematic theologian in Romans, reconciling Biblical truths/facts to one another.

Now to Leviticus.

The Levitical sacrifices were penalty for sin--Lev 5:6-7, 14, 6:6 (NIV).

As types of Jesus' sacrifice, the sacrifices were not merely an expedient manner of getting blood, just as Jesus' death was not merely an expedient manner of getting blood.

Those offering sacrifice for their sin laid their hands on the animal, identifying the animal with them and transferring their sin to the sacrifice (Lev 1:4, 4:4, 16:6, 21), to make atonement for them as a sin-bearing sacrifice.

The sacrifices were types of Jesus, our sin-bearing sacrifice (1Pe 2:24; Heb 9:28).

The concern throughout those sacrifices is cleansing from sin. The bronze altar had to be, by applying blood to its horns, cleansed from the sin laid on it in the sin-bearing sacrifices.

The sacrifices were not about the wrath of God, they were about cleansing (forgiveness), including the Whole Burnt Offering, which was a voluntary act of devotion and total consecration.

It was a type of Christ who was totally dedicated to God, voluntarily offering himself as a sacrifice.

Now I will address your remaining posts.

 

[Fervent]

Let me edit my former response (post #294) to your post here, now that I am better understanding where you are coming from in your post.

And let me begin first by addressing comments you've made--not in the post above--regarding the illegitimacy of systematic theology, by pointing out to you that
Paul, the Pharisee is THE systematic theologian in Romans, reconciling Biblical truths/facts to one another.

Now to Leviticus.

The Levitical sacrifices were penalty for sin--Lev 5:6-7, 14, 6:6 (NIV).

As types of Jesus' sacrifice, the sacrifices were not merely an expedient manner of getting blood, just as Jesus' death was not merely an expedient manner of getting blood.

Those offering sacrifice for their sin laid their hands on the animal, identifying the animal with them and transferring their sin to the sacrifice (Lev 1:4, 4:4, 16:6, 21), to make atonement for them as a sin-bearing sacrifice.

The sacrifices were types of Jesus, our sin-bearing sacrifice (1Pe 2:24; Heb 9:28).

Of the five Levitical sacrifices in the first six chapters of Leviticus, does your statement, "the sin offering remained clean for the priests to eat" refer to the Fellowship (Peace) Offering of chp 3?
If so, that sacrifice was the only one of the five that was eaten, in a sacrificial fellowship meal with the priest who offered it, where the Israelite took his portion of the sacrifice home to eat, while the priest ate his portion up in the Temple courtyard, fellowshipping together in the benefits of the sacrifice.

It is a pattern of the NT Lord's Supper, where we participate in the NT sacrificial meal, in fellowship with the Priest (Christ) who offered it, likewise participating in the benefits of the NT once-for-all sacrifice.

The concern throughout those sacrifices is cleansing from sin. The bronze altar had to be cleansed by blood from the sin laid on it in the sin-bearing sacrifices.

Is Azazel in the Protestant canon?

The sacrifices were not about the wrath of God, they were about cleansing (forgiveness), including the Whole Burnt Offering, which was a voluntary act of devotion and total consecration.

It was a type of Christ who was totally dedicated to God, voluntarily offering himself as a sacrifice.

Now I will address your remaining posts.

Romans isn't a systematic theology, it's a letter to a church divided into a Jewish wing and a gentile wing and how to rectify that division. Treating it as a systematic theology is to turn it into something other than what the context allows, and thus eisegesis. Nothing in Leviticus mentions a penalty for sin, and to extend the use of "compensation" to the understanding you have isn't warranted. There are 2 concerns/divides in Leviticus holy/common and clean/unclean. The sacrifices are entirely concerned with how to remove the stain of sin and cleanse unclean things, the only one that involves recompense requires payment in kind. Jesus' sacrifice is understood by understanding what the sacrifices accomplished and then seeing how Jesus addresses that, not by creating a theology of atonement based on 2 statements in the NT and then reading that atonement theology into the OT sacrifices. The goat for Azazel comes directly from Leviticus 16, it is the goat taken to the wilderness. The burnt offering is about wrath, and that's why the animal is completely destroyed and the smoke gives a pleasing aroma. All of the olah are linked with wrath, and each sacrifice met a specific ritual need which is where they gain their names. AFAIK there is no direct comparison between Christ and the burnt offering, and the only explicit Biblical links I can think of are sin, peace, cereal, and passover.

