One Died For All

[Fervent]

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.

Again, where in the text itself are you getting this idea?

 

[JAL]

Again, where in the text itself are you getting this idea?

Multiple joint themes permeating the testaments:
(1) beginning with the curse of death upon Adam's offspring.
(2) including the Problem of Evil. Without sin, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't run around threatening and imposing death (and other consequences) upon His creatures.
(3) "Without the shedding of blood there no forgiveness." Hebrews is clear enough that the OT rituals were "shadows" of divine realities.
(4) The entire Pentateuch is prolific with reminders that sin orients us to divine judgment/wrath (viz Noah's generation for example). Thus the very MENTION of sin in Leviticus 4 already implies the question, how do we escape the penalty? And the text provides an answer (regardless of whether it is merely typological) - substitutionary death of a lamb (or other creature).

I think you'd have a better case if Lev were the only book in the OT - that way you could more easily argue that the text doesn't provide enough info to connect all these dots. But Hebrews is clear that SOME kind of system of dots stretches from Leviticus to the cross. Naturally, most Christians make the sorts of connections that I am making.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Agreed, the sin offering was eaten.

The blood was placed on the horns of the bronze altar outside in the courtyard.

What it reveals is correctly understood only in the light of the NT.

 

[Fervent]

Multiple joint themes permeating the testaments:
(1) beginning with the curse of death upon Adam's offspring.
(2) including the Problem of Evil. Without sin, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't run around threatening and imposing death (and other consequences) upon His creatures.
(3) "Without the shedding of blood there no forgiveness." Hebrews is clear enough that the OT rituals were "shadows" of divine realities.
(4) The entire Pentateuch is prolific with reminders that sin orients us to divine judgment/wrath (viz Noah's generation for example). Thus the VERY mention of sin in Leviticus 4 already implies the question, how do we escape the penalty? And the text provides an answer (regardless of whether it is merely typological) - substitutionary death of a lamb (or other creature).

I think you'd have a better case if Lev were the only book in the OT - that way you could more easily argue that the text doesn't provide enough info to connect all these dots. But Hebrews is clear that SOME kind of system of dots stretches from Leviticus to the cross. Naturally, most Christians make the sorts of connections that I am making.

So basically you're forcing a reading. As I said, Hebrews doesn't support the position you claim it does which we can see if we read what immediately precedes that statement. The entire focus of Hebrews 9:11-22 is the cleansing power of blood, with no indication of substitution. So again, you're not going by what the text says. Of course, none of this is surprising given your track record of ignoring the Bible in lieu of your philosophy.

 

[JAL]

Of course, none of this is surprising given your track record of ignoring the Bible in lieu of your philosophy.

Unsubstantiated nonsense ignored. Real allegations are specific.

So basically you're forcing a reading. As I said, Hebrews doesn't support the position you claim it does which we can see if we read what immediately precedes that statement. The entire focus of Hebrews 9:11-22 is the cleansing power of blood, with no indication of substitution. So again, you're not going by what the text says.

Wrong: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9). That's substitutionary.

 

[Fervent]

Agreed, the sin offering was eaten.

The blood was placed on the horns of the bronze altar outside in the courtyard.

What it reveals is correctly understood only in the light of the NT.

The fullness is revealed by the NT, but the issue is you're taking a reference to the OT in "hilasterion" reading it according to pagan appeasement rituals and then distorting the OT picture based on that reading. The placement of the blood in each sacrifice depends on the sin that its cleansing, with greater cleansing getting closer to the altar itself. Understanding "mercy seat" or "atonement cover" requires first understanding what was accomplished there to know what it reveals about Christ, not inserting pagan ideas and forcing them on the text.

 

[Fervent]

Unsubstantiated nonsense ignored. Real allegations are specific.


Wrong: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9). That's substitutionary.

The statement has to be understood within the context of the text. And the purpose of the blood is explicitly highlighted in the passage with statements like "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 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." and "And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship"

 

[JAL]

The statement has to be understood within the context of the text. And the purpose of the blood is explicitly highlighted in the passage with statements like "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 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." and "And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship"

Already addressed at post 318.
One Died For All | Page 16 | Christian Forums

You want to say "the" purpose (as if just one) but the texts identify two purposes (see post 318).

 

[Fervent]

Already addressed at post 318.
One Died For All | Page 16 | Christian Forums

You want to say "the" purpose (as if just one) but the texts identify two purposes (see post 318).

Citing your assertion doesn't address an issue, and the text defines its own terms. 9:22 cannot be read without 9:21 which tells us what it is in reference to, and that is that blood is necessary for cleansing. No where does it indicate substitution is in mind, that is instead something you're reading into the text. Which is why I have asked you where in the text itself you are getting the idea, yet all you give is philosophy.

 

[Clare73]

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.

"Like" us does not mean exactly the same as us, as my polyester rabbit coat is not a rabbit coat, but is like a rabbit skin coat, having the same appearance and qualities of warmth and beauty.

You're forgetting that the animal sacrifices had to be perfect, without blemish or natural flaw, in order to qualify as substitutionary atonement for the Israelite.
Jesus could not have been an atoning sacrifice with the imperfection of a fallen nature.

 

[JAL]

Citing your assertion doesn't address an issue, and the text defines its own terms. 9:22 cannot be read without 9:21 which tells us what it is in reference to, and that is that blood is necessary for cleansing. No where does it indicate substitution is in mind, that is instead something you're reading into the text. Which is why I have asked you where in the text itself you are getting the idea, yet all you give is philosophy.

You're assuming the writer can only have one purpose in mind - in this case you insist it is cleansing. But the text belies your assumption:

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

Do you NOT understand the difference between justification (forgiveness) and cleansing (sanctification)?

 

[JAL]

Essentially you're counseling me to ignore what the text says. I don't get it. Can anyone make sense of this?

 

[Fervent]

"Like" us does not mean exactly the same as us, as my polyester rabbit coat is not a rabbit coat, but is like a rabbit skin coat, having the same appearance and qualities of warmth and beauty.

You're forgetting that the animal sacrifices had to be perfect, without blemish or natural flaw, in order to qualify as substitutionary atonement for the Israelite.
Jesus could not have been an atoning sacrifice with the imperfection of a fallen nature.

Now it seems you've gone beyond simply bordering on docetism into outright denying that Christ's incarnation was in fact human flesh but instead another substance. Hebrews is clear that it is in every way, not simply an approximation. As for your statement about the animal sacrifices, you'd have to prove that substitution was in fact in mind in the sacrifices if you're going to rely on them as evidence and that doesn't really speak to the issue at hand because Adam's sin didn't just affect human beings it brought corruption into all of creation.

 

[Fervent]

You're assuming the writer can only have one purpose in mind - in this case you insist it is cleansing. But the text belies your assumption:

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

Do you NOT understand the difference between justification (forgiveness) and cleansing (sanctification)?

The Greek word is aphesis, which is closer to remission than forgiveness. And the context gives it it's interpretation, not removing it and then giving it meaning. The context is "And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." There is no idea of substitution there, but there is an explicit connection with the purifying nature of blood.

 

[JAL]

Now it seems you've gone beyond simply bordering on docetism into outright denying that Christ's incarnation was in fact human flesh but instead another substance.

Your words sound totally Gnostic! As I recall it was an element of Gnosticism to maintain that flesh itself is tainted/evil. The soul is tainted with sin, not human protoplasm (a machine). Machines cannot be associated with sin. Christ had the same kind of flesh/protoplasm as we do, but His soul was untainted.

Hebrews is clear that it is in every way, not simply an approximation.

Open-ended terms typically have limited scope in normal usage. Example: "Let's start the meeting, since everyone is here." Everyone? In the whole world?

 

[Clare73]

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.

