A Human Sacrifice that Saves Those Under the Law by the Shed Blood of the Son of God

[Steven Yeadon]

I have taken a class in soteriology a long while back.

I have been trying to understand which of the theories of the atonement would encapsulate the view that Jesus is a human sacrifice in the vein of the Old Testament animal sacrifices, that in Jesus' case is an actual propitiation of sins instead of a ceremonial atonement. For there is no forgiveness of sin or cleansing without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). I am building an understanding form Hebrews that in Jesus' case, the shedding of the blood of the sinless Son of God when offered as a sacrifice, as the high priest of a new covenant, called by God to be so, has the power not to just to ceremonially cleanse and atone but instead to actually forgive sin.

In addition, while the people are sprinkled with blood of animals to begin the old covenant (Exodus 24:4-8), we are sprinkled with the blood of His Son, who died a sacrifice for our sins, to begin a new and eternal covenant.

This also shows that we are a kingdom of priests for like Aaron and his sons we are sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice to consecrate them (Leviticus 8:30), we are sprinkled with the blood of the Son of God to consecrate us for service as priests of the Kingdom of God.

This sacrifice is also our paschal or Passover lamb from whose blood we are marked, whom we "feast on" as a family, and who marks us as those passed over by death.

I am also trying to understand how Christ's sacrifice and blood sprinkled on us, may be like the ceremony for those that have been healed of a defiling skin disease (Leviticus 14:1-7, which is only part of the process), or the ceremony for cleansing a moldy house (Leviticus 14:48-53, again part of the process).

I am perplexed though at how the day of atonement and the scapegoat might factor into all of this as well. At the very least, I see that Jesus' blood may make ready the mercy seat as it is sprinkled with blood on that day.
.
More or less I am trying to pull together all the OT actions and imagery to construct a propitiation model of atonement. My main question is: is this already done and categorized? If so I would love to read that book.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I have taken a class in soteriology a long while back.

I have been trying to understand which of the theories of the atonement would encapsulate the view that Jesus is a human sacrifice in the vein of the Old Testament animal sacrifices, that in Jesus' case is an actual propitiation of sins instead of a ceremonial atonement. For there is no forgiveness of sin or cleansing without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). I am building an understanding form Hebrews that in Jesus' case, the shedding of the blood of the sinless Son of God when offered as a sacrifice, as the high priest of a new covenant, called by God to be so, has the power not to just to ceremonially cleanse and atone but instead to actually forgive sin.

In addition, while the people are sprinkled with blood of animals to begin the old covenant (Exodus 24:4-8), we are sprinkled with the blood of His Son, who died a sacrifice for our sins, to begin a new and eternal covenant.

This also shows that we are a kingdom of priests for like Aaron and his sons we are sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice to consecrate them (Leviticus 8:30), we are sprinkled with the blood of the Son of God to consecrate us for service as priests of the Kingdom of God.

This sacrifice is also our paschal or Passover lamb from whose blood we are marked, whom we "feast on" as a family, and who marks us as those passed over by death.

I am also trying to understand how Christ's sacrifice and blood sprinkled on us, may be like the ceremony for those that have been healed of a defiling skin disease (Leviticus 14:1-7, which is only part of the process), or the ceremony for cleansing a moldy house (Leviticus 14:48-53, again part of the process).

I am perplexed though at how the day of atonement and the scapegoat might factor into all of this as well. At the very least, I see that Jesus' blood may make ready the mercy seat as it is sprinkled with blood on that day.
.
More or less I am trying to pull together all the OT actions and imagery to construct a propitiation model of atonement. My main question is: is this already done and categorized? If so I would love to read that book.

A very good quest, and nothing better than you doing this yourself with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Bible. Theological books can cloud our reasoning beyond that of what the Bible teaches

 

[Aaron]

But you aren't sprinkled with Christ's blood. Spiritually, yes, just as spiritually you nailed Him to the Cross. But you didn't handle a hammer or nail, and not one drop of blood has touched you. So don't head down the DeHaan road to superstition thinking that there was something supernatural about Christ's DNA and His blood chemistry that made the Atonement effectual. You don't think any of those who flogged Him or nailed Him to the Cross, (and especially the soldier that pierced his side) didn't get some blood splatter on them?

