What’s with the blood?
When Carla from More Books and Things writes about this…
Stricken by God?
Nonviolent Identification & the Victory of Christ
Edited by Brad Jersak and Michael Hardin
published by FreshwindIt’s about the ‘non-violent atonement.’ Supposedly, the church is asking questions about the very foundation of their belief - the theology of the cross. And the answers are coming from ‘every stream of Christianity.’
And then I find this that proves that the atonement is being questioned…
In short: I have grown increasingly uncomfortable with a depiction of God-the-Father that supposedly requires blood sacrifice in order to divert his vengeance from a humanity he hates so much that somebody’s gotta die.
I wasn’t aware that God hated humanity - I thought He hated sin - but loved the sinner. And sin requires blood atonement as the book Exodus says…
Exo 29:36 And every day shalt thou offer the bullock of sin-offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou makest atonement for it; and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
And this in Romans…
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
And then further on in the post the question is asked…
Give pause and take your “atonement pulse.” If you follow penal substitutionary atonement (currently the one in favor in official evangelical and Catholic theologies), why is this understanding of Jesus’ death and shed blood meaningful to you?
Judging by the post I found above, there are definitely some Christian circles questioning the theology of the cross and the blood of atonement!
Perhaps the reason for this is as follows…
Every religion on earth is the diametric opposite of the Gospel. When God - that is, Jesus - found Adam and Eve in the Garden wearing their fig leaves, He rejected the fig leaves and said that there must be blood atonement in order to remove sin. Religion is man trying to reach God with good works; the Gospel is God trying to reach man with blood atonement. Religion is man trying to reach God; the Gospel is God trying to reach man. Again, religion is the diametric opposite to the Gospel, no matter what form it takes.
Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together, just as today every religion still does. There are many non-evangelical ‘churches’ that think they are Christian. If you ask them, “How do you get to heaven?”, they will tell you that it is accomplished by having enough good deeds to outweigh your bad deeds, or something similar. What do they do to hide their nakedness? They sew fig leaves together.
Every religion sews fig leaves together, even though it is useless in gaining salvation. For that, there must be a blood atonement. @Midrash - Jesus in the Garden by JJ Prasch - Moriel
And then the ‘oh-so-outta‘ touch Mr Prasch - who is sooooo not emergent presumes the following…
Most Christians have some kind of an idea that the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament — what Jewish people call the Tenakh — are symbols of Jesus. They might know that the Passover lamb, the lamb without blemish, is a picture of what Jesus would be; that to God, one man without sin is worth more than all the men with sin, and that is how one Man could die for us all. Some people might also know about the Yom Kippur scapegoat on the Day of Atonement; we read about this in the epistle to the Hebrews chapters 9 - 11. The high priest would actually put his hands on two goats, and put the sin in symbol upon their heads. They would then take the goats through the streets, where the people would spit on them, kick them, throw rocks at them, beat them with sticks and curse them for their sin. The goats would then be escorted outside the city, where one would be slaughtered and the other taken to a precipice. It was a symbol of what would happen to Jesus: God would put our sin on Him; He would be paraded through the streets of Jerusalem, taken outside the city and executed. Most Christians have an idea that the blood sacrifices of these animals were symbols of Jesus; @Typology of the Grain offering - Midrash by JJ Prasch - Moriel
Perhaps not Mr Prasch! Perhaps they are not being taught about the atonement (or at-one-ment which is the new emergent catch phrase) within a biblical and historical context and are wanting instead to understand it inside a 21st century post-modern politically correct tolerant (to a degree) mulit-cultural context. After all it’s all about the culture we live in now and the culture of the day!
Remember, scripture taken out of context is always a pretext.
Check out the responses you will be amazed at some, and at others you will shout Whoo hooo!
Related Article
- Jesus our High Priest - The Day of Atonement by David E Lister
Oh yeah, and the answer to the question … If you follow penal substitutionary atonement (currently the one in favor in official evangelical and Catholic theologies), why is this understanding of Jesus’ death and shed blood
meaningful to you?
Because without the blood of atonement, I still remain in my sin.
I am flagging this post!
