03.05. Who's Blood Saves?

5. - WHOSE BLOOD SAVES? In the moral grading of creation a beast ranks lower than a man. If a murderer were to offer to redeem his life by the slaughter of a thousand sheep or bullocks justice would reject the proposal.

Therefore “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). The sacrifices from Abel onward had no inherent saving virtue. They did indeed secure a real benefit to the devout offerer:“Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering” (Genesis 4:4). On the basis of such sacrifices He made an eternal covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:1-21). Out of regard to the blood of the lambs He spared the firstborn in Egypt (Exodus 12:1-51). The burnt offering was accepted by God as atonement for the offerer (Leviticus 1:4), and the sin-offering was accompanied by the guarantee of forgivenness (Leviticus 4:20; Leviticus 4:26; Leviticus 4:31; Leviticus 4:35; Leviticus 5:10; Leviticus 5:13; Leviticus 5:16; Leviticus 5:18).

Yet because the life offered was not a just equivalent for the life forfeited the former could not provide for the latter a complete redemption, and the offender, though pardoned for that offence, did not attain a permanent righteousness before God. Hence those sacrifices needed to be constantly repeated, because the worshipper did not acquire consciousness of having been completely cleansed from sin (Hebrews 10:1-4). The inadequacy of those sacrifices could have been justly inferred from God’s declaration to Noah that nothing less than the shedding of the murderer’s blood could expiate his guilt for having shed a neighbour’s blood (Genesis 9:5-6); human life could be balanced only against human life, for man having been made in the image of God transcends in dignity the lower creatures, the death of which cannot therefore in law correspond to his death which that law demands against his sin. This was made specially clear under the law of Moses by there being a long catalogue of major crimes for which no sacrifice could be accepted to deliver the culprit from the capital penalty. Murder, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, and sabbath breaking were among these crimes.The holy God could grant that former measure of pardon without dereliction of justice because He foreknew that in due course a Sacrifice would be offered which would carry that inherent saving virtue which all other sacrifices lacked. These were but anticipatory of that, and derived from it what benefit they brought. Any discounting of the future by man is of necessity a speculation since he cannot guarantee the future; but this is not so with God, for He can certainly bring to pass the event on which He counts and in anticipation of which He acts. His lamb was foreknown before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20). The absolute certainty of His atoning death justified God in “passing over sins done aforetime,” that is, before the sacrifice of Christ at Golgotha (Romans 3:25). On this principle David, upon repentance and confession, was pardoned for adultery and murder and the capital penalty was remitted (2 Samuel 12:13). This forbearance of God was justified solely, but fully, by the atoning death of His Son. From the same declaration of God to Noah it could have been further inferred that the substitute needed for the sinner must himself be man, since only human life could answer for human life. This had been announced by God in Eden when He promised that the foe of man should be crushed by “the seed of the woman” (Genesis 3:15). Yet no mere man could suffice, for only one human life could be redeemed by a life which was only human; by strict justice one man could be the substitute for but one man. It was therefore a necessity in Divine law that the promised Substitute should be of a moral rank and worth that should surpass the worth of all mankind, not of one or a few or even many sinners, but Who should be a “propitiation for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). This demand could be met only by the Creator in person, since He alone transcends in moral dignity His whole creation and could alone offer the indispersable plenary sacrifice.

Therefore God in love assumed humanity in the person of His Son, and was born of a woman, becoming Jesus Christ the Son of God. But as no sinner could offer his life to redeem another sinner, his own life being already forfeited by his own sin, therefore this Redeemer-Man must be without sin, inherited or committed. This necessitated such a birth as should prevent the transmission to Him of a sinful nature and grant to Him a pure nature which, being without sin, could live without sinning. His birth of a virgin by the direct act of the Spirit of God was a necessity. Without deity the Substitute could not act for all the race of man; without humanity He could not represent mankind at all; without sinlessness He could not atone for sinners. To deny either of these features is to leave the human race without a Saviour, exposed to the inflexible justice that demands death as the inescapable and just penalty of sin.

There was no other good enough To pay the price of sin, He only could unlock the gate Of Heav’n and let us in. (C. F. Alexander).

“But now once at the consummation of the ages hath He been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26). Whose blood saves? “Ye were redeemed... with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ,” “in Whom we have our redemption, through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of His [God’s] grace” (1 Peter 1:19 : Ephesians 1:7).