The Blood is Powerful

[Ted Oplinger]

The High Priest did not represent the Father, but Christ.

Quote:

As the high priest laid aside his gorgeous pontifical robes, and officiated in the white linen dress of the common priest, so Christ took the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim.(DA 25)

This represents the same theme that Scripture does, that Christ gave His life for us:

Quote:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.(Gal. 2:20)

Quote:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son.(John 3:16)

The key here is in *giving*. There's only giving, no taking. We can say that Christ gave Himself for us (or gave His life for us, or even to us) and we can say that God gave us His only Son, but nowhere does Scripture say that God took Christ's life.

Who is responsible for Christ's death? Is God? Or we?

I think this may shed some light here...

John 10:11-18

11 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

12 "He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

13 "He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.

14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,

15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.

18 "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

The wounds inflicted, grievous as they were, could not take Christ's life away. They only way it could end was for Christ to take us and our sin into Himself, and willing lay down His life as the sin He became for us crushed it out. Being the Sinless One, He was then able to pick His life back up on resurrection morning - by the power of the Father's commandment.

Hence the Good News -

2 Corinthians 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Philippians 2:5-11

5 "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Godly love on trial - it isn't a matter of who killed Him, but of the demonstration of Godly love to lay life down for the undeserving of life, to bring them back into connection with the Author of Life again.

Let me personalize this:

If I was the sole sinner on earth, it would have been my hands inflicting the wounds of the whips, the nails, the crown of thorns. I would have been the one to pull that cross up to let Him hang on it.

But by His own statement - all of that would not have sufficed to end His life, for He was sinless, and so long as He remained so, His connection with Father would remain intact, His life unbroken.

In order for Him to die, He had to love me enough to so identify with me, with my sin, with my sins and iniquity, that He became my sin. Only then could His life be snuffed out.

I could not force Him to do this. He had to have been totally willing, motivated by love, as a demonstration of the full character of love's sacrifice.

Only that could satisfy Divine justice and answer Satan's base accusations. Then, it could be declared,

Psalm 85:10 "Lovingkindness and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed each other."

Hope this helps...

[Musicman1228]

The Passover Lamb NEVER had sin placed on it, it was NOT a sin offering. The purpose of the Passover lamb was to redeem the first born of the Kingdom. That is all. You are confusing the Passover with the Atonement.

[teresaq]

how do you come to that understanding?

[teresaq]

...Jesus being God would have never died of old age, even as a human being. God cannot be killed by anyone less than Himself because God is self existent immortal life. Satan as a created being did not have the power to kill another angel much less the Creator.

[Musicman1228]

how do you come to that understanding?

Read Ex.12. You will notice that there was no Sanctuary service at the time of the Exodus. It is only as a function of the Sanctuary Service that the sin offerings were killed.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

...Jesus being God would have never died of old age, even as a human being. God cannot be killed by anyone less than Himself because God is self existent immortal life. Satan as a created being did not have the power to kill another angel much less the Creator.

so you dont believe Christs humanity could die?

Quote:

The example of Abraham and Issac shows that God would kill his own Son. Issac was young and could have easily run away, but chose to lay down his life on the altar and allow His Father to execute him. He did not resist. This is just as Jesus who laid Himself on the cross, willingly, knowing that at any time He could have chosen to live instead of die.

are you bypassing the reason for the levitical system in favor of the abraham and isaac story?

It matters not whether Jesus was in the form of God, in the form of the archangel Michael, or in the human form He took on earth, Jesus IS GOD. God is self actuated life. Nothing can kill God, but God.

At the time of Abraham there was no sacrificial system in place. The example God used to teach Abraham and Issac about what would take place in the far future with God's Son was right there in front of them in the form of the Ram caught in the thicket. When Israel left Egypt the requirement was that the first born males of the people and the herds and flocks be redeemed, and this was accomplished by the slaying if the Passover lamb and putting it's blood on the door posts and lintel of the houses of those who were willing to obey God.

