SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : RANSOM?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )

Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Back to the issue at hand

Coming back to the discussion here...
Medkes asked

So to whom was the blood poured? Is it to appease God?

Think it goes right back to the whole of Hebrews, that of types and shadows. Another comes to mind, make that a couple:

Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Pro 16:14 A king's wrath is a messenger of death, and a wise man will appease it.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Not sure if I am drawing the right analogy here that I want to, would defer to much better exposition in the [url=]Propitiation and the red heifer[/url] thread for more on all this.

But to draw alongside Robert here in regards to some misunderstandings earlier in this thread, that of the blood having... From Freecd
The blood of Christ is not magic. It by itself removes no sin. Christ's death saves no one. The atonement is only a method that God used to show His love and make salvation possible.

Whooo... that's a remarkable statement and perhaps it didn't come out in the way it was intended, but you couldn't get any farther from the truth.

[b]Whose[/b] blood and [b]whose[/b] death [i][b]is[/b][/i] [b]His[/b] love.

Mike Balog

 2005/4/7 10:42Profile

 paid for our sins is a metaphor

An allegory is a story that is created, we're talking about biblical allegories now, an allegory is a story created to portray a spiritual truth. It can be taken literally with the details pressed for meaning. An allegory is a story that is created to portray a spiritual truth and it can be taken literally with the details pressed for meaning. A religious metaphor, on the other hand, while it is also intended to convey a spiritual truth, is not to be taken in a literal, physical way. Anr example of a metaphor is that He is the door. Metaphprs are stories that are meant to convey or word pictures meant to convey some spiritual truth but we don't press these metaphors for some kind of literal or physical meaning. And if we do, well, we're going to have to recreate the universe. Another metaphor is you are bought with a price. That is a biblical metaphor that is very often interpreted as an allegory. Another thing that you might find interesting, is that in that scripture where we are told that we are bought with a price, the word price can be translated to read honor. Now there's a concept here, there's a cost factor that God is trying to convey. He's trying to say, "now listen, it cost a great deal to bring you back to Myself, it wasn't cheap, it cost a lot". But He is not trying to convey some exact literal transfer, some legal transfer again where 'X' number drops of blood paid literally for 'X' number of sins. Where ever analogies from legal procedure are employed (in the Bible), they are usually assumed to prove the presence of the objective or judicial view of the Atonement. There is need, therefore, of the greatest caution in the exegesis of the language used in the Atonement". All of this legal terminology, these words that we put down that we have to be very careful about how we approach these words and phrases and not just immediately jump on them and begin to form this whole concept of a legal transfer between the first and second members of the Trinity. It will mess up our understanding of the character of God and it will also fail to provide a powerful sin deterrent barrier in our lives in the future.

This matter of ransom, this payment idea, is a figurative expression to help us understand that God came and intervened on our behalf when we were held bound by the kidnapper of sin. And God offered something of great value that we might be released from the power of sin. That's true. But it is not true that God was the one that was holding us captive in sin and therefore He should receive some kind of literal payment in order to release us. God wasn't holding us captive. In fact, the whole time, all along, He was the one trying to set us free. And if He wants to set us free, why does He need any kind of payment. Only in His role as a governor, the righteous moral governor of the universe, does He have certain requirements. Not on a personal level or a personal basis.

 2005/4/7 11:01

Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re: paid for our sins is a metaphor

Another metaphor is you are bought with a price.

I see this as a literal truth. I have been bought with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without spot or blemish. I have been 'redeemed'. I was sold unto Sin and now I am the property of God. The issue of a transaction has been written on extensively with many theories; yet sin carries a price tag. The price of sin(s) is death and the wages of Sin is death.

It will mess up our understanding of the character of God and it will also fail to provide a powerful sin deterrent barrier in our lives in the future.

The only real barrier to sinning is to love God with all our hearts and delight in Him. Soteriological fear causes great resentment for a Child of God who is doing their best to walk in the Spirit and are constantly under fear of their soul. I knew a woman named Rosie who lost her mind because of that type of teaching. She was 70+ years old and in a nursing home wondering if she was going "to make it" (to Heaven). Someone taught her a horrendous theology and the last time I saw her she was in a cage in the hospital. She went insane. What was it? She knew she was getting older and ready to die and had served God ALL of her life in holiness and yet she wondered if she was going to "make it." That is a works based theology that militates against the Gospel. I utterly reject ANY such teaching as false.