 

[Clare73]

You're misunderstanding the statement of compensation because you don't understand the theology of Leviticus.

The principal concern throughout the sacrifices is cleanliness, in that sin makes one unclean. If the animal itself took on the corruption of sin, the priests wouldn't be able to eat it because that would make them unclean for eating an unclean animal. The animal remains clean, though, and

the compensation is made in it's blood (Lev 17:11). Jesus' suffering on the cross is a matter of obedience, the extent and degree of the suffering themselves are not what saves but the blood is, so in a sense I suppose it would be.

The priestly sacrifices don't have the imagery of identification, instead being about ownership.

Passover is representational in that the head of each family identifies them and their family with a lamb by marking the doorposts and lentils with its blood and through the blood God's wrath passes over them.

God's wrath is not satisfied in the sacrifice, it is instead averted.

You're reading later ideas into the text rather than looking at what the text says, nothing in the laying of hands on the animal implies a transfer of sins it is a means of marking ownership. As I said before, the animals remained clean to eat which demonstrates that they did not become corrupted by having the sin placed on them.

The only animal that expressly has sins placed upon it is the goat to Azazel(scapegoat), and that goat was not sacrificed but sent into the wilderness(which is why it's known as the scapegoat, or escape goat).

The principal concern in the sacrifices was removal (taking away) of sin (until Jesus' sacrifice).

The blood was not compensation.
"The life of the creature is in the blood, and I have given it (the life in the blood) to make atonement on the altar; it is the blood (wherein is the life) that makes atonement for one's life." (Lev 17:11)
Life for life.
The life was the compensation, the blood cleansed the sinner.

"Ownership" has no relevance to taking away one's sin, but "identifying" with the animal dying for that sin does.

Passover was not part of the sacrificial system, it was a Holy Day, like the other Holy Days.
The lamb of Passover was not sacrificed by a priest, as the Levitical sacrifices were.

God's wrath is propitiated (Gr: hilasmos)--appeased, satisfied (1Jn 2:2, 4:10), not averted.
Later ideas have nothing to do with the meaning of the Greek words written before those ideas.

The NT reveals that Jesus was a sin-bearing sacrifice (1Pe 2:24; Heb 9:28).
That understanding comes from Lev 16:21-22, from which came
Peter and Paul's understanding of Jesus' sacrifice as sin-bearing (1Pe 2:24; Heb 9:28),
wherein placing hands on the head of the animal with confession of sin transfers the sin to the animal (Lev 16:21), notwithstanding the scapegoat's not being sacrificed.

The scapegoats were types of the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice--it atoned for sin, and took it away
never to be found again.

 

[Clare73]

How can He give us a new nature if the old is left in tact? Did Christ not put the old man to death? How has Christ dealt with sin and condemned sin in the flesh, without taking on the nature corrupted by it?

This condemnation of sin is not about the removal of the sin nature and giving of a new nature.
It's about God's judgment on sin saving the sinner from judgment.

What the law was powerless to do (overcome, remove sin) because of our sin nature,
God did in his Son.
He condemned sin, manifested his hatred for sin, in the flesh of Christ, in the sacrifice of his body.
He broke the power of sin, took the power out of the way.
Though sin (fallen nature) still lives, its power has been broken.
So by Christ sin was condemned, and that condemning of sin saved the sinner from condemnation.

 

[Fervent]

The principal concern in the sacrifices was removal (taking away) of sin (until Jesus' sacrifice).

All the Levitical sacrifices were not eaten, only the Fellowship (Peace) Offering was eaten, and the eating of the Fellowship sacrifice had nothing to do with "clean meat."