[pnattmbtc]

Nothing can kill God, but God.

Interesting theory.

[pnattmbtc]

The topic of this thread is "The Blood is Powerful." Here's a favorite excerpt on this theme of mine. It's by George Fifield, who was a contemporary of Ellen White, most active in the 1890's, during the time when so much light was shining (Jones, Waggoner, Prescott, in addition to Ellen White, of course, to name a few).

Quote:

I am told that it is a scientific fact that if some one will allow his blood to be taken and transfused into the veins of a poor anemic person, the first thing the blood does is to purge out the poison and sickness, and then to build him up with a new life. New blood has been transfused into that person, and new life is imparted. Do you get the figure? We are saved by transfusing blood. God has opened his mighty heart, and poured out his life in Christ, for our salvation. He has given his life that we might take it and be purified by it, and live on earth by faith. And the life of his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Was it only on Calvary that God gave us his life? Was it only there that Christ was crucified? Was it only from Pilate's judgment hall that he bore the cross? Was it only on that last day of trial that he wore the crown of thorns? - Ah, no; far from that. Perhaps the text that will enable us most clearly to get this point, is in Gal.2:20:-

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

And Paul gave his life day by day; he gave his life in all those whippings, and beatings, and persecutions that he received from the Jews, and finally to Nero's executioners he completed the gift, and made the final delivery of the goods that had been the Lord's ever since he met him on the Damascus road.

Now let us get a glimpse of Christ's crucifixion. Jesus Christ was with God, equal with the Father in glory and honor; co-creator with him of countless worlds; all the ten thousand times ten thousand angels at his beck to do his bidding. One cannot take in the honor and the glory of that life that opened out into limitless distances before him. But down here on this world man had sinned, and Christ did not think of holding fast to that glory and honor as a robber holds fast to his prey; but he gave it up. That was when Christ was crucified. He let that life go, and he came down here and identified himself with human sorrow, with human trial, with human need, with human heart-ache; so that away back there, before he became incarnate at all, in all their afflictions he was afflicted, and he bore them and carried them all the days of old. He was with us much more than we think. Abraham saw him; Joshua saw him; Moses saw him; the Israelites drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. The divine One had given up that life there, been crucified, and identified himself with human need down here, away back there; and when you come to the incarnation, which was but the revelation of this larger sacrifice, this larger fact, the crucifixion was carried so far that he who was Almighty became so weak that he said, "I can do nothing of myself." Is not that crucifixion?

And then every step of the way, having given up his power, having given up his infinite knowledge, he lived a life of faith, - the faith of Jesus, - amening every one of God's promises, until they became living facts in his life; and lived upon the written word day by day. When the tempter came to him, he put him to flight by the written word; and he said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." He was living his spiritual life by faith in that word; and every step of the way it was not my will, not my word, not my doctrine; but thy will, thy word, thy doctrine in me. Is not that crucifixion of self?

And finally on Calvary's cross, so far as his earthly life was concerned, he made the final delivery of the goods, and completed the crucifixion, just as Paul did to Nero's executioners. But do not think that is the end of the crucifixion in the larger sense. Just as the crucifixion of Christ did not begin with the incarnation, it did not end between the thieves. Brethren and sisters, he is still the infinitely often crucified One.

I will have to bring out the thought by way of illustration; but no illustration will convey it to you. We have heard about some great famine or trial or trouble that came upon some people a hundred or a thousand miles away. Now, while we had something to eat and wear, it did not trouble us so very much, did it? We felt a little sorry for those people; may be we sent them five dollars; but somehow we got along comfortably well, although we knew there was a famine in India. But did you ever have this experience? Did you ever go to a family, and live in that family until you felt yourself to be one of them, and perhaps called them father and mother, and brothers and sisters, and they took you right into their hearts? When you got that near that family, did you not take their sorrows and joys upon you? Anything that happened to that family happened to you, too. Any grief that came to them was your grief. Any joy that came to them was your joy.

