I was listening quietly, while my wife read a children’s bible story book to my little 3-year old grandson. She was reading about God calling out to Samuel for the first time. Most people will remember that this account shows Samuel as a little boy sleeping in the Temple near Eli, the high priest, that is, in the Temple court in the place provided for the priests who attended the duties of the Temple. Samuel awoke from sleep by the sound of God’s voice calling out to him. Naturally, he assumed it was Eli calling him, because he had no past experience of God speaking directly to him. So, he went in to Eli and woke him from his sleep, asking what he wanted. Eli told him he hadn’t called him and to return to his bed and go to sleep. Read the rest of this entry »
Category Archives: Redemption
I began this series a short while ago, and I will conclude it today with this post. I mentioned at the beginning that there was a single exception to the general rule that ‘without blood there was no atonement.’ This exception applies only to the one who is too poor to afford two turtledoves as his sin offering, but as we shall see, even it is no real exception at all! Some have supposed that because Leviticus 5:11-13 allows a sin offering without blood, it then makes Jesus unnecessary as the Blood Offering, of which all offerings under the Mosaic Covenant were a type. Let’s look at the scripture.
In earlier blogs in this series I wrote about seeking to buy eternal life and the question of God wanting mercy in the place of blood sacrifice. Before concluding this series, I think I should discuss two Scriptures having to do with these two subjects. They have been used on the discussion boards in efforts to show God doesn’t desire a blood sacrifice as Hebrews 9:22 claims is the usual case. It seems that people with a low view of Jesus (i.e.people who believe he was merely a man) are compelled to prove that his sacrifice upon the cross couldn’t have obtained atonement for all of mankind. If it did, perhaps they would have to reconsider who he really is. The idea that Jesus is God, and that God became man to dwell with us in order to show us how to live, and then to die in order to save us from death, this idea frightens people. Why? Because, really believing it would mean one would have to change the manner in which he lives. So, they go about seeking to prove Jesus’ life from a Christian point of view was unnecessary.
Centuries ago, David lusted after Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, one of David’s most trusted military men. David took Bathsheba and committed adultery with her. When she became pregnant and efforts to hide his sin failed, David had Uriah killed. Later Nathan the prophet came by appointment from the LORD to expose the sin of the king. It is assumed by some that the LORD simply forgave David for the sins of killing Uriah, the Hittite, and committing adultery with Bathsheba. However, the context shows otherwise.
I have met people in discussion groups on the internet who will argue that they forgive others without ever asking for a blood sacrifice. Why can’t God do the same? Is man able to do what God cannot do? Isn’t this a higher form of forgiveness? Doesn’t the system of animal sacrifice represent something ancient cultures used, because they didn’t know any better? In reality, doesn’t the Scripture even allude to this when God didn’t destroy Israel after they rebelled against him and made a golden calf? Doesn’t that it show a blood sacrifice is not necessary? This understanding of God’s mercy just does not make sense. So too, the implication that man’s forgiveness represents a higher form of mercy than that used for God in the Scriptures is out of line.
The Scriptures speak of money having atonement value, and Israel had to pay this atonement whenever a census was taken. I have run into people on discussion boards that point to Exodus 30:16, saying that blood is not needed for atonement, because Scripture shows money has atonement value with God. What does this mean? Can one really buy one’s way into eternal life? Can God be bribed? The fact is that this Scripture does not represent a sacrifice or take the place of one. One could not substitute atonement money for a sin offering or any other offering. Atonement money had to do with whether or not one numbered himself as the LORD’s and who submitted himself to the Mosaic Covenant. Read the rest of this entry »
In the context of presenting arguments that are used on the internet by folks who deny the need of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, I intend to present one today that argues the cross is not needed because God never wanted blood sacrifices. I remember one gentleman, but he wasn’t alone in his understanding, who kept insisting that God wouldn’t be happy with any number of burnt offerings and quoted Micah to make his point. I tried to tell him that the context of this Scripture would not permit him to make such a deduction and base it upon God’s word. As is usually the case, he wasn’t willing to admit he was in error. Notice what the Scripture says:
Micah 6:6-7 JPS ‘Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? (7) Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?’ Read the rest of this entry »