Did it cleanse them?

Abandon the idea that the Cross was a ritual human sacrifice. Don't think of the Cross as satisfying a tenet in a temple cultus. It's quite the contrary. The temple cultus is teaching us of Christ.

 

[Aaron]

And, haven't you left the Baptist faith? There's no telling where your newfound charismania will take you in this study.

Look out Kenneth Copeland!

 

[Steven Yeadon]

And, haven't you left the Baptist faith? There's no telling where your newfound charismania will take you in this study.

Look out Kenneth Copeland!

I have forsaken the Charismatic/Pentecostal/New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movements after I was told by some on this board to pray that anything not of God go away. Miraculously, I lost all of my "sign gifts" within days. That convinced me to flee the coming wrath along with researching those criticizing the NAR church I was affiliated with, IHOPKC. The many testimonies of those that left NAR and criticisms of IHOPKC and their affiliates had special impact on me after losing my "sign gifts." I must say that the prayers of those on this board work, and the LORD would not let me settle me into that deception, but disciplined me out.

I am writing out my testimony on this, because it was so powerful to lose my "sign gifts" while preparing to be a minister in the NAR.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

But you aren't sprinkled with Christ's blood. Spiritually, yes, just as spiritually you nailed Him to the Cross. But you didn't handle a hammer or nail, and not one drop of blood has touched you. So don't head down the DeHaan road to superstition thinking that there was something supernatural about Christ's DNA and His blood chemistry that made the Atonement effectual. You don't think any of those who flogged Him or nailed Him to the Cross, (and especially the soldier that pierced his side) didn't get some blood splatter on them?

Did it cleanse them?

Abandon the idea that the Cross was a ritual human sacrifice. Don't think of the Cross as satisfying a tenet in a temple cultus. It's quite the contrary. The temple cultus is teaching us of Christ.

I am really just trying to make sense of the teachings of Hebrews. This all grew out of a bible study of Hebrews.

However, thank you for mentioning Jesus sacrifice works in a spiritual as opposed to physical way. That changes things, and I must keep that fact in mind, so as to be careful. Jesus' death does not fit a ritual sacrifice of the cultus. Instead, it is in spirit a sacrifice for a new covenant for the forgiveness of sins. Your statement that the soldiers crucifying him certainly had blood splattered on them is a sign that Jesus' sacrifice is only efficacious in a spiritual way. Also, I would never argue, I hope, that Jesus has magic blood since that is unbiblical.

I need to look at the resurrection and not just the Cross though, I now realize.

I will have to work closely with commentaries and understand the main argument of Hebrews. This all seems to be boil down to what that argument is in a comprehensive way.

I feel I need to go forward with your critiques in mind, and follow where the bible takes me in my bible study. I must still make sense of verses like:

1 Peter 1:2

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Hebrews 9:22

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Hebrews 12:24

to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Hebrews 10:22

let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Hebrews 9:12

He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have been trying to understand which of the theories of the atonement would encapsulate the view that Jesus is a human sacrifice in the vein of the Old Testament animal sacrifices, that in Jesus' case is an actual propitiation of sins instead of a ceremonial atonement.

Well done for looking into the 'deep things of God.' Keep going with your studies and don't be disheartened by criticism.
However, I think you may be looking at things from the wrong end. Instead of looking at Christ fulfilling the O.T. sacrifices, you need to see those as figures of Christ. Rather than seeing Christ as a human sacrifice, look upon Him as the Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6; 7:22). He must do whatever is necessary to reconcile a righteous and Holy God to sinners.

Also, do not follow that wretched advice not to read books (Ecclesiastes 11:11; Proverbs 11:14). But read reputable authors; take the advice of people whom you trust.

 

[Yeshua1]

But you aren't sprinkled with Christ's blood. Spiritually, yes, just as spiritually you nailed Him to the Cross. But you didn't handle a hammer or nail, and not one drop of blood has touched you. So don't head down the DeHaan road to superstition thinking that there was something supernatural about Christ's DNA and His blood chemistry that made the Atonement effectual. You don't think any of those who flogged Him or nailed Him to the Cross, (and especially the soldier that pierced his side) didn't get some blood splatter on them?