Jesus Christ came that near to humanity, not merely in the incarnation, but he did it before the incarnation. But in the incarnation he showed to our sin-blinded eyes what he was before. He is not any further away since he bore human flesh; he is just that near humanity now. He is so near that he suffers with all who suffer; so near that he loves in all who love, and lives in all who live. That is how near he is; for he has taken our nature upon himself, and identified himself with us. That is what Christ has done.

This is how near he is to us all the time; for the more you think of it, the more you see that he suffers in all who suffer; and he is not ashamed to call the poorest and meanest of us brethren. And therefore - notice, that is the sacrifice that he has taken upon himself to save the world - all our little sacrifices for him are only little parts of his great sacrifice. Since his great sacrifice is that he suffers in all who suffer, and has identified himself with the human sorrow and need and trial, he suffers in all my sufferings, and he sacrifices in all my true sacrifices; and my little sacrifices for him are only parts of his great sacrifice manifested in me. And when I live any sacrifice truly, and others are thereby turned to God, who has turned those people back to God? Did I do it? - Christ did it. O, the sacrifice of Christ is an eternal sacrifice! (Fifield, 1897 GCB Sermon)

[Guest]

Our pioneers were something else weren't they?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

how do you come to that understanding?

Read Ex.12. You will notice that there was no Sanctuary service at the time of the Exodus. It is only as a function of the Sanctuary Service that the sin offerings were killed.

you dont believe that God instructed adam on the various sacrifices to be offered, who then instructed his children through to abraham?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

so you dont believe Christs humanity could die?

Quote:

The example of Abraham and Issac shows that God would kill his own Son. Issac was young and could have easily run away, but chose to lay down his life on the altar and allow His Father to execute him. He did not resist. This is just as Jesus who laid Himself on the cross, willingly, knowing that at any time He could have chosen to live instead of die.

are you bypassing the reason for the levitical system in favor of the abraham and isaac story? [/quote']

...

At the time of Abraham there was no sacrificial system in place. The example God used to teach Abraham and Issac about what would take place in the far future with God's Son was right there in front of them in the form of the Ram caught in the thicket. When Israel left Egypt the requirement was that the first born males of the people and the herds and flocks be redeemed, and this was accomplished by the slaying if the Passover lamb and putting it's blood on the door posts and lintel of the houses of those who were willing to obey God.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

it tells a lot that our great God Himself made adam and eves clothes after adam confessed his sin and slew the offering. that the great God should lower Himself so to speak. He could have adam and eve make the clothes or even ordered angels to, but He did it Himself. wow!!

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Nothing can kill God, but God.

Interesting theory.

yes indeed. ive been thinking about that. could God kill God? and wouldnt it be murder? after all Jesus as God had committed no sin, nor as man.

so if the Father "killed" the Son doesnt that make Him a murderer?

[Guest]

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. Jhn 10:17

[Musicman1228]

Of course there was no sanctuary service or sacrifices before and during the time of the Exodus. This system was not put in place until after the sanctuary was constructed.

The ONLY command that God gave Adam and Eve in the garden was to not eat of the Tree of the Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was a command to be obedient to God. The Ten commandments were not given to Israel until Sinai after the Exodus.

God instructed Adam and his family on how to give 'offerings' acceptable to God. Cain's offering was not rejected by God because he didn't offer a lamb, his offering of produce would have been accepted if he had chosen to give God the BEST of his produce. As it was he chose to give God the rejects, and this was unacceptable. These offerings were not in any way related to atonement, they were designed to remind the people of the Kingdom the requirement to be obedient to God.

[teresaq]

Of course there was no sanctuary service or sacrifices before and during the time of the Exodus. This system was not put in place until after the sanctuary was constructed.

[Guest]

Ok Musicman, looks like you got some splainin' to do.

[pnattmbtc]

One thing he said looks possible:

Cain's offering was not rejected by God because he didn't offer a lamb, his offering of produce would have been accepted if he had chosen to give God the BEST of his produce. As it was he chose to give God the rejects, and this was unacceptable.