Sinners should fear and tremble, but the children of God function in their relationship with God out of love. If we flip that around and make the main thrust of a Christians relationship with God 'fear based' were are in as much error as those who preach sloppy grace. Christians are not like animals wearing shock collars. They are the children of God who relate to Him with that ABBA father and child relationship. The dog may have the shock collar on (God forbid) but the children do not. Preaching God in such a way as to make the relationship 'fear based' is NOT God's intention in bringing many sons unto glory.

God Bless,


Robert Wurtz II

 2005/4/7 11:36Profile

 Re: A song of debt

I was just musing these wonderful posts that everyone is particpating in and I got to humming a tune concerning this great debt that Jesus paid it goes like this:

"He paid a debt He did not owe
I owed a debt I could not pay
I needed someone to wash my sins away.

And now I sing a brand new song, amazing grace
Christ Jesus paid a debt that I could never pay".

Karl ;-)

 2005/4/7 11:56

 God is not a blood-thirsty being

God is not a blood-thirsty being. That just seeing Christ's blood and just seeing His suffering and just viewing His death was not what God was after.

The sacrifice was not to have an impact on God. God was not the object of the act. The sacrifice itself, what was done, what was taking place was to have an impact on man. Man needed to change. Man needed to be affected. If man was not affected, if his heart was not changed, if there was no impact, no humility, no contrition by the blood sacrifice, it didn't work. So, it is. The poured out life of Jesus Christ must have an impact on our lives and on our hearts or else it doesn't work.

 2005/4/7 16:07

Joined: 2005/2/2
Posts: 12


What do Finney, FreeCd etc exactly make of Jesus' death on the cross then? I don't really understand it...
Why did Jesus need to actually be seperated from the Father?
What was He reffering to when he said "It is finished"?
What does Corinthians mean when it says He was "made sin"?

I don't know if those are silly questions but they just occured to me when reading those ideas.

 2005/4/7 17:02Profile

Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732

 Re: God is not a blood-thirsty being

Freecds' provocative man-centered comments caused me to recall Watchman Nees' insights on the blood in Normal Christian Life. Edit: If you are pressed for time skip this and make time for IntheLights' post right above mine. His is even more on point!"

"It is God’s holiness, God’s righteousness, which demands that a sinless life should be given for man. There is life in the Blood, and that Blood has to be poured out for me, for my sins. God is the One who requires it to be so. God is the One who demands that the Blood be presented, in order to satisfy His own righteousness, and it is He who says: ‘When I see the blood’, I will pass over you.’ The Blood of Christ wholly satisfies God.

"The Blood is first for God to see. We then have to accept God’s valuation of it. In doing so we shall find our valuation. If instead we try to come to a valuation by way of our feelings we get nothing; we remain in darkness. No, it is a matter of faith in God’s Word. We have to believe that the Blood is precious to God because He says it is so (1 Peter 1:18,19). If God can accept the Blood as a payment for our sins and as the price of our redemption, then we can rest assured that the debt has been paid. If God is satisfied with the Blood, then the Blood must be acceptable. Our valuation of it is only according to His valuation—neither more nor less. It cannot, of course, be more, but it must not be less. Let us remember that He is holy and He is righteous, and that a holy and righteous God has the right to say that the Blood is acceptable in His eyes and has fully satisfied Him."

"But I want to ask myself, am I really seeking the way into the Presence of God by the Blood or by something else? What do I mean when I say, ‘by the Blood’? I mean simply that I recognize my sins, that I confess that I have need of cleansing and of atonement, and that I come to God on the basis of the finished work of the Lord Jesus. I approach God through His merit alone, and never on the basis of my attainment; never, for example, on the ground that I have been extra kind or patient today, or that I have done something for the Lord this morning. I have to come by way of the Blood every time. The temptation to so many of us when we try to approach God is to think that because God has been dealing with us—because He has been taking steps to bring us into something more of Himself and has been teaching us deeper lessons of the Cross—He has thereby set before us new standards, and that only by attaining to these can we have a clear conscience before Him. No! A clear conscience is never based upon our attainment; it can only be based on the work of the Lord Jesus in the shedding of His Blood."

Initially, our standing with God was secured by the Blood, for we are “made nigh in the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). But thereafter our ground of continual access is still by the Blood, for the apostle exhorts us: “Having therefore... boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus... let us draw near” (Heb. 10:19,22). To begin with I was made nigh by the Blood, and to continue in that new relationship I come through the Blood every time. It is not that I was saved on one basis and that I now maintain my fellowship on another... No, my initial approach to God is by the Blood, and every time I come before Him it is the same. Right to the end it will always and only be on the ground of the Blood.

