Looking at the Lamb

[StriperAddict]

LOOKING AT THE LAMB

In the Old Testament Law of Moses, the Lord God had established a sacrificial system for the Israelites to deal with their sins until the Messiah would come.
It was called the Day of Atonement and it is a picture of the sacrifice of Jesus for us.

On the Day of Atonement, the Israelite would pick out a lamb from his flock. This lamb had to be spotless and have no blemish. This lamb was to be his substitute for the sins the man had committed that year. The lamb was to pay the price (die) in place of the man

The lamb was brought to the priest, and the priest would inspect the LAMB carefully to make sure there was no spot or blemish on it. If there was, the lamb was denied and was not qualified to be the sacrificial lamb for the man.

Once the lamb was found to be spotless, and the priest approves of it, the lamb was slaughtered and the blood sprinkled on the altar of the High Priest as an acceptable sin offering for the man.

Notice something interesting though!

Does the priest EVER examine the man that brought the lamb?? NO!!

Who had sinned? The man!
Who was examined? The lamb!

Only the LAMB is examined and either the lamb is a worthy sacrifice or it’s not! The man himself is NEVER examined.

**IF THE LAMB IS GOOD, THE MAN IS GOOD**

I hope you see the picture that is painted here.

CHRIST IS OUR SACRIFICIAL LAMB

The Lord Jesus is our sacrificial Lamb for our sins. He was examined by God and was found to be spotless and without blemish (no sin found in Him). So God approved of Him and deemed Jesus to be a worthy sacrifice for our sins (propitiation).

So the Lamb of God, who was spotless, was slain for us and His blood was sprinkled on the altar of our hearts (those who believe in Him as our sacrifice) which cleanses us from all our sin.

Notice again who the examiner (God) DOESNT look at? You and me. He examines the sacrifice, not us!

So when we sin today, does God examine you and the sin you committed? Does He find YOU guilty and convict you? NO!

He examines the sacrifice, Jesus Himself. And since the ONE TIME sacrifice of Jesus satisfied God for all time, then God is satisfied with you! Forever! Isn’t that good news?? ?

If you are in Christ, then IF THE LAMB OF GOD IS GOOD FOR ALL TIME, THEN YOU ARE GOOD FOR ALL TIME, because God looks at the sacrifice for your sins, not you!

Praise God that the sacrifice of Jesus satisfied the righteous demands of God as payment for our sins, not just once a year, but forever!

Thank you Lord Jesus! Amen ?

- David Moss

 

[hummerpoo]

LOOKING AT THE LAMB

In the Old Testament Law of Moses, the Lord God had established a sacrificial system for the Israelites to deal with their sins until the Messiah would come.
It was called the Day of Atonement and it is a picture of the sacrifice of Jesus for us.

On the Day of Atonement, the Israelite would pick out a lamb from his flock. This lamb had to be spotless and have no blemish. This lamb was to be his substitute for the sins the man had committed that year. The lamb was to pay the price (die) in place of the man

The lamb was brought to the priest, and the priest would inspect the LAMB carefully to make sure there was no spot or blemish on it. If there was, the lamb was denied and was not qualified to be the sacrificial lamb for the man.

Once the lamb was found to be spotless, and the priest approves of it, the lamb was slaughtered and the blood sprinkled on the altar of the High Priest as an acceptable sin offering for the man.

Notice something interesting though!

Does the priest EVER examine the man that brought the lamb?? NO!!

Who had sinned? The man!
Who was examined? The lamb!

Only the LAMB is examined and either the lamb is a worthy sacrifice or it’s not! The man himself is NEVER examined.

**IF THE LAMB IS GOOD, THE MAN IS GOOD**

I hope you see the picture that is painted here.

CHRIST IS OUR SACRIFICIAL LAMB

The Lord Jesus is our sacrificial Lamb for our sins. He was examined by God and was found to be spotless and without blemish (no sin found in Him). So God approved of Him and deemed Jesus to be a worthy sacrifice for our sins (propitiation).

So the Lamb of God, who was spotless, was slain for us and His blood was sprinkled on the altar of our hearts (those who believe in Him as our sacrifice) which cleanses us from all our sin.

Notice again who the examiner (God) DOESNT look at? You and me. He examines the sacrifice, not us!

So when we sin today, does God examine you and the sin you committed? Does He find YOU guilty and convict you? NO!

He examines the sacrifice, Jesus Himself. And since the ONE TIME sacrifice of Jesus satisfied God for all time, then God is satisfied with you! Forever! Isn’t that good news?? ?

If you are in Christ, then IF THE LAMB OF GOD IS GOOD FOR ALL TIME, THEN YOU ARE GOOD FOR ALL TIME, because God looks at the sacrifice for your sins, not you!

Praise God that the sacrifice of Jesus satisfied the righteous demands of God as payment for our sins, not just once a year, but forever!

Thank you Lord Jesus! Amen ?

- David Moss

The Lord Jesus is our sacrificial Lamb for our sins. He was examined by God and was found to be spotless and without blemish (no sin found in Him). So God approved of Him and deemed Jesus to be a worthy sacrifice for our sins (propitiation). →→ [Providing restitution for the offense.]


So the Lamb of God, who was spotless, was slain for us and His blood was sprinkled on the altar of our hearts[](those who believe in Him as our sacrifice) which cleanses us from all our sin.

No. That is expiation.

Our guilt is not expiated, gotten rid of. It is not remembered (in the accounting) because the price has been paid, restitution has been made. It is no longer held against us. The books are balanced, but the debits and credits have not disappeared.

Propitiation satisfies the debt which we owe. Restitution having been made, reconciliation has been facilitated. The relationship can be reestablished because the obstacle (unsatisfied debt) has been removed.

We are not sinless, just because our Mediator is sinless. That's why we continue to need a Mediator.

The distinction is not trivial, nor does it diminish the gift, and most importantly, it maintains the distinction between God and man. Christ's sacrifice does not make gods of men. The potential of men being made little gods (omniscient and eternal) is what got Adam thrown out of the Garden (did you continue to read after our discussion of the Garden).

 

[Artfuldodger]

I read the difference between propitiation vs expiation and it's really confusing. I think God approving of Jesus and him being the sacrifice for our sins is propitiation, which cover God's anger(expiation.)
Jesus meets our needs through the expiation of our sin by his death on the cross through propitiation.

Propitiation is something done to a person: Christ propitiated God in the sense that he turned God’s wrath away from guilty sinners by enduring that wrath himself in the isolation of Calvary. Expiation is what is done to crimes or sins or evil deeds: Jesus provided the means to cancel or cleanse them.

Scripture uses the same Greek word to mean both in a few verses. I guess they were as confused as I am,lol.

 

[hummerpoo]

I read the difference between propitiation vs expiation and it's really confusing. I think God approving of Jesus and him being the sacrifice for our sins is propitiation, which cover God's anger(expiation.)
Jesus meets our needs through the expiation of our sin by his death on the cross through propitiation.

Propitiation is something done to a person: Christ propitiated God in the sense that he turned God’s wrath away from guilty sinners by enduring that wrath himself in the isolation of Calvary. Expiation is what is done to crimes or sins or evil deeds: Jesus provided the means to cancel or cleanse them.

Scripture uses the same Greek word to mean both in a few verses. I guess they were as confused as I am,lol.

Thank you Art. I left out far to much supporting material, and jumped to the conclusion. i.e. cleanse us vs cleanse sin. My bad on this one, for sure.

This issue was quite thoroughly beaten around, but not to death (1950's and 1960's), by C.H. Dodd and Leon Morris, having been initiated by Dodd's definition of "hilasterion" as expiation, in 1935. I have read excerpts, but that is all. The conclusion (cir. 1980's), as I understand it, was that the traditional interpretation of "propitiation" most accurately represented the concept.

Perhaps the simplest way of thinking about it is, as you well explained in your 2nd paragraph; propitiate → person and expiate → object. Where i have a problem with that paragraph is "cancel or cleanse"; they are far from the same thing; which is it? If canceled it no longer exists in any form; if cleansed its character is changed . While expiation has been described by some as the means of propitiation and thereby included within propitiation, that does not explain the mechanism of the means. If the debt resulting from sin, incurs the wrath of God, and it was propitiated by Christ by the means of expiation, was it canceled or cleansed. If that debt were incurred unjustly, cancellation would be the appropriate and sufficient mechanism. If that debt were incurred justly, cleansing would be the appropriate, only sufficient mechanism available.

Now, with you help, I can go back to what I rushed into too quickly.

Propitiation satisfies the debt which we owe. Restitution having been made, reconciliation has been facilitated. The relationship can be reestablished because the obstacle (unsatisfied debt) has been removed [satisfied].

We are not sinless, just because our Mediator is sinless. That's why we continue to need a Mediator.

The distinction is not trivial, nor does it diminish the gift, and most importantly, it maintains the distinction between God and man. Christ's sacrifice does not make gods of men. The potential of men being made little gods (omniscient and eternal) is what got Adam thrown out of the Garden (did you continue to read after our discussion of the Garden).

 

[gordon 2]

Dog-gone-it, I knew that brother StriperA was a bit off in his seasonings, but never thought he could of been a heretic! WOW. Never could put my mind at rest onto what was the cause of his ministering. I still love him however-- Heresy or not ...he still remains my deeply loved brother.

So StriperA you heretic repent or not... cheers. :

 

[hummerpoo]

Inference without implication is ......... I don't know. What is it?

 

[StriperAddict]

So StriperA you heretic repent or not... cheers. :

Ha! Likely I'll continue believing God's report, of Himself, of us.
If that gets me burned at the stake , so be it

 

[StriperAddict]

No. That is expiation.

Our guilt is not expiated, gotten rid of. It is not remembered (in the accounting) because the price has been paid, restitution has been made. It is no longer held against us. The books are balanced, but the debits and credits have not disappeared.

Propitiation satisfies the debt which we owe. Restitution having been made, reconciliation has been facilitated. The relationship can be reestablished because the obstacle (unsatisfied debt) has been removed.

We are not sinless, just because our Mediator is sinless. That's why we continue to need a Mediator.

The distinction is not trivial, nor does it diminish the gift, and most importantly, it maintains the distinction between God and man. Christ's sacrifice does not make gods of men. The potential of men being made little gods (omniscient and eternal) is what got Adam thrown out of the Garden (did you continue to read after our discussion of the Garden).

Never does the op imply little gods. And yes, we are not sinless in our behavior, but that does not detract from what the New Covenant did for us AND to us.

BBL, gotta run, will share more this weekend.

 

[hummerpoo]

Never does the op imply little gods.

I agree 100%; that is my extension, and my expression.

And yes, we are not sinless in our behavior, but that does not detract from what the New Covenant did for us AND to us.

Please take a shot at relating your meaning of "New Covenant" when you get back. Scripture is fine, of coarse, but interpretation may be required.

BBL, gotta run, will share more this weekend.

Praying for shallow pot-holes and visible speed-bumps.

 

[gemcgrew]

I read the difference between propitiation vs expiation and it's really confusing. I think God approving of Jesus and him being the sacrifice for our sins is propitiation, which cover God's anger(expiation.)
Jesus meets our needs through the expiation of our sin by his death on the cross through propitiation.

Propitiation is something done to a person: Christ propitiated God in the sense that he turned God’s wrath away from guilty sinners by enduring that wrath himself in the isolation of Calvary. Expiation is what is done to crimes or sins or evil deeds: Jesus provided the means to cancel or cleanse them.

Scripture uses the same Greek word to mean both in a few verses. I guess they were as confused as I am,lol.

Think "Mercy seat", which means "propitiation".

 

[gordon 2]

2:And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of( a clear conscience toward God)* 8—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him. 1Peter 3:22

 

[gordon 2]

Let me ask childish questions, please.


When we say Jesus died for our sins, could we mean he died because the unrighteous ( man still in his sin) is simply antagonism towards God? That is Jesus died for our sins because our sins condemned him?

Note that this has a very different meaning than the usual meaning given to " Jesus died for our sins".

When I read Peter's account of the manner Jesus was put to death, I can understand it that he means by our sins Jesus was put to death physically as an example of how the new way of a friend of God is not much different. By the world ( worldy) stripes due sin our bodies might be sacrificed, but not our life itself.


The great intervention is Christ's resurrection, his return to the Father and sending the Advocate (Paraclete)-- and not to mention setting up the foundations of the Church. ???

So the economy of God's intervention through Jesus' ministry would be less atonement ( sacrificial death to rub out sin or cover sin) and more an enterprise to provide eternal life due grace alone. ????

 

[StriperAddict]

Praying for shallow pot-holes and visible speed-bumps.

Answered, with thanks!

I agree 100%; that is my extension, and my expression.

It was CS Lewis's too, little Christ's, or lil Jesus's he called believers. I love much of his discourse but that's one thing too far from the point of salvation methinks.

Please take a shot at relating your meaning of "New Covenant" when you get back. Scripture is fine, of coarse, but interpretation may be required.

For starters, the New Covenant is an agreement between God & God. It's an oath, a promise, which God made with Himself.

17 In the same way God, desiring even more to demonstrate to the heirs of the promise the fact that His purpose is unchangeable, confirmed it with an oath,
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to hold firmly to the hope set before us.
19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and reliable and one which enters within the veil,
(Emphasis mine)

There's so much more from the book of Hebrews (and Galatians) on the value of the New Covenant, but let's start there. We can "cover" words such as expiation; atonement, covering, at a later time.