[Musicman1228]

OK Lucy, here we go.

In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. Gen.4:3-5.

God has NOT yet instituted any kind of system of sacrifices that act as a metaphor for the Son of God dying to pay the penalty for disobedience (atonement). There is no mention of the need for Cain and Able to place these offerings on an altar. Why did God ask Cain and Able for an offering? We don't see God defining the requirement for the offering, which means that the type of offering was not the issue but the quality of that offering was. Most Christians that read this text see it in hindsight, having the ability to view it in the light of what came much later, that is the sacrificial system set up for Israel by God to remind them of the penalty that would eventually be paid for their sins. (Atonement implies the use of an altar, but as we will see an altar is not necessarily always used in atonement.)

It is unclear whether God asked them to give Him an offering or they did this completely on their own, the passage does not say. Offering implies having freedom to choose what is offered. The only difference that can be seen in the offerings given by Cain and Able are related to the word "firstborn". Able brought the firstborn of his flock. The text does not say that Cain brought the "firstfruits" of his produce. Firstborn and firstfruits suggests the best quality of what they were to bring. To me this indicates that Cain did not bring "firstfruit" of his produce, but the leftovers, that which even he would not eat. Did Cain really think that God would not notice? Was there some arrogance in Cain that God needed to deal with? Those could be valid reasons why God rejected his offering, not because he didn't bring a lamb.

Then God gives His council to Cain, using this as a teaching tool. This shows that Able understood the heart of God, but Cain still didn't get it.

The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Gen.4:6-7.

If God had stated requirements and rules for these offerings the issue of "face" would not have come up. All Cain would have had to do was to 'follow the rules' and he would have been fine, he would not have lost ‘face’. "Face" is an Asian concept loosely linked to embarrassment. There is really no western equivalent. Losing "face" implies having done something dishonorable. God saying, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" is telling Cain that doing well is important to God. For some reason Cain felt that the 'doing well' of bringing God the best quality offering didn't matter to God, thus showing the aforementioned arrogance and subsequent loss of face. And then we see God telling Cain that the quality of offering is related to 'doing well'.

Both of the brothers obeyed God in that they brought before Him and offering. Yet the vital factor to God was that the obedience come from the desire to ‘do well’ not just get by.

This is the first instance in Scripture where an offering is brought before the Lord. There is no altar involved in the offering of Cain and Able, and there is no evidence that Adam and Eve brought any kind of offering to God before they did.

* * * * *

The first instance where an altar is mentioned in Scripture involves Noah after the flood.

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. Gen.8:20,

Again, there is no mention of this being a requirement by God that He placed on Noah as a reminder of the need for a payment of a penalty. This was just an act of Noah in ‘doing right’ by God, showing the love Noah had in his heart for the fact that God had preserved the lives of him and his family. There is also no direct indication that God required Noah to burn these offerings on the altar. The offering and the burning was Noah’s way of telling God ‘thank you for preserving our lives’. It also seems that God likes the smell of a good barbeque, because the aroma please the Lord. I think what pleased God was that Noah offered the best of what he had and ‘did well’ in the sight of the Lord.

The confusion probably stems from the fact that Noah built an altar to the Lord. The implication of an altar is that it is somehow related to atonement, but we clearly see here that there is no mention of atonement for sin in this story.

* * * * *

Abraham erected altars to God to acknowledge the guidance and protection that God gave him, or to acknowledge a promise or covenant between God and Abraham. Again, there is no mention of atonement. Every time Abraham changed locations (where he pitched his tents) he built and altar to God.

Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him. From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD. Gen.12:7-8.

Gen.15 tells of the first covenant the God makes with Abram. This is a covenant sealed with blood wherein God promises Abram that his descendents would be as the star in heaven, and that God will give him a land for his descendents to possess.. Abram was counted by God as righteous because he believed God would fulfill this promise. Yet in spite of this Abram asked God and interesting question:

But he said, “O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” Gen.15:8.

God responded by sealing the covenant with blood.

He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. Gen.15:9-10.

Still, this blood was not the blood of atonement, but the blood of the covenant, a promise of land for the children of Abram. A covenant is never unilateral; it is a performance agreement between two parties. God stated his performance, so what was Abram to do? The ‘doing well’ for Abram was the same as for Noah all the way back to Cain and Able; obedience to the will of God.

* * * * *

The first time the term ‘burnt offering’ is used as a specific direction of God is when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering to God. It is apparent that animals were sacrificed on altars and used as offerings before the Lord prior to this, but this was a convenience because Abraham and his sons were nomads and were not in one place long enough to grow their own produce (as did Able) to use as firstfruits to the Lord. The use of vegetable produce was not precluded by God, it just was not common practice.

He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” Gen.22:2.

If you read the story carefully you see that there is no mention of the offering being an atonement for sin. Again as before this offering is a test of obedience for Abraham and for Isaac as to whether they would ‘do well’ the will of God. When asked by Isaac where the offering would come from Abraham said:

“God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” Gen.22:8.

There is still no mention or use of the word ‘atonement’, but it is significant that God himself provided the Ram as a substitute for Isaac.

* * * * *

The building of altars to mark the settlements where the sons of Abraham pitched their tents or to mark significant events continued through the captivity in Egypt and Exodus.

It is not until the Covenant/10 Commandments and the Levitical statues were given to Moses on Sinai and the portable temple was put into service that the use of blood to define atonement for sin was established. Then the specific requirements for these sin offerings were established; which ones were to be eaten by the priests and which were to be burned on the bronze altar, which offering of blood was to be poured out at the base of the bronze altar in the outer court and which offering of blood was to be taken into the Holy Place and placed on the horns of the golden altar. These were the atoning sacrifices.

The Passover lamb and service as defined by God before the Exodus from Egypt was not sacrificed on an altar, and the blood of the Passover was not used for atonement, it was used for the redemption of the firstborn of Israel. These firstborn males (of the households, flocks and herds) were to be used as offerings before the Lord. This harkens back to the offerings of Cain and Able and the ‘doing well’ that was what God desired of His Kingdom.

The important thing to understand in all this is the difference in purpose between the Passover lamb and the atoning sacrifice. The two are not the same. There is a connection between the two in that God’s desires us to be obedient, to ‘do well’. It is this doing well defined as overcoming sin that is the hallmark of the Kingdom of Heaven and sets the Kingdom of Heaven apart from the kingdom of the world.

[pnattmbtc]

Thanks for taking the effort to write this all out.

Regarding the covenant, you write that a covenant is not unilateral, but Genesis tells us of God's making a covenant with the beasts and the fowl, which was signified by a rainbow. This is clearly unilateral.

Also, Gal. 3 tells us that God gave the land of the inheritance to Abraham by a promise, whereas Genesis says God made a covenant to give him the land. From this we see that God's making a covenant is equivalent to His making a promise, which is the cornerstone of Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians that righteousness is by faith and not by works.

[teresaq]

OK Lucy, here we go.

In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. Gen.4:3-5.

God has NOT yet instituted any kind of system of sacrifices that act as a metaphor for the Son of God dying to pay the penalty for disobedience (atonement). There is no mention of the need for Cain and Able to place these offerings on an altar. Why did God ask Cain and Able for an offering? We don't see God defining the requirement for the offering, which means that the type of offering was not the issue but the quality of that offering was. Most Christians that read this text see it in hindsight, having the ability to view it in the light of what came much later, that is the sacrificial system set up for Israel by God to remind them of the penalty that would eventually be paid for their sins. (Atonement implies the use of an altar, but as we will see an altar is not necessarily always used in atonement.)