Not quite. . .
Nothing in the OT indicates that the Mosaic covenant would be made obsolete (Heb 8:7,13).
Nothing in the OT indicates that the law could make no one righteous (Ro 3:20).
Nothing in the OT indicates that the Mosaic covenant did not replace the Abrahamic covenant,
but was temporarily added to it (Gal 3:17-18).
There's nothing to first understand in the OT in order to properly understand
Heb 8:7, 13; Ro 3:20 or Gal 3:17-18.

You can't properly understand the Mosaic covenant or the law without the NT's revelation concerning both of them.

 

[JAL]

The Greek word is aphesis, which is closer to remission than forgiveness. And the context gives it it's interpretation, not removing it and then giving it meaning. The context is "And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." There is no idea of substitution there, but there is an explicit connection with the purifying nature of blood.

Maybe you can argue for some ambiguity there. But to what end? To deny that He atoned for us? Here's what Paul said:


"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!"

All the elements are there - justification, blood, death-penalty, God's wrath - and actually not much clear mention of cleansing/sanctification at all. You seem to be trying to polarize dots that, in Scripture, are clearly connected.

 

[Fervent]

Not quite. . .
Nothing in the OT indicates that the Mosaic covenant would be made obsolete (Heb 8:7,13).
Nothing in the OT indicates that the law could make no one righteous (Ro 3:20).
Nothing in the OT indicates that the Mosaic covenant did not replace the Abrahamic covenant, but was temporarily added to it (Gal 3:17-18).
There's nothing to first to understand in the OT in order to properly understand Heb 8:7, 13 or Ro 3:20.

You can't properly understand the Mosaic covenant or the law without the NT's revelation concerning both of them.

1) Yes, there is. The covenant with Moses is explicitly tied with the land and is entirely contingent on the Israelites upholding it, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel both talk about how their failure to keep it will lead God to replace it. Deuteronomy 4 even predicts this will happen.
2) The command throughout the OT is "be holy, for the Lord is holy." This is a sentiment set apart from the law, and through narrative it is demonstrated that the main purpose is to restrain evil rather than teach good.
3) Nothing indicates that it did, either. But the Mosaic covenant is explicitly contingent on the adherence to it.
4) Hebrews is almost entirely a commentary on Leviticus, without first understanding Leviticus Hebrews is bound to be misinterpreted. Without understanding the ordinances and institutions of the Old Testament, the superiority mentioned in Hebrews doesn't really make sense.

It's true that the OT is a shadow compared to the new, but every book of the Bible must first be understood in its own context before bringing in material outside its context to modify it. Penal substitution is almost entirely the invention of John Calvin.

 

[Fervent]

Maybe you can argue for some ambiguity there. But to what end? To deny that He atoned for us? Here's what Paul said:


"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!"

All the elements are there - justification, blood, death-penalty, God's wrath - and actually not much clear mention of cleansing/sanctification at all. You seem to be trying to polarize dots that, in Scripture, are clearly connected.

There's no ambiguity, Hebrews tells us precisely what it has in mind and only reading into the text will give it substitutionary flavor. Again, no direct idea of substitution especially not idea that Jesus suffered the wrath of God. Through Jesus we have aversion of God's wrath as a matter of identification, in the same way as through the Passover the Israelites identified themselves as God's people. I in no way deny the atoning value of Jesus' death, it is the idea that wrath is satisfied rather than averted that I take issue with primarily.

 

[JAL]

There's no ambiguity, Hebrews tells us precisely what it has in mind and only reading into the text will give it substitutionary flavor. Again, no direct idea of substitution especially not idea that Jesus suffered the wrath of God. Through Jesus we have aversion of God's wrath as a matter of identification, in the same way as through the Passover the Israelites identified themselves as God's people. I in no way deny the atoning value of Jesus' death, it is the idea that wrath is satisfied rather than averted that I take issue with primarily.

Are you saying that we are saved by Christ as our federal representative? IN other words, by our identification with our Rep? As opposed to substitutionary death quenching God's wrath?