The blood was not compensation.
"The life of the creature is in the blood, and I have given it (the life in the blood) to make atonement on the altar; it is the blood (wherein is the life) that makes atonement for one's life." (Lev 17:11)
Life for life.
The life was the compensation, the blood cleansed the sinner.

"Ownership" has no relevance to taking away one's sin, but "identifying" with the animal dying for that sin does.

Passover was not part of the sacrificial system, it was a Holy Day, like the other Holy Days.
The lamb of Passover was not sacrificed by a priest, as the Levitical sacrifices were.

God's wrath is propitiated (Gr: hilasmos)--appeased, satisfied (1Jn 2:2, 4:10), not averted.
Later ideas have nothing to do with the meaning of the Greek words written before those ideas.

The NT reveals that Jesus was a sin-bearing sacrifice (1Pe 2:24; Heb 9:28).
That understanding comes from Lev 16:21-22,
which is where Peter and Paul's understanding of Jesus' sacrifice as sin-bearing came from (1Pe 2:24; Heb 9:28),
wherein placing hands on the head of the animal with confession of sin transfers the sin to the animal (Lev 16:21), notwithstanding the scapegoat's not being sacrificed.

The scapegoats were types of the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice--it atoned for sin, taking it away never to be found again.

All of the sacrifices were eaten except the burnt offering, the laity were only permitted to eat the peace offering but the meat of the other offerings fed the priests. Nothing in the sacrifices implies a "taking away" of sin in the sense you're speaking, guilt was addressed through making amends and the sacrifices were a matter of cleansing the temple implements so that God could dwell there. The eating of the flesh demonstrates the meat was clean from sin, as the priests who had to keep themselves from all unclean things were not contaminated by it. Hilasmos literally means "mercy seat," propitiation is an incorrect rendering because what occured on the mercy seat was not propitiation but destruction/cleansing. The goat on Yom Kippur that was sacrificed was not the scapegoat, the goat to YHWH was to be presented pure. All of what you say is backwards, rather than looking to the context of the Jewish sacrifices you are extending a late theology and cherry picking to justify it.

 

[Fervent]

This condemnation of sin is not about the removal of the sin nature and giving of a new nature.
It's about God's judgment on sin saving the sinner from judgment.

What the law was powerless to do (overcome, remove sin) because of our sin nature,
God did in his Son.
He condemned sin, manifested his hatred for sin, in the flesh of Christ, in the sacrifice of his body.
He broke the power of sin, took the power out of the way.
Though it still lives (fallen nature), its power has been broken.
So by Christ sin was condemned, and that condemning of sin saved the sinner from condemnation.

Your own citation speaks against you, sin could only be condemned in the flesh if Jesus' nature was like unto His brethren in every way. You seem to prioritize a theological system rather than conforming to the words of Scripture, and it's borderline gnostic in denying that Jesus' incarnation was fully human. You seem to have completely ignored Romans 6. "
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin." (ESV)
The full picture of salvation is that in Christ's death sinful flesh was put to death, so that we may live in the Spirit. Yet instead of that you cling to unbiblical notions that reek of gnostic aversion to material.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

I find plenty of plausibility in your replies to Fervent. Since justification and sanctification are two sides of a coin, we should expect to find nuances of both in most of the OT rituals. And that's what you seem to be confirming, only to have Fervent categorically shoot down your observations with blanket statements such as:

"Nothing in Leviticus mentions a penalty for sin"

Huh? Why would he assume that? Leviticus 4, for example, stipulates animal sacrifices as a consequence of sin. This is consistent with the curse pronounced upon Adam in the Garden that death is the penalty for sin. How is death NOT a penalty? Romans likewise reaffirms death as the penalty for sin. And then when Christ, the Lamb of God, suffers the death-penalty for our sin, I can only see continuity here.

I'm not insisting that Fervent is wrong (and he is possibly correct that much of the OT typology stressed sanctification/cleansing more than justification), but overall your statements seem more plausible because they seem more balanced (a more plausible mixture of justification and sanctification).

 

[Clare73]

Romans isn't a systematic theology, it's a letter to a church divided into a Jewish wing and a gentile wing and how to rectify that division. Treating it as a systematic theology is to turn it into something other than what the context allows, and thus eisegesis.

Nothing in Leviticus mentions a penalty for sin, and to extend

the use of "compensation" to the understanding you have isn't warranted.

There are 2 concerns/divides in Leviticus holy/common and clean/unclean. The sacrifices are entirely concerned with how to remove the stain of sin and cleanse unclean things, the only one that involves recompense requires payment in kind.

Jesus' sacrifice is understood by understanding what the sacrifices accomplished and then seeing how Jesus addresses that, not by

creating a theology of atonement based on 2 statements in the NT and

then reading that atonement theology into the OT sacrifices. The goat for Azazel comes directly from Leviticus 16, it is the goat taken to the wilderness. The burnt offering is about wrath, and that's why the animal is completely destroyed and the smoke gives a pleasing aroma. All of the olah are linked with wrath, and each sacrifice met a specific ritual need which is where they gain their names. AFAIK

there is no direct comparison between Christ and the burnt offering, and the only explicit Biblical links I can think of are sin, peace, cereal, and passover.

Romans is about everything from righteousness from God, unrighteousness of all mankind, righteousness imputed, righteousness imparted, to God's own righteousness vindicated and righteousness practiced.
It's not eisegesis to find it very systematic in showing the relationships of all the parts to each other and to the whole. It gleams with revelation from the third heaven.

"Penalty" is the NIV translation, which translation was governed by a board of 15 and involved over 100 scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries from five countries and over 15 denominations. I see no reason not to trust their translation which uses the word "penalty"
in Lev 5:6-7, 14, 6:6.

Atonement involves the substitution of life for life.
My use of "compensation" is not only warranted, it is required.
The substitution of life for life is the substitution of life (which is in the blood) for life.

Actually, the concerns of Leviticus are
the holiness of God,
the nature of sin, and
how an unholy people can have fellowship with a holy God; i.e.,
first sin must be dealt with.
So in Leviticus we see God's three-part remedy for sin:
substitutionary penal atonement in chps. 1-7 - in the five different sacrifices,
the priesthood in chps. 8-10 - through whom the sacrifices must to be offered, and
spiritual cleanness (holiness) in chps. 11-15 - pictured in persons, food, clothing and houses, followed by
laws and regulations of the covenant in chps. 16-27.

Actually, it is the OT sacrifices that are truly understood in the light of what the whole NT reveals concerning Jesus' atonement, thereby in retrospect making Leviticus the seedbed of NT theology.

The theology of atonement is built on the entire NT revelation concerning Jesus' work on the cross.

That is how the OT is truly understood--in the light of the NT.

Yes, there is no Biblical statement comparing Christ to the Whole Burnt Offering, as there is no Biblical statement comparing Christ to the Fellowship Offering or to the Grain Offering.

 

[JAL]

I just read Leviticus 4 again. Hadn't actually read it in a long time. If that chapter isn't alluding to death as a penalty for sin, I don't know what is.

 

[Clare73]

All of the sacrifices were eaten except the burnt offering, the laity were only permitted to eat the peace offering but the meat of the other offerings fed the priests. Nothing in the sacrifices implies a "taking away" of sin in the sense you're speaking, guilt was addressed through making amends and

the sacrifices were a matter of cleansing the temple implements so that God could dwell there. The eating of the flesh demonstrates the meat was clean from sin, as the priests who had to keep themselves from all unclean things were not contaminated by it
.
Hilasmos literally means "mercy seat," propitiation is an incorrect rendering because what occured on the mercy seat was not propitiation but destruction/cleansing. The goat on Yom Kippur that was sacrificed was not the scapegoat, the goat to YHWH was to be presented pure.

All of what you say is backwards, rather than looking to the context of the Jewish sacrifices you are extending a late theology and cherry picking to justify it.