Did it cleanse them?

Abandon the idea that the Cross was a ritual human sacrifice. Don't think of the Cross as satisfying a tenet in a temple cultus. It's quite the contrary. The temple cultus is teaching us of Christ.

The blood of Jesus was unique though, as was His Dna, as he alone was God Incarnate, and His blood alone could atone for sin, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well done for looking into the 'deep things of God.' Keep going with your studies and don't be disheartened by criticism.
However, I think you may be looking at things from the wrong end. Instead of looking at Christ fulfilling the O.T. sacrifices, you need to see those as figures of Christ. Rather than seeing Christ as a human sacrifice, look upon Him as the Mediator and Surety of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6; 7:22). He must do whatever is necessary to reconcile a righteous and Holy God to sinners.

Also, do not follow that wretched advice not to read books (Ecclesiastes 11:11; Proverbs 11:14). But read reputable authors; take the advice of people whom you trust.

Good advice, and he should stay away from any charasmatic books/authors for now, and to stay with solid conservative Reformed/Baptists authors/books!

 

[TCassidy]

The blood of Jesus was unique though,

So do you deny that Jesus was 100% human, having 100% human blood?

 

[Yeshua1]

So do you deny that Jesus was 100% human, having 100% human blood?

No, that Jesus was both 100 % fully God and man, so His blood/dna would be that of a perfect human Male, not tainted at all by effects of the fall!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, that Jesus was both 100 % fully God and man, so His blood/dna would be that of a perfect human Male, not tainted at all by effects of the fall!

Good answer.

 

[JonC]

No, that Jesus was both 100 % fully God and man, so His blood/dna would be that of a perfect human Male, not tainted at all by effects of the fall!

Why would Jesus' human body not be tainted at all by the effects of the fall? I ask because, at a genetic level (you mentioned DNA), wouldn't that make Jesus immune to sickness and disease? If He did not go to the Cross do you think that He would have lived forever in His "corruptible" body? Yet He came in the likeness of "sinful flesh". It seems that Jesus would have to be made like we are in order to sympathize with our weakness (it seems that He would have had to put on the same type of flesh that does not "inherit the kingdom of God" in order to redeem man).

 

[Darrell C]

I have taken a class in soteriology a long while back.

I have been trying to understand which of the theories of the atonement would encapsulate the view that Jesus is a human sacrifice in the vein of the Old Testament animal sacrifices, that in Jesus' case is an actual propitiation of sins instead of a ceremonial atonement. For there is no forgiveness of sin or cleansing without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). I am building an understanding form Hebrews that in Jesus' case, the shedding of the blood of the sinless Son of God when offered as a sacrifice, as the high priest of a new covenant, called by God to be so, has the power not to just to ceremonially cleanse and atone but instead to actually forgive sin.

In human sacrifice the one sacrificed dies in his/her own place, whereas the difference being with Christ is that He is dying in our stead.

So "human sacrifice" isn't what I would refer to Christ's death as.

The sacrificial animal died on behalf of the sinner, so too with Christ's Offering of Himself.

In addition, while the people are sprinkled with blood of animals to begin the old covenant (Exodus 24:4-8), we are sprinkled with the blood of His Son, who died a sacrifice for our sins, to begin a new and eternal covenant.

I don't view our being "sprinkled" with His blood as literal. In view is simply a vicarious death applied to our account.

The Old Testament types and figures were physical. The Tabernacle, for example, was physical, and represented the Holiest of All, Heaven. But we wouldn't expect Heaven to look like the Tabernacle (or Temple) nor would we limit Heaven to a singular structure. It's purpose was a physical representation that signified God's presence (which was lost in the Garden) and man's entrance to the Lord, which was allowed for the High Priest alone and this once a year:


Hebrews 9
King James Version (KJV)

1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;


The figure (parabolē, parable, see the link) only pictured the reality, which the Writer goes on to elaborate on:


Hebrews 9:22-24
King James Version (KJV)

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


Remember that veil?


Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


This is probably one of the most awesome statements in Scripture that ties the Old Testament picture/type/shadow/figure in to the reality it represented.

Think about it: we enter into God's presence through the True Veil, that is...His flesh. Or in other words, through His offering of Himself, which all Old Testament Sacrifice pictured.

More or less I am trying to pull together all the OT actions and imagery to construct a propitiation model of atonement. My main question is: is this already done and categorized? If so I would love to read that book.

Without question I would highly recommend a study of Hebrews. It defines a lot of important doctrinal positions that relate to the Covenant of Law.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why would Jesus' human body not be tainted at all by the effects of the fall? I ask because, at a genetic level (you mentioned DNA), wouldn't that make Jesus immune to sickness and disease? If He did not go to the Cross do you think that He would have lived forever in His "corruptible" body? Yet He came in the likeness of "sinful flesh". It seems that Jesus would have to be made like we are in order to sympathize with our weakness (it seems that He would have had to put on the same type of flesh that does not "inherit the kingdom of God" in order to redeem man).

Jesus was born in the likeness, but not the sameness of us, as He was the Incarnated God, who took on human form and humanity nature, but never ceased being God, nor was ever tainted by the fall of Adam. And yes, I believe Jesus would have lived forever if he did not choose to die for us on the Cross, as being sinless and in perfect humanity, would have been no curse of the fall on Him, no disease, sickness, body breaking down etc!

 

[JonC]

Jesus was born in the likeness, but not the sameness of us, as He was the Incarnated God, who took on human form and humanity nature, but never ceased being God, nor was ever tainted by the fall of Adam. And yes, I believe Jesus would have lived forever if he did not choose to die for us on the Cross, as being sinless and in perfect humanity, would have been no curse of the fall on Him, no disease, sickness, body breaking down etc!

While I disagree, thank you for explaining your position.

How do you reconcile the mortality of all flesh (not just men) with your theory that sin is a biological issue (passed genetically from the father)?

 

[Yeshua1]

While I disagree, thank you for explaining your position.

How do you reconcile the mortality of all flesh (not just men) with your theory that sin is a biological issue (passed genetically from the father)?

I am not saying that, but more that Adam was our Federal head/representative for God on our behalf, and when he failed and fell into sin and the fall happened, God declared that all humans afterwards born into the likeness of Adam will be tainted by the fall, and be born as sinners.

 

[JonC]

I am not saying that, but more that Adam was our Federal head/representative for God on our behalf, and when he failed and fell into sin and the fall happened, God declared that all humans afterwards born into the likeness of Adam will be tainted by the fall, and be born as sinners.

I'm not sure I'm following (except the federal head part, we agree there).

If I understood correctly, you believe that sin is biological (it is literally a genetic issue passed from parent to child). The reason I see your position this way is that you linked our sin to DNA, claiming Jesus would be different and if not murdered he would have lived (physically) forever.

But death and sickness extend far beyond the realm of man. If all flesh perishes because it is flesh, why would Jesus' incarnation be different? And if it is, then is this truly an "incarnation"?

I just don't see how you've come to some of your conclusions.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not sure I'm following (except the federal head part, we agree there).

If I understood correctly, you believe that sin is biological (it is literally a genetic issue passed from parent to child). The reason I see your position this way is that you linked our sin to DNA, claiming Jesus would be different and if not murdered he would have lived (physically) forever.

But death and sickness extend far beyond the realm of man. If all flesh perishes because it is flesh, why would Jesus' incarnation be different? And if it is, then is this truly an "incarnation"?

I just don't see how you've come to some of your conclusions.

The Incarnation is when God, the Second Person of Him, became a human being, when God assumed on humanity, but the flesh and human nature Jesus was born with avoided being contaminated by the Fall, if not, he would have been born a sinner like you and me.

 

[JonC]

The Incarnation is when God, the Second Person of Him, became a human being, when God assumed on humanity, but the flesh and human nature Jesus was born with avoided being contaminated by the Fall, if not, he would have been born a sinner like you and me.

So Jesus was human like Adam was originally (before the Fall) but not human like we are now? And this is a biological issue (our DNA is different)?