It is unclear whether God asked them to give Him an offering or they did this completely on their own, the passage does not say. Offering implies having freedom to choose what is offered. The only difference that can be seen in the offerings given by Cain and Able are related to the word "firstborn". Able brought the firstborn of his flock. The text does not say that Cain brought the "firstfruits" of his produce. Firstborn and firstfruits suggests the best quality of what they were to bring. To me this indicates that Cain did not bring "firstfruit" of his produce, but the leftovers, that which even he would not eat. Did Cain really think that God would not notice? Was there some arrogance in Cain that God needed to deal with? Those could be valid reasons why God rejected his offering, not because he didn't bring a lamb.

Then God gives His council to Cain, using this as a teaching tool. This shows that Able understood the heart of God, but Cain still didn't get it.

The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Gen.4:6-7.

If God had stated requirements and rules for these offerings the issue of "face" would not have come up. All Cain would have had to do was to 'follow the rules' and he would have been fine, he would not have lost ‘face’. "Face" is an Asian concept loosely linked to embarrassment. There is really no western equivalent. Losing "face" implies having done something dishonorable. God saying, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" is telling Cain that doing well is important to God. For some reason Cain felt that the 'doing well' of bringing God the best quality offering didn't matter to God, thus showing the aforementioned arrogance and subsequent loss of face. And then we see God telling Cain that the quality of offering is related to 'doing well'.

Both of the brothers obeyed God in that they brought before Him and offering. Yet the vital factor to God was that the obedience come from the desire to ‘do well’ not just get by.

This is the first instance in Scripture where an offering is brought before the Lord. There is no altar involved in the offering of Cain and Able, and there is no evidence that Adam and Eve brought any kind of offering to God before they did.

* * * * *

The first instance where an altar is mentioned in Scripture involves Noah after the flood.

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. Gen.8:20,

Again, there is no mention of this being a requirement by God that He placed on Noah as a reminder of the need for a payment of a penalty. This was just an act of Noah in ‘doing right’ by God, showing the love Noah had in his heart for the fact that God had preserved the lives of him and his family. There is also no direct indication that God required Noah to burn these offerings on the altar. The offering and the burning was Noah’s way of telling God ‘thank you for preserving our lives’. It also seems that God likes the smell of a good barbeque, because the aroma please the Lord. I think what pleased God was that Noah offered the best of what he had and ‘did well’ in the sight of the Lord.

The confusion probably stems from the fact that Noah built an altar to the Lord. The implication of an altar is that it is somehow related to atonement, but we clearly see here that there is no mention of atonement for sin in this story.

* * * * *

Abraham erected altars to God to acknowledge the guidance and protection that God gave him, or to acknowledge a promise or covenant between God and Abraham. Again, there is no mention of atonement. Every time Abraham changed locations (where he pitched his tents) he built and altar to God.

Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him. From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD. Gen.12:7-8.

Gen.15 tells of the first covenant the God makes with Abram. This is a covenant sealed with blood wherein God promises Abram that his descendents would be as the star in heaven, and that God will give him a land for his descendents to possess.. Abram was counted by God as righteous because he believed God would fulfill this promise. Yet in spite of this Abram asked God and interesting question:

But he said, “O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” Gen.15:8.

God responded by sealing the covenant with blood.

He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. Gen.15:9-10.

Still, this blood was not the blood of atonement, but the blood of the covenant, a promise of land for the children of Abram. A covenant is never unilateral; it is a performance agreement between two parties. God stated his performance, so what was Abram to do? The ‘doing well’ for Abram was the same as for Noah all the way back to Cain and Able; obedience to the will of God.

* * * * *

The first time the term ‘burnt offering’ is used as a specific direction of God is when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering to God. It is apparent that animals were sacrificed on altars and used as offerings before the Lord prior to this, but this was a convenience because Abraham and his sons were nomads and were not in one place long enough to grow their own produce (as did Able) to use as firstfruits to the Lord. The use of vegetable produce was not precluded by God, it just was not common practice.

He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” Gen.22:2.

If you read the story carefully you see that there is no mention of the offering being an atonement for sin. Again as before this offering is a test of obedience for Abraham and for Isaac as to whether they would ‘do well’ the will of God. When asked by Isaac where the offering would come from Abraham said:

“God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” Gen.22:8.