The sin offering was not eaten.

Cleansing the Temple applied only to the Day of Atonement.

The NIV uses "atonement cover," not mercy seat.

The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed.
The OT is correctly understood only in the light of the NT.

 

[Clare73]

Your own citation speaks against you,

sin could only be condemned in the flesh if Jesus' nature was like unto His brethren in every way. You seem to prioritize a theological system rather than conforming to the words of Scripture, and

it's borderline gnostic in denying that Jesus' incarnation was fully human.

You seem to have completely ignored Romans 6. "
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
7 For one who has died has been set free from sin." (ESV)
The full picture of salvation is that in Christ's death sinful flesh was put to death, so that we may live in the Spirit. Yet instead of that you cling to unbiblical notions that reek of gnostic aversion to material.

Okay, let me put this way:
The punishment of sin nature in Christ was substitutionary, as was everything in the atonement of Christ. It was not Christ's sinful nature that was punished--he didn't have one, it was Christ taking the punishment for our sinful nature, in our place.

It's not borderline Gnostic, it's mainstream Christology of the NT.
Christ did not have a sinful nature.
Both the First Adam and the Second Adam, Christ, were created sinless.
However, the First Adam disobeyed, losing his sinless nature to a fallen nature, and transmitting that fallen nature to all mankind.
But the Second Adam did not disobey, did not lose his sinless nature to a fallen nature, and now imputes that sinless nature to those who are in him (Ro 5:18-19).

You are conflating two different things: disposition of the natural self, and regeneration of the spirit.
There is sinless human nature/disposition (before the fall) and
there is fallen human nature/disposition (after the fall).
There is the new man/self of the regenerated spirit,
which was the old man/self of the unregenerated spirit.
Unregeneration and regeneration are of the spirit, while
unfallen and fallen are of the disposition of human nature.

The old self (of the unregenerated spirit) has been brought to nothing (rendered powerless) in our death with Christ so that
it can no longer enslave us to sin (which has been weakened to its death throes),
because the one who has died with Christ to sin's ruling power has been freed from sin's power.
.

 

[JAL]

It was not Christ's sinful nature that was punished--he didn't have one, it was Christ taking the punishment for our sinful nature, in our place....
Christ did not have a sinful nature. Christ was the Second Adam, created sinless, as was the First Adam.

Amen to that. The irony is that Fervent is the one using objectionable terms like "Christ's sinful flesh" while suspecting YOU of Gnosticism - almost seems like the pot calling the kettle black. Just my two cents.

 

[Clare73]

Amen to that. The irony is that Fervent is the one using objectionable terms like "Christ's sinful flesh" while suspecting YOU of Gnosticism - almost seems like the pot calling the kettle black. Just my two cents.

The problem seems to be using the OT to interpret the NT. . .that's backwards.
It is the NT that reveals the meaning of the OT.

 

[Fervent]

The sin offering was not eaten.

Cleansing the Temple applied only to the Day of Atonement.

The NIV uses "atonement cover," not mercy seat.

The OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed.
The OT is correctly understood only in the light of the NT.

The Kohen ate parts of the sin offering, the only one that none of it was eaten by anyone is the burnt offering. Cleansing the temple was a continuous thing, with the blood being placed on different parts of the temple from the horns of the altar, to the altar and where the blood was placed was cleansed. The inner sanctum was not cleansed except on the day of atonement. The NT interprets the OT, but first we must understand what the OT context reveals otherwise we're simply applying our own modern biases on the text.

 

[Fervent]

Okay, let me put this way:
The punishment of sin nature in Christ was substitutionary, as was everything in the atonement of Christ. It was not Christ's sinful nature that was punished--he didn't have one, it was Christ taking the punishment for our sinful nature, in our place.