"We may be weak, but looking at our weakness will never make us strong. No trying to feel bad and doing penance will help us to be even a little holier. There is no help there, so let us be bold in our approach because of the Blood: ‘Lord, I do not know fully what the value of the Blood is, but I know that the Blood has satisfied Thee; so the Blood is enough for me, and it is my only plea. I see now that whether I have really progressed, whether I have really attained to something or not, is not the point. Whenever I come before Thee, it is always on the ground of the precious Blood. Then our conscience is really clear before God. No conscience could ever be clear apart from the Blood. It is the Blood that gives us boldness.

“No more conscience of sins”: these are tremendous words of Hebrews 10:2. We are cleansed from every sin; and we may truly echo the words of Paul: “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin” (Romans 4:8)."

Mike Compton

 2005/4/7 17:10Profile

Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2772
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re: God is not a blood-thirsty being

[b]The Blood Is Primarily For God[/b]

The Blood is for atonement and has to do first with our standing before God. We need forgiveness for the sins we have committed, lest we come under judgment; and they are forgiven, not because God overlooks what we have done but because He sees the Blood. The Blood is therefore not primarily for us but for God. If I want to understand the value of the Blood I must accept God's valuation of it, and if I do not know something of the value set upon the Blood by God I shall never know what its value is for me. It is only as the estimate that God puts upon the Blood of Christ is made known to me by His Holy Spirit that I come into the good of it myself and find how precious indeed the Blood is to me. But the first aspect of it is Godward. Throughout the Old and New Testaments the word `blood' is used in connection with the idea of atonement, I think over a hundred times, and throughout it is something for God.
In the Old Testament calendar there is one day that has a great bearing on the matter of our sins and that day is the Day of Atonement. Nothing explains this question of sins so clearly as the description of that day. In Leviticus 16 we find that on the Day of Atonement the blood was taken from the sin offering and brought into the Most Holy Place and there sprinkled before the Lord seven times. We must be very clear about this. On that day the sin offering was offered publicly in the court of the tabernacle. Everything was there in full view and could be seen by all. But the Lord commanded that no man should enter the tabernacle itself except the high priest. It was he alone who took the blood and, going into the Most Holy Place, sprinkled it there to make atonement before the Lord. Why? Because the high priest was a type of the Lord Jesus in His redemptive work (Hebrews 9:12,12), and so, in figure, he was the one who did the work. None but he could even draw near to enter in. Moreover, connected with his going in there was but one act, namely, the presenting of the blood to God as something He had accepted, something in which He could find satisfaction. It was a transaction between the high priest and God in the Sanctuary, away from the eyes of the men who were to benefit by it. The Lord required that. The Blood is therefore in the first place for Him.
Earlier even than this there is described in Exodus 12:13 the shedding of the blood of the passover lamb in Egypt for Israel's redemption. This is again, I think, one of the best types in the Old Testament of our redemption. The blood was put on the lintel and on the door-posts, whereas the meat, the flesh of the lamb, was eaten inside the house; and God said: "When I see the blood, I will pass over you". Here we have another illustration of the fact that the blood was not meant to be presented to man but to God, for the blood was put on the lintel and on the door-posts, where those feasting inside the house would not see it.

-from [i]The Normal Christian Life[/i] by Watchman Nee

Ron Halverson

 2005/4/7 17:11Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: flour has no blood

IT was God's LOVE behind and the reason for the atonement.

Of course it was. Holy Love, not human sentiment. If your concept of love does not include righteousness it is defective.1 'TIS finished! The Messias dies,
Cut off for sins, but not his own:
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
The great redeeming work is done.

[b]2 'Tis finished! all the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world hath died.[/b]

3 The veil is rent in Christ alone;
The living way to heaven is seen;
The middle wall is broken down,
And all mankind may enter in.

4 The types and figures are fulfilled;
Exacted is the legal pain;
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

5 The reign of sin and death is o'er,
And all may live from sin set free;
Satan hath lost his mortal power;
'Tis swallowed up in victory.

6 Saved from the legal curse I am,
My Saviour hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
'Tis finished! he expires for me.

7 Accepted in the Well-beloved,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
I see the bar to heaven removed;
And all thy merits, Lord, are mine.

8 Death, hell, and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo, I plead the atoning blood,
And in thy right I claim thy heaven!

Charles Wesley

Ron Bailey

 2005/4/9 4:05Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK


I don't know if those are silly questions but they just occured to me when reading those ideas.

No, these are not silly questions. There is no such thing as a 'silly question' for those seeking to understand God's truth. ;-)

Ron Bailey

 2005/4/9 4:09Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy