Sunday: Why Were Sacrifices Needed?
Hebrews 9:15 explains that the death of Jesus as a sacrifice had the purpose of providing “redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant,” in order that the people of God might “receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (NASB).
In the ancient Near East, a covenant between two persons or nations was a serious matter. It involved an exchange of promises under oath. It implied the assumption that the gods would punish those who broke the oath. Often, these covenants were ratified through the sacrifice of an animal.
Image © Justinen Creative Collection at Goodsalt.com
For example, when God made a covenant with Abraham, the ceremony involved cutting animals in half (Genesis 15:6-21). The parties would walk between the parts as an acknowledgment that those animals represented the fate of the party who broke the covenant. Significantly, only God walked between the animals, for the purpose of communicating to Abraham that He will not break His promise.
Compare Genesis 15:6-21 and Jeremiah 34:8-22. What do these texts teach about the covenant?
The covenant with God gave Israel access to the Promised Land as their inheritance. It involved, however, a set of commandments and the sprinkling of blood upon an altar. This sprinkling implied the destiny of the party who broke the covenant. This is why Hebrews says that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission [of sins]” (Hebrews 9:22, literal translation).
When Israel broke the covenant, God faced a painful dilemma. The covenant demanded the death of the transgressors, but God loved His people. If God should simply look the other way or refuse to punish the transgressors, His commandments would never be enforceable, and this world would descend into chaos.
The Son of God, however, offered Himself as a Substitute. He died in our place so that we “may receive the promised eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:26, ESV; Romans 3:21-26). That is, He was going to uphold the sanctity of His law while at the same time saving those who broke that law. And He could do this only through the cross.
| How can we see here why the law is so central to the gospel message? |
(22)
I have a bit of a problem with today's lesson in that it makes it appear that Christ "offered Himself as a Substitute" at the time when "Israel broke the covenant."
I have a feeling that the author did not mean to say that Christ had not already stepped in as Savior when Adam and Eve sinned in Eden. After all, He is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8
When we recognize that God's Covenant consists of promises that God fulfills to those who yield their lives in obedience, the Edenic direction of Genesis 2:16, 17 actually becomes the first covenant God offered. He abundantly fulfilled all their needs and more, on condition of their obeying the one command He gave. And this covenant was broken in Eden. That's when the Son of God stepped in as Savior, or the pair would have died that very day, when they chose to yield allegiance to the angel who spoke through the serpent, rather than to God. After all, God is the Source of life, and disconnection from that Source means the end of life.
I believe that this whole paragraph applies to the situation in Eden, rather than to just Israel:
Like the covenant in Eden, the covenant made with Israel was also a promise by God of abundant blessings on condition of obedience. Israel did not fulfill their part (the human part) of the covenant. But when Jesus became incarnate in humanity, He fulfilled the human part of the covenant. So God not only provided the abundant promises of the divine part of the covenant, but He also provided the perfect obedience the covenant required on the part of humanity.
By choosing to be adopted into the body of Christ, the second Adam, we have a new heritage, and we are accepted in the Beloved - not because of our obedience, but because of His. Paul frequently uses the term "adoption" to describe our new status in Christ. (e.g. Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5)
Picture an abandoned child of the slums of a great city, whether Delhi or New York, being adopted into a kind-hearted prominent family. That child's status changes instantly. The child has a new heritage and a new future. We, too, have a new heritage and a new future when we choose to be adopted in the family of Christ.
A new adopted status also comes with a new set of behaviors. The child adopted from the slums no longer rummages through garbage cans for food and no longer begs for coins from passers-by, for instance. We, too, behave differently as a child of Christ. Paul explains this in Romans 8:2-14.
Your thoughts?
God demanded the death of covenant breakers? I see it more as foretelling the inevitable separation from God, the source of life. And on another note...obedience alone was not the fulfillment of the covenant. It involved supreme trust in the Creator and an obedience compelled by love.
