The Blood of Jesus Christ

[Drew]

10 "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you. 11 "But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, 12 then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 13 "You shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with you. (Deuteronomy 19:10-13 NASB)

Fair enough, I will provisionally assume that the original Hebrew has been correctly translated (that's not always the case by the way - there are difficult translation decisions to be made and I am quite confident that, at times at least, the intent of the writer gets distorted through the translation).

I simply cannot accept this picture of a god that needs to engage in what effectively works out to be revenge (I suggest) to deal with sin. And yet I very much want to take the Scriptures seriously. So here is my proposal: Yes, the Old Testament presents a model whereby God "punishes", as attested to by words like "avenger" in the text you present. However, it is at least conceivable that God knows that the Israelites simply cannot comprehend what will later be revealed through Jesus, namely that God's real way of dealing with sin and disobedience is not to lash out in violent retribution but rather to respond to evil with love and healing. Given that the Israelites are not arguably able to understand this model of loving forgiveness, and given that they need laws to bring order to their society, God indeed orders them to implement what appears to us - who have the whole story behind us including the revolutionary teaching of Jesus - to be unduly harsh and vindictive. I am not entirely comfortable with this, but I cannot go down the road of embracing this idea that God has to lay the smack on someone to deal with sin. After all, this is not the model we are taught by Jesus; we are instead commended to forgive, love our enemies, go the second mile, etc.

 

[FreeGrace]

I simply cannot accept this picture of a god that needs to engage in what effectively works out to be revenge (I suggest) to deal with sin.

What shall we do with these verses??
Isa 1:24, 5:9, 29, 9:9, 46:10, Joel 3:24 (NASB)

Rom 12:19 - Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. NIV

Heb 10:30,31 - For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” andagain, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a dreadful thing tofall into the hands of the living God. NIV

And yet I very much want to take the Scriptures seriously.

And Scripture is serious about God who does take revenge.

 

[Deborah13]

But as we see the law demanded that the people of God themselves carry out the just penalty and punishment for wrong-doing. The reason we don't have to do that now is because Christ died the death for everybody condemned by the law and subject to immediate execution. This is what it means for Christ to have come to fulfill the law, not abolish it:

"17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17 NASB)

By dying the death the law requires, Jesus fulfills the justice of the law that requires punishment, not abolishes it. If no one died then that would in effect be abolishing the requirement of the law for just and rightful punishment of the offender.

I think when we compare the sacrifice for sin we cannot say that the requirement according to the Law was death for the offender. Of the many laws very few required the death of the offender.

OK, but I do not see how any of this requires us to think of Jesus being punished. Here is an analogy: when a firefighter enters a burning building and dies, he has "sacrificed" his life in an attempt to save others. But he is certainly not being punished.

To be sacrificed does not necessarily mean to be punished.

I don't think the Father was punishing His Son for our sin. He gave His life willingly as a sacrifice for mankind. I rather think that was the requirement, that there was a completely innocent one who would lay down his life for even his enemies.
Moses was willingly but he couldn't fulfill that requirement because he was not without sin, not perfectly innocent. Until the Messiah came there was none who could fit the bill. Therefore the stand ins, the animals who could not be guilty of man's sin. Theirs was taken, He gave Himself.
So I think the question really is, why blood atonement was necessary to begin with. I don't think it was something God required but He instituted it for man. I don't think God is blood thirsty, it is man who in his sense of what justice is that demands the blood of others. Not necessarily literal blood either but sometimes the life blood of the person. Sometimes we see others goal is to make a person feel guilty even to the point of having them doubt their relationship with God and therefore their salvation. Oh yes, we are a blood thirsty lot.
Sometimes we sin or desire to sin and turn right around and blame someone else in our life for that sin. Sometimes we even tell them about it to make them feel guilty, to make them take the blame. What is that about? We can be so self-righteous.

 

[Deborah13]

First, let's agree that the phrase "blood of Christ" refers to His sacrificial death on a cross for the sins of humanity. Apart from that, further discussion will be unproductive. The phrase has literally nothing to do with the literal blood that flowed through his blood vessels.

That said, why Jesus? God demands justice for all sin. Only a perfect Sacrifice could satisfy (propitiate) God the Father. Only humans sin; not animals, birds, fish. Angels were already dealt with when Adam was created, which isn't covered in Scripture, other than the note of why the Lake of Fire was created. Therefore, Jesus, the perfect Sacrifice, was the only human who could be sacrificed for the sins of humanity, all of who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).


Through His death (separation from God), Christ's sacrifice paid in full (tetelestai) the penalty or debt of the sins of humanity. This removes the issue of sin regarding final residence in heaven or hell. Leaving the only issue left: whether or not one possesses God's life, which is eternal life, which is a free gift given to those who have believed in Jesus Christ as Savior. Those who do not possess this free gift from God are not qualified (Col 1:12) to live with God eternally, and will be cast into the LoF (Rev 20:15).


First, no one is covered in any literal sense. But those who have believed in Christ for salvation have been forgiven (Acts 10:43), which is different than reconciliation. Why? Because God reconciled the WORLD in Christ (2 Cor 5:19), yet Paul admonishes people to be "reconciled to God". God's side of reconciliation was accomplished by the finished work of Christ on the cross. Man's side of reconciliation is accomplished when man believes in Christ as Savior.

 

[Gregg]

OK, but I do not see how any of this requires us to think of Jesus being punished. Here is an analogy: when a firefighter enters a burning building and dies, he has "sacrificed" his life in an attempt to save others. But he is certainly not being punished.

To be sacrificed does not necessarily mean to be punished.

Jesus was not punished for His sin; but He suffered willingly.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I simply cannot accept this picture of a god that needs to engage in what effectively works out to be revenge (I suggest) to deal with sin.
...the Israelites simply cannot comprehend what will later be revealed through Jesus, namely that God's real way of dealing with sin and disobedience is not to lash out in violent retribution but rather to respond to evil with love and healing.

What is the Book of Revelation all about then?

Given that the Israelites are not arguably able to understand this model of loving forgiveness, and given that they need laws to bring order to their society, God indeed orders them to implement what appears to us - who have the whole story behind us including the revolutionary teaching of Jesus - to be unduly harsh and vindictive. I am not entirely comfortable with this, but I cannot go down the road of embracing this idea that God has to lay the smack on someone to deal with sin. After all, this is not the model we are taught by Jesus; we are instead commended to forgive, love our enemies, go the second mile, etc.

Then what happened to God's law that demanded punishment of the offender? Was it fulfilled in Christ, or abolished in Christ?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think when we compare the sacrifice for sin we cannot say that the requirement according to the Law was death for the offender. Of the many laws very few required the death of the offender.

True of offenses requiring immediate death in this life (read the list, you may be surprised at how many of us deserve the death one earns through violations of so short a list). But, as you know, ultimately, all sin leads to physical and spiritual death as the punishment for that sin. But that doesn't have to happen when we accept the wrath of God poured out on Christ at the cross as the satisfactory payment of the just penalty, even revenge, that God requires, the penalty for sin that we learn about in the law.

Just the fact that unbelievers--the majority of mankind--are still subject to God's death penalty removes any argument that 1) God does not punish wrong-doing, and 2) he used to, but he's changed his mind about doing that. He still punishes wrong-doing, and he's only changed his mind about that for the one who has accepted Christ's punishment at the cross as their own.

 

[Deborah13]

What shall we do with these verses??
Isa 1:24, 5:9, 29, 9:9, 46:10, Joel 3:24 (NASB)

Rom 12:19 - Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. NIV

Heb 10:30,31 - For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” andagain, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a dreadful thing tofall into the hands of the living God. NIV


And Scripture is serious about God who does take revenge.

How do any of these verses say God took revenge out on His Son?
I see God taking revenge on those who He deems deserve revenge as a just God.

I understand that the Ascension happened 40 days after the Resurrection; but, He also that He ascended to the Father between the time of His death and Resurrection. Scripture portrays this in many places.
- In that the high priest entered into the Most Holy during the Atonement, it would be expected that Christ entered the heavenly one.
- In that the high priest brought the Menorah [Messiah anointed by the Spirit] from the outer room and into the Most Holy during the Atonement, it would be expected that Christ entered the heavenly one.
- in that the high priest brought coals from the altar mixed with incense into the Most Holy during the Atonement, it would be expected that Christ entered the heavenly one to appear Personally before His Father.
- "Jesus said, 'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.' And saying this, He breathed out the spirit" (Luk 23:46; see Psa. 31:5).
- "by how much more the blood of Christ (who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God) . . ." (Heb 9:14 a).

- - -

You mentioned the scapegoat led into the wilderness. I believe that it portrayed Jesus' body being crucified outside the city, His being buried in an empty place, and that He carried our sins away that they not be remembered against us.

I hadn't thought about Him being crucified outside the city just that He carried sin away from the people.
Thanks again for the scriptures. I'm not ignoring them. I just don't have any thoughts, yea or nay, about them right now.

 

[FreeGrace]

How do any of these verses say God took revenge out on His Son?
I see God taking revenge on those who He deems deserve revenge as a just God.

I don't believe anyone said anything about God "taking revenge" out on His Son. God was exacting judicial punishment for humanity on His Son. He was the "scape goat" for the sins of humanity.

If Christ had not removed the sin debt, God would not show grace towards mankind.

 

[Drew]

What shall we do with these verses??
Isa 1:24, 5:9, 29, 9:9, 46:10, Joel 3:24 (NASB)

Rom 12:19 - Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. NIV

Heb 10:30,31 - For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” andagain, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a dreadful thing tofall into the hands of the living God. NIV

And Scripture is serious about God who does take revenge.

I have offered an explanation in post 41 as to how we can still take these verses seriously and not see God as "vengeful".

I think that given what Jesus teaches us, we simply cannot think of God as vengeful; everyone in our modern world understands revenge-taking to be immature and destructive. So while I cannot deny that a willingness to take revenge is attributed to God in the Scriptures, it must mean something other than what it seems it to mean. And there are lots of examples where the "true" meaning of Scripture is at variance with a literal reading of the text.

 

[Deborah13]

I don't believe anyone said anything about God "taking revenge" out on His Son. God was exacting judicial punishment for humanity on His Son. He was the "scape goat" for the sins of humanity.

If Christ had not removed the sin debt, God would not show grace towards mankind.

Well, maybe I missed the whole idea of this thread and Drews posts but I think I understand his concerns but I could be wrong.

I find this idea that God needs to punish some living creature to deal with sin to be highly problematic - it casts God in the light of a petulant child who wants to lash out at those who have angered him or her. Let me be clear: By saying this, I am certainly not saying "the Bible is wrong"; I am instead challenging what I see as a presumption that the atonement was about punishment. As per earlier posts, I really think it was about "de-activating the power sin" and "wiping aways its damaging effects".
Remember Romans 8:3 - it is sin, not Jesus that is God's target.

Fair enough, I will provisionally assume that the original Hebrew has been correctly translated (that's not always the case by the way - there are difficult translation decisions to be made and I am quite confident that, at times at least, the intent of the writer gets distorted through the translation).

I simply cannot accept this picture of a god that needs to engage in what effectively works out to be revenge (I suggest) to deal with sin. And yet I very much want to take the Scriptures seriously. So here is my proposal: Yes, the Old Testament presents a model whereby God "punishes", as attested to by words like "avenger" in the text you present. However, it is at least conceivable that God knows that the Israelites simply cannot comprehend what will later be revealed through Jesus, namely that God's real way of dealing with sin and disobedience is not to lash out in violent retribution but rather to respond to evil with love and healing. Given that the Israelites are not arguably able to understand this model of loving forgiveness, and given that they need laws to bring order to their society, God indeed orders them to implement what appears to us - who have the whole story behind us including the revolutionary teaching of Jesus - to be unduly harsh and vindictive. I am not entirely comfortable with this, but I cannot go down the road of embracing this idea that God has to lay the smack on someone to deal with sin. After all, this is not the model we are taught by Jesus; we are instead commended to forgive, love our enemies, go the second mile, etc.

Please read the words in blue.

 

[Sinthesis]

I don't believe anyone said anything about God "taking revenge" out on His Son. God was exacting judicial punishment for humanity on His Son. He was the "scape goat" for the sins of humanity.

If Christ had not removed the sin debt, God would not show grace towards mankind.

Was God exacting judicial punishment on His Son? Or was God just letting sinful humanity take its best shot at His Son, so He could then glorify Him to our dismay/joy afterword as proof that He is sovereign? God showed Grace to mankind by simply sending His Son, well before the sin debt was removed.

 

[FreeGrace]

I have offered an explanation in post 41 as to how we can still take these verses seriously and not see God as "vengeful".

I think that given what Jesus teaches us, we simply cannot think of God as vengeful; everyone in our modern world understands revenge-taking to be immature and destructive. So while I cannot deny that a willingness to take revenge is attributed to God in the Scriptures, it must mean something other than what it seems it to mean. And there are lots of examples where the "true" meaning of Scripture is at variance with a literal reading of the text.

OK, what do you think the verses mean when they clearly state that "vengeance" belongs to the Lord, and that He takes vengeance?

The Greek word for veneance in Rom 12:19 and Heb 10:30 is:
ekdikēsis
1) a revenging, vengeance, punishment

Does God not exact punishment?

 

[FreeGrace]

Was God exacting judicial punishment on His Son? Or was God just letting sinful humanity take its best shot at His Son, so He could then glorify Him to our dismay/joy afterword as proof that He is sovereign?

God was exacinng judicial punishment on His Son, that was due to mankind. The Son "became sin for us". 2 Cor 5:21

God showed Grace to mankind by simply sending His Son, well before the sin debt was removed.

No, grace was on the basis of Christ propitiating the Father for our sins. 1 Jn 2:2.

Apart from propitiation, there could be no grace towards mankind. If grace precedes propitiation, Christ would not have had to die for us, nor would He have.

Only when the justice of God is propitiated is grace available to mankind.

 

[gr8grace3]

Jesus was not punished for His sin; but He suffered willingly.

I know you know this Gregg. But Just to be clear.

Jesus was sinless and suffered on our be-half. He had our sins laid on Him, but remained sinless through His life and the whole process of the Cross.

 

[Gregg]

I know you know this Gregg. But Just to be clear.

Jesus was sinless and suffered on our be-half. He had our sins laid on Him, but remained sinless through His life and the whole process of the Cross.

Yes, thank you.

 

[Malachi]

Can you make a Biblical case that Jesus is specifically propitiatory (satisfying a need for justice), rather than expiatory (wiping away impurity)?

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: AND HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS; AND NOT FOR OURS ONLY, BUT ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD" ( 1 John 2:1,2).

This is God's record concerning His own Son (1 John 5:9,11) and may not be lightly set aside. Faith in His blood (Romans 3:24,25) is a necessary part of recognizing that Christ is our propitiation (satisfaction towards God whose holiness is vindicated through the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God).

That word "propitiation" is the Greek word hilasmos from which we derive hilaskomai and hilasterion. All of these words point to God the Father being completely satisfied that justice has been done in that Christ His Son was offered up as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, given the fact that the wages of sin in death (Romans 6:25). Indeed "He hath MADE HIM TO BE SIN FOR US who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

 

[FreeGrace]

deleted as it was a reply to a deleted post...