4. Covenant-making sacrifice
In Hebrews 9 there is a longer passage that compares Jesus’ death with Moses’ sacrifice at Mt. Sinai: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU." And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”
Now, in this case, the death of Jesus really is being compared to the sacrifice Moses offered. But what sacrifice is this? It is the one made after the children of Israel received the Law, and they were making a covenant with God that He would be their King and they would be his obedient vassals. Thus, it is a kingdom-making covenant. Thus, this sacrifice, more than sin offerings or day of atonement offerings is to be compared to Jesus’ death. For both Moses’ offering and the death of Jesus was to create a covenant—read “constitution”—that would form the government. Jesus himself used the same language as Moses when he said, “this blood of the covenant” at the last supper.
The death of Jesus, then is the formation of the kingdom of God, even as the Passover sacrifice—the sacrifice of release of oppression—and the Mosaic covenant sacrifice—the sacrifice of establishing a kingdom.
Why, then, does the author of Hebrews emphasize the necessity of blood? Why is blood necessary to establish a covenant? Well, the author only says that a covenant, by which he means a will for inheritance, can only take effect after the death of the writer. That doesn’t make sense in either Moses’ or Jesus’ case, but it does establish a principle of death for all covenants. Specifically Jesus’ death—thus blood—was necessary to show the injustice of the established leaders. They had to prove their evil intentions by killing the innocent anointed of God.
In summary, Jesus’ atonement is connected with sacrifices, but the kind of sacrifices that are mentioned, and the emphasis that is placed on each sacrifice all lend itself to the Ransom theory (Christus Victor) or the Anawim theory of atonement instead of any of the other main theories of atonement.
No comments:
Post a Comment