Ruth, I didn't write "God demanded the death of covenant breakers."
I agree with the rest of your comment. I believe your last phrase is a good descriptor of faith:
Central to the notion of salvation is the concept of sacrifice. Therefore, today's lesson asks a relevant question: Why were sacrifices needed? And as the lesson notes, there are two dimensions to this question.
The first dimension relates to why did the Israelites need to offer sacrifices? Hebrews 10:4 tells us that sacrifices under the 'old covenant' were a reminder of sins - a reminder that sin is a very big deal and therefore to take it seriously. Failure to recognise the gravity of what sin actually is, what it does and what it results in had previously brought humanity to the brink of self-annihilation as per Genesis 6:5 - and in so doing had almost extinguished the avenue for Messiah, just as Satan was seeking to try and do.
The second dimension relates to the nature of Jesus sacrifice. Careful exploration of scripture and Ellen White reveal a much broader notion of what Jesus's sacrifice was and entailed:
(a) the manifesting of a spirit of self-denial and self-sacrifice that is inherent to other-focussed love - the law (foundational principle) of life on earth and in heaven, (Review & Herald Aug 25 1874 para 18), and
(b) the entire cost to Himself (and the Godhead) of stepping down from Creator to created in order to become humanity's authentic substitute second Adam (Philippians 2:5-9; Romans 5:19). This involved, unlike the first Adam, successfully resisting every temptation that was thrown at Jesus to resort to self-seeking/self-indulgence - including the temptation to do so in order to avoid death and (the brief) separation from His Father. Thus Jesus sacrifice was His righteous life unto death - not his death per se.
I would invite you to carefully review the above for yourself...
Thank you, Phil, for reminding us of "the entire cost" of Christ's sacrifice in our behalf. Ellen White says it beautifully in one of her letters:
In a Review and Herald article of September 30, 1909, she complements that statement this way:
Christ made the ultimate sacrifice that we can have eternal life. "With His striped we are healed." Isa 53:5. He suffered the death which we deserve, that we might receive the life which is His by right.
I affirm the direction of the key points you raise to in your comment and I propose that those points actually go even further. I find that:
1) The 'Edenic directive' of Genesis 2:16,17 was not the point at which God offered the first covenant - but rather that the Edenic directive was a reaffirmation of the covenant that was also in effect from the foundation of the world. That God abundantly fulfils the needs of each and every created being has always been the core of God's beneficent nature - it is who God is (1 John 4:8-9). And because it has always been who God is, it has also always been what God does. Further, as you note, the ability of a created being to have their needs abundantly fulfilled by God is inherently contingent upon their 'obedience' - meaning their freewill choice to be in harmony with the trust and love-based allegiance to God from an intelligent appreciation that God's Ways*. In light of this, we can see that God's initial covenant with humanity from its inception was also only an extension of that same covenant that God has with all created beings throughout creation.
2) Our adoption into the body of Christ, the second Adam, not only comes with a new heritage in terms of the 'external' benefits, it is at the same time 'rebirth' (John 3:3-6; Galatians 2:20) that includes heart renewal/transformation (Ezekiel 36:26; Psalm 51:5 compared with Psalm 51:10). This is in harmony with Romans 8:2-14 and is the wider context to that same passage.
Again, the extensions I have offered are by way affirmation and enlargement of what Inge has presented, not disagreement with.
---------------
* I only expand here on what obedience means because, to many people, obedience equates to "mere outward compliance" (Steps to Christ p 60.2).
Thanks, Phil. Perhaps I should have written that the Edenic covenant was "first covenant God offered to humanity." The "new covenant" in which God promises to fulfill all the needs of His created beings is actually much older than the "old covenant." It is the eternal covenant.
I have heard it claimed that the covenant was a way of dealing with sin and thus will not be in effect in heaven. But as I was teaching the lesson last Sabbath, it occurred to me that the eternal covenant is an expression of how God deals with His created beings: He loves with self-renouncing love and takes care of all needs. In return asks for heart allegiance. That way of dealing with His created beings will never change.