There is still no mention or use of the word ‘atonement’, but it is significant that God himself provided the Ram as a substitute for Isaac.

* * * * *

The building of altars to mark the settlements where the sons of Abraham pitched their tents or to mark significant events continued through the captivity in Egypt and Exodus.

It is not until the Covenant/10 Commandments and the Levitical statues were given to Moses on Sinai and the portable temple was put into service that the use of blood to define atonement for sin was established. Then the specific requirements for these sin offerings were established; which ones were to be eaten by the priests and which were to be burned on the bronze altar, which offering of blood was to be poured out at the base of the bronze altar in the outer court and which offering of blood was to be taken into the Holy Place and placed on the horns of the golden altar. These were the atoning sacrifices.

The Passover lamb and service as defined by God before the Exodus from Egypt was not sacrificed on an altar, and the blood of the Passover was not used for atonement, it was used for the redemption of the firstborn of Israel. These firstborn males (of the households, flocks and herds) were to be used as offerings before the Lord. This harkens back to the offerings of Cain and Able and the ‘doing well’ that was what God desired of His Kingdom.

The important thing to understand in all this is the difference in purpose between the Passover lamb and the atoning sacrifice. The two are not the same. There is a connection between the two in that God’s desires us to be obedient, to ‘do well’. It is this doing well defined as overcoming sin that is the hallmark of the Kingdom of Heaven and sets the Kingdom of Heaven apart from the kingdom of the world.

well you seem pretty convinced this is the truth, but it looks like too much supposition with no scriptural basis for me.

[teresaq]

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. Jhn 10:17

yes, i agree that no one took Jesus life.

Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.

I have power to lay it down,

and I have power to take it again.

This commandment have I received of my Father.

[pnattmbtc]

well you seem pretty convinced this is the truth, but it looks like too much supposition with no scriptural basis for me.

Anything specific that seemed lacking in scriptural basis? It seemed much of the post was pointing out that there is a lot which Scripture doesn't say, and he was making suggestions which I thought, for the most part, made sense. I had thought the point about Cain's offering vegetables was possible before he wrote the post, and think that argument was sound. One point I think it particularly well taken, and that is that people read things into what was written in hind sight. He looked to be trying to stay true to the text. The only thing I saw at first glance that looked wrong was the comments about a covenant not being unilateral. Did you see anything that didn't look right?

Another thing I'll mention, which was just alluded to, is that a fine example of reading things into the sacrificial offerings is the idea of paying a penalty. I don't think there's any evidence that the Jews, or any of their contemporaries, thought in these terms. The first I'm aware of this idea being expressed was by Calvin.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

well you seem pretty convinced this is the truth, but it looks like too much supposition with no scriptural basis for me.

Anything specific that seemed lacking in scriptural basis? It seemed much of the post was pointing out that there is a lot which Scripture doesn't say, and he was making suggestions which I thought, for the most part, made sense. I had thought the point about Cain's offering vegetables was possible before he wrote the post, and think that argument was sound. One point I think it particularly well taken, and that is that people read things into what was written in hind sight. He looked to be trying to stay true to the text. The only thing I saw at first glance that looked wrong was the comments about a covenant not being unilateral. Did you see anything that didn't look right?

Another thing I'll mention, which was just alluded to, is that a fine example of reading things into the sacrificial offerings is the idea of paying a penalty. I don't think there's any evidence that the Jews, or any of their contemporaries, thought in these terms. The first I'm aware of this idea being expressed was by Calvin.

[Guest]

After the fall God could no longer communicate face to face with them.

Ever since Adam's sin, the human race had been cut off from direct communion with God {DA 116.2}

But by transgression the human family was cut off from learning of God through direct communion and, to a great degree, through His works. . . .{CTr 19.2}

[teresaq]

good points.

how do you reconcile those statements with this,

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

and these verses which i didnt post all

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself...