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!
“Girard’s belief about the death of Christ may be no less controversial among Christians than his allegiance to Christ is scandalous to the secular world. Against the view of Christ’s death that would see him as a propitiatory sacrifice offered to the Father, Girard would argue that Christ’s death was intended to overthrow in its entirety the religion of propitiatory sacrifice, since he sees that religion as of the very essence of fallen man.”
HOW WERE WE RECONCILED TO GOD? “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement” (Romans 5:8-11).
WHAT WAS THE GOSPEL THAT PAUL PREACHED? “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1 Cor. 1:17-18).
SHOULD WE PREACH THE CROSS? “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” (1 Cor. 1:23).
WHAT WAS THE PULPIT OF THE APOSTLES? “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Cor. 2:2).
WHICH GOSPEL SAVES? “the gospel By which also ye are saved how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
WHERE DID CHRIST BEAR OUR SIN CURSE? “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” (Gal. 3:13).
IN WHAT SHOULD WE BOAST? “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” (Gal. 6:14).
HOW WAS THE WALL TORN DOWN SO WE CAN DRAW NEAR TO GOD? “by the blood of Christ by the cross” (Eph. 2:13-16).
WHERE WAS THE GREAT WORK OF CHRIST? “And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:8).
WILL FRIENDS OR ENEMIES OF GOD OPPOSE THE CROSS? “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction…” (Phil. 3:18-19).
WHERE DO WE GAIN PEACE? We gain “peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself” (Col. 1:20).
WHERE WERE WE FORGIVEN? “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” (Col. 2:13-14).
IS FORGIVENESS THROUGH SHEDDING IF BLOOD ? “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb. 9:22).
1. THE CROSS REMINDS US HOW OUR SINS LED TO THE DEATH OF CHRIST. “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.” (Gal. 1:4). “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1 Pet. 2:24).
2. THE CROSS REMINDS US HOW CHRIST OVERCAME OUR SIN. “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb. 9:22). “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit” (1 Pet. 3:1
3. THE CROSS SHOWS THE IMMENSITY OF THE LOVE OF GOD. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:10).
4. THE CROSS DEMONSTRATES GOD’S COMMITMENT TO US. “What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Rom. 8:31-32). “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15).
In regards to the first comment, the sacrifical system was not a merely a man made religious system, it was a requirement instituted by God. Christ didn’t simply overthrow the system… He fulfilled the requirement, purchased us from the bondage of sin, and freed us from the wages of sin.
http://www.davidhocking.org/blog/?p=51
Reading Girard’s view on atonement something puzzled me.
First he illustrates it this way…
And then goes on to explain further…
However… from what I have read of Girard’s theory as well as from others who accept it and understand it; I see that the reconcilation he speaks about is horizontal rather than vertical.
One comment made on the post I mentioned above was that the Atonement, at its core, is about reconciling relationships… then going on to say that to understand reconciliation God gave man covenants throughout the OT to prepare for the New Covenant of the NT.
In recent times the church has said that reconciliation should be seen in what may be described as horizontal rather than a vertical direction.
This, I think is the premise from which Girard and others speak and who have since found that the blood atonement is archaic and antiquated in our 21st century post-modern culture, and it is this understanding that gives rise to an all out attempt towards a unified peaceful earth.
More on this later.
[...] so NOT green…so messy and cruel, so environmentally unfriendly, so politically incorrect. What’s with the blood, they say? So they sew together their own [...]
[...] is bantered about lately curiously falls around Israel’s holiday of Yom Kippur. (See ‘What’s with the blood‘ and ‘Stricken by God‘). The need for a blood atonement has always offended [...]
[...] What’s with the blood? [...]
[...] What’s with the blood? [...]
[...] that are pivotal to ‘Biblical Christianity’ have been criticised and questioned - like atonement, regeneration, justification by faith and repentance? Charles Finney is dead, but his views are [...]