Thanks Inge
Just incase, so you or anyone else don't misunderstanding where I am coming from, our conversation is not about me 'nit-picking' details in what you are writing - but joining with you in unpacking some important concepts that help us glimpse God and His ways more and more. And the point of conversation here is God's eternal/everlasting (with everlasting being Shirley's descriptor) which, according to Ty Gibson, is a relational dynamic.
I again affirm you reflection that "the eternal covenant is an expression of how God deals with His created beings" because eternal/everlasting covenant (a relational dynamic) is the inherent manifestation of God's self-renouncing nature. Beneficently taking care of the needs of His created beings is what God does because it is who He is (by His own choice). Hence, as you have said "that way of dealing with His created beings will never change".
By the same token, this is why Jesus/God were, from eternity past, always going to step in to make an avenue of salvation/redemption for any created being who ('foolishly') exercised their freedom to depart from the only viable - way of life. Jesus statement in John 15:13 is a reflection of His/God's inherent nature and therefore always was, is and will be His/God's inherent response (even though it fortunately won't be needed again).
The height, depth and breadth of God's exceedingly-abundant, self-sacrificing love is so awesome.
Phil, you responded to only the first half of my comment. I'm interested in your response to the second half:
Thanks Inge
Yes, I absolutely agree that Christ died in the sinners place in the course of bearing the penalty of sin that all humans are under (Romans 5:12-14; Psalm 51:5). How I believe this statement, in brief, is as follows:
* Being out of harmony with the necessary 'prerequisites' for abundant life is what inherently produces death - the penalty that therefore directly arises from what sin functionally is (1 John 3:4 in conjunction with Galatians 6:8; James 1:15; Romans 6:23). This is what happened within ,and therefore to, humanity in Genesis 3:6 and is further reflected in the biblical descriptor of this means of death as "perishing" (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9).
* Due to the above nature of what sin and its penalty is, neither sin nor its inherent death outcome can actually be transferred.
* However, setting about to remedy the Romans 5:12-14 terminal sin-condition within humanity is something that someone who is 'qualified' and able can become involved in - an authentic substitute and surety. Thus, Jesus authentically became a human being (Hebrews 2:14; Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21) and, as this 'second Adam', actually lived life in undeviated harmony with the necessary prerequisites of life and in doing so retained the right to eternal (true/abundant) life. Jesus as the second Adam successfully did what the first Adam should have done, but unfortunately failed to do.
* The 'cost/penalty' borne (ie picked/lifted up and carried) by Jesus in becoming, and successfully being, the second Adam was the 'price' that Jesus 'paid' for getting involved in actually fixing humanity's terminal condition by addressing the source cause of that terminal condition (1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:4-5, 12 in conjunction with Romans 5:19 and Philippians 2:8).
* In doing all of the above, salvation was validly/authentically (as per Romans 3:25) made available to humanity as a species.
* And this species-based salvation was then, in turn, made available to each individual human who willingly and authentically chose to participate in this offer of salvation-redemption via adoption/re-birth metaphors (Galatians 4:4-5; John 3:3-6). I have previously unpacked this in a little more detail elsewhere.
* Heart desire and other-focussed love are core aspects to all of the above.
This is the biblical reality that I find to be consistent with both 2 Corinthians 5:21 and every word of the Ellen White statement:
The same would be true with what I understand Ellen White to mean in the other paragraphs you have quoted above, and with your statement:
Because the above is an overly brief portrayal of a very comprehensive reality, there may be aspects that you, or others, feel I need to further elaborate on to clarify any potential concerns or misunderstandings.
Thank you, Phil, for elaborating further.
I'm still not sure I understand you correctly, Phil, but it seems to me that you are conflating two metaphors of the Atonement as having the same meaning: Do I understand correctly that you believe that the "Lamb of God" metaphor indicates the same reality as the "Second Adam" metaphor?