It's not borderline Gnostic, it's mainstream Christology of the NT.
Christ did not have a sinful nature.
Christ was the Second Adam, created sinless, as was the First Adam.
However, the First Adam disobeyed, losing his sinless nature to a fallen nature, and transmitting that fallen nature to all mankind.
But the Second Adam did not disobey, did not lose his sinless nature to a fallen nature, and now imputes that sinless nature to those who are in him (Ro 5:18-19).

You are conflating two different things: disposition of the natural self, and regeneration of the spirit.
There is sinless human nature/disposition (before the fall) and
there is fallen human nature/disposition (after the fall).
There is the new man/self of the regenerated spirit,
which was the old man/self of the unregenerated spirit.
Unregeneration and regeneration are of the spirit, while
unfallen and fallen are of the disposition of human nature.

The old self (of the unregenerated spirit) has been brought to nothing (rendered powerless) in our death with Christ so that
it can no longer enslave us to sin (which has been weakened to its death throes),
because the one who has died with Christ to sin's ruling power has been freed from sin's power.
.

You're denying that Christ's incarnation was completely as ours is, it's borderline gnosticism even if such teachings have infected "mainstream." The Bible is explicit that Christ was made like us in every way, yet you claim otherwise which almost certainly arises from Augustine's misunderstanding of Romans 5 due to a preposition that was inappropriately translated by Jerome. I'm not conflating anything, you're trying to separate out and make it so Jesus wasn't really human in every way that it means to be human, that His flesh was not actually like our flesh. Which is borderline docetism, a gnostic idea.

 

[Fervent]

The problem seems to be using the OT to interpret the NT. . .that's backwards.
It is the NT that reveals the meaning of the OT.

Paul used the OT extensively in his writings to explain concepts, without understanding the OT first the NT cannot be properly understood. Paul's use of sin, peace, and passover to identify Christ's sacrifice was a means of explaining Christ's sacrifice, not the sacrifices themselves. You are creating an understanding, calling it the NT understanding, and then reading that into the OT. It's nothing more than inserting your modern viewpoint into the text.

 

[JAL]

The Kohen ate parts of the sin offering, the only one that none of it was eaten by anyone is the burnt offering. Cleansing the temple was a continuous thing, with the blood being placed on different parts of the temple from the horns of the altar, to the altar and where the blood was placed was cleansed. The inner sanctum was not cleansed except on the day of atonement. The NT interprets the OT, but first we must understand what the OT context reveals otherwise we're simply applying our own modern biases on the text.

And? No one is denying that the sprinkling of the blood is for cleansing purposes (sanctification). Peter says we are chosen for:

"the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1Peter 1).

But where did the blood come from? The sacrificial Lamb who SHEDS his blood for our justification.

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9).

Both concepts permeate both testaments.
(1) Justification. The shedding of the blood (the death penalty imposed upon the lamb) is for justification.
(2) Sanctification. The sprinkling of the blood is for sanctification.

As to why you would insist that the OT literature was almost exclusively limited to #2 is beyond me.

 

[Fervent]

And? No one is denying that the sprinkling of the blood is for cleansing purposes (sanctification). Peter says we are chosen for:

"the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1Peter 1).

But where did the blood come from? The sacrificial Lamb who SHEDS his blood for our justification.

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9).

Both concepts permeate both testaments.
(1) Justification. The shedding of the blood (the death penalty imposed upon the lamb) is for justification.
(2) Sanctification. The sprinkling of the blood is for sanctification.

As to why you would insist that the OT literature was almost exclusively limited to #2 is beyond me.

Not only does the idea not permeate both testaments, the verse you chose doesn't carry the implication you seem to believe it does. Where in the actual text do you get that Leviticus is concerned with wrath against sin, or the issue of guilt?

 

[JAL]

Not only does the idea not permeate both testaments, the verse you chose doesn't carry the implication you seem to believe it does. Where in the actual text do you get that Leviticus is concerned with wrath against sin, or the issue of guilt?

In Leviticus 4, innocent lambs and other creatures suffer the death penalty for sins. Christ is featured later in the NT as the lamb of God. Death is part of God's wrath against sin. As to why you claim these dots don't connect is a mystery to me.