I see the Lamb of God metaphor indicating that Christ took on our burden of sin (not just our human nature) and died in your place and mine - since we all have earned the "wages of sin." In Isa 53:6 we read that "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." We know that Hebrew words can have multiple meanings, depending on context, but this word seems to consistently mean "iniquity, guilt, or punishment of iniquity." So this would seem to be guilt or punishment "laid on Jesus" beyond just becoming human and dying a human death.
That accords with the Hebrew sanctuary services, in which guilt was transferred, in type, to the sin offerings and from there transferred to the sanctuary either by a) the blood being sprinkled in the sanctuary and the flesh being burned on the altar or b) by the priests eating the flesh. That is how sin was "taken away" from the guilty person. (There's so much more to this - as in what it means that Christ "bears" our guilt. I see it as much more than taking on human nature.)
Christ's cry on the cross, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46) indicates that He experienced the total separation from God that all unrepentant sinners will eventually experience, the "wages of sin." I believe it was the burden of our sins that caused the death of the spotless Lamb of God. And that death was effective for our salvation and caused all the heavenly beings to to acclaim "Worthy is the Lamb!' (see Rev. 4:6-14)
However, I am puzzled by your statement
If sin cannot be transferred ("placed on Him," as the Bible puts it), why did Jesus die, seeing His whole life as a human was in full harmony with "the necessary 'prerequisites' for abundant life"? You don't really clarify this, but go on to a second metaphor, the "Second Adam."
It seems that, rather than seeing Christ as the Lamb of God, taking on the "wages"/punishment earned by our sins, you appear to say that the "price" Jesus paid was in becoming human or becoming "the Second Adam." (Am I correct?) Forgive me if I seem a bit dense, but that still doesn't answer the question of why Jesus died, since He "actually lived life in undeviated harmony with the necessary prerequisites of life and in doing so retained the right to eternal (true/abundant) life," according to your understanding. Thus He did not earn "the wages of sin."
I see the "Second Adam" as representing that Christ fulfilled the human end of the Covenant by perfectly living out the Law of God - the law of self-renouncing love. I agree that He "actually lived life in undeviated harmony with the necessary prerequisites of life and in doing so retained the right to eternal (true/abundant) life. Jesus, as the second Adam, successfully did what the first Adam should have done, but unfortunately failed to do." The "Second Adam" metaphor seems to dovetail with the "adoption" metaphor that Paul uses. (cf. Romas 8:15, Romans 9:4, Galatians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5) Thus, by accepting Christ as our Redeemer, we have a new identity and a new future as children of God. (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 6:15 Eph. 4:24, Col. 3:10)
The more I study the plan of salvation, the more I realize how little I know and how much there is yet to know. I believe we lose much by not exploring the various aspects of the Atonement for what they say about the plan of salvation and conflating several into a single view. I see the Atonement as a precious diamond with more facets than we realize, which together represent the beauty of God's plan of bringing us back to Himself.
But all our discussion cannot make it clearer than Ellen White did in this eloquently simple statement in Steps to Christ, p. 62 [I'm including a link so our readers can see the context - also beautiful]:
I agree with these fundamental beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist community of faith.
In Christ’s life of perfect obedience to God’s will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God’s law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The bodily resurrection of Christ proclaims God’s triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (Gen. 3:15; Ps. 22:1; Isa. 53; John 3:16; 14:30; Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3, 4; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 2:15; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.)
FB 9
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, Substitute and Example. This saving faith comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God’s grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God’s sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 45:22; Isa. 53; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 33:11; 36:25-27; Hab. 2:4; Mark 9:23, 24; John 3:3-8, 16; 16:8; Rom. 3:21-26; 8:1-4, 14-17; 5:6-10; 10:17; 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17-21; Gal. 1:4; 3:13, 14, 26; 4:4-7; Eph. 2:4-10; Col. 1:13, 14; Titus 3:3-7; Heb. 8:7-12; 1 Peter 1:23; 2:21, 22; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rev. 13:8.)
FB 10
Everlasting Covenant
It is not only me who uses Everlasting, it is the Word of the LORD in many passages.
Heb 13:20 KJV
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant (G166)
Joh 3:16 KJV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (G166)
Jer 32:40
I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. (H5769)
Gen 17:7
I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. (H5769)
See everlasting covenant also in Isa 55:3; Isa 61:8; Ps 105:10; 2Sam 23:5. (H5769)
some translations use eternal covenant for G166:
KJV uses eternal 42 times and everlasting 25 times depending on the context, including in John 3:16 KJV
almost all translations use everlasting covenant for H5769
Thanks Shirley.
I was just acknowledging and affirming that you had also drawn attention to the everlasting nature of covenant.
Phil
I like Inge’s conclusion. God’s self- renouncing love is the only kind of love that HE has for all his creation. Dare I say that even in the ultimate elimination of the wicked demonstrates it!!
Exactly, Horace! I believe that the ultimate elimination of the wicked demonstrates God's love. He won't do it until all of His created beings, including the wicked themselves acknowledge that the action is just. There is a hint of this in Romans 14:11.
How sadly wrong you are, Inge - our Father does not have any pleasure to eliminate the 'wicked'; after all, they also were born with the potential to love, but for reasons not for us to judge, they were unwilling to do so. God's love is demonstrated by His faithfulness in the face of all the wickedness still out there, just waiting to be replaced when accepting His Love.
I'm sorry that you misread my comment. I did not write that God has "pleasure" in the destruction of the wicked. (In Isaiah, God calls it His "strange work" and "strange act." Isa 28:21)
I did write that the destruction of the wicked is also an act of love, as are all God's actions.
Glad you dared to say it Horace. It is good to be able to voice your thoughts honestly. And I don't disagree with what you have said.
Either yourself or Inge or anyone else, can you unpack some more detail as to the how you see the ultimate elimination of the wicked demonstrating God's self-renouncing love?
The final destruction of the wicked is an act of mercy even for the wicked, since they would be deeply miserable in the atmosphere of heaven, having developed habits and thought patterns diametrically opposed to the principles of God's Kingdom. That is why they will bow before God, along with the righteous and acknowledge His justice.
The final destruction of the wicked is an act of love for the inhabitants of the universe in that it removes the cause of strife and misery so that one pulse of harmony and gladness will beat throughout God's vast creation. Revelation 5:13.
On this subject, I really recommend reading the last chapter of The Great Controversy, by Ellen White. (It's inexpensive in digital format, and if you prefer an easier read, I highly recommend Love Under Fire, the condensed modern-English version. It's a really good read.) I promise you will not be disappointed!
Here are some excerpts:
Agreed on both that i like how Inge concluded and that you dare say even in the ultimate elimination of the wicked it is demonstrated. For, it is because of his love he has to get rid of sin, wickedness, pain, suffering, death, etc. Blessings
Well said , Inge. My thoughts . You ended most beautifully with the quote from the end of “The Great Controversy “ God is love.!
Sacrifices in the ot forshadowed the ultimate sacrifice Jesus our Saviour and his shed blood (its all in the shedding of blood) and his blood is pure and undefiled. We are sinful being in need of a saviour and cannot save ourselves; Jesus in his love for fallen humanity, took it upon himself to be that sacrafice and it is only through belief/trust in jesus and obedience that we can/will be saved. I stand corrected if needs be.
De ce ați scris că Abraam nu a trecut printre animalele despicate? Ellen White în cap.12 Patriarhi și Profeți scrie că da, Abraam a trecut printre animalele despicate.
Translation:
Why did you write that Abraham did not go through the split animals? Ellen White in chapter 12 Patriarchs and Prophets writes that yes, Abraham went through the split animals.