 

[StriperAddict]

So the economy of God's intervention through Jesus' ministry would be less atonement ( sacrificial death to rub out sin or cover sin) and more an enterprise to provide eternal life due grace alone. ????

No childish Q's at all, in fact you're on to something, so let's adress one:
There's a huge difference in "covering sin" and "taking away sin.", indeed, the real difference between the 2 covenants ...
2 Corinthians 5:21:
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
That's only found in the NC. (The OT folks longed for what we have in the NC).
So! Would you agree that becoming the righteousness of God was both the plan and work of the economy of God's intervention?
Why Gordon, you heretic, you!

 

[hummerpoo]

Answered, with thanks!


It was CS Lewis's too, little Christ's, or lil Jesus's he called believers. I love much of his discourse but that's one thing too far from the point of salvation methinks.

You may, or may not recall that about 10 yrs. ago you and I attempted to have a conversation (our one and only attempt), which failed miserably. In that case the topic was sanctification. Everything I had to say, no matter how hard I tried to address the topic, your response was always "salvation". May I humbly suggest:

Heb. 5:11-6:3
and
Being the paradox living in the contradiction | GON Forum

I attempted to begin with "I'm special 'Look what God has done for me' " that failing, I had hoped to get back there.

For starters, the New Covenant is an agreement between God & God. It's an oath, a promise, which God made with Himself.

17 In the same way God, desiring even more to demonstrate to the heirs of the promise the fact that His purpose is unchangeable, confirmed it with an oath,
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to hold firmly to the hope set before us.
19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and reliable and one which enters within the veil,
(Emphasis mine)

There's so much more from the book of Hebrews (and Galatians) on the value of the New Covenant, but let's start there. We can "cover" words such as expiation; atonement, covering, at a later time.

Sounds very much like the "Covenant of Redemption" which is usually encountered in "Covenant Theology". I have always considered it, perhaps incorrectly, as an extra-Scriptural necessity of the hermeneutic. But I have never considered it, nor have I ever seen others consider it to be directly connected to New Covenant. Although not in the same way that he intended, it does support Augustine's contention, with which I agree, that the New Covenant is older than the Old Covenant.

 

[StriperAddict]

You may, or may not recall that about 10 yrs. ago you and I attempted to have a conversation (our one and only attempt), which failed miserably. In that case the topic was sanctification. Everything I had to say, no matter how hard I tried to address the topic, your response was always "salvation". May I humbly suggest:

Heb. 5:11-6:3
and
Being the paradox living in the contradiction | GON Forum

I attempted to begin with "I'm special 'Look what God has done for me' " that failing, I had hoped to get back there.

I'm 63 with a failing memory but I'll take your word about the discussion! And not to excuse myself, but 10 years ago I had just come out of the mixed message gospel and was starting to see grace and the righteous identity of the believer then, and quite possibly had not communicated the better benefits of the NC. I've never looked back from the mess of the "self-effort, law burdened theology" and maybe that wasn't the discussion then? I'm now all for claiming His grace for Life from the dead, no works at arrival of redemption and certainly none going forward, just simple faith in the cross and resurrection. That's the backbone of the NC, no additives of Moses needed or included.

Sounds very much like the "Covenant of Redemption" which is usually encountered in "Covenant Theology". I have always considered it, perhaps incorrectly, as an extra-Scriptural necessity of the hermeneutic. But I have never considered it, nor have I ever seen others consider it to be directly connected to New Covenant. Although not in the same way that he intended, it does support Augustine's contention, with which I agree, that the New Covenant is older than the Old Covenant.

That the pre cross OT saints we saved by grace thru faith I can conclude has a correlation to the New, but since a Covenant, or testament is not in place until the death of the testator, then no, the New Covenant came after Christ's death, not before. Plus Ezek. 36 speaks of the New coming at a later time, not sooner. The book of Hebrews is all about this. Time limits me to go verse thumping, lol, so please excuse more missing notes in this short note to discuss.

Concerning "special" well, true, but never would I conclude that that is the reason Christ came and died. If God is love, that's reason enough for the New.

Enjoy the weekend, HP & all.

 

[StriperAddict]

Here's an on topic nugget said better than my ramblings;

In the New Covenant, we have God the Father upholding His end of the promise and Jesus the Son upholding His end of promise, and the Spirit indwelling those who have believed in Their promise that They mediated. So now, having believed and received the “circumcision of the heart” … we are now freely loving God, ourselves and others with a true “walk/keep/do” that results from the new heart and indwelling life of the Spirit that now lives IN us.
----------------------------------
From -- Mark Baker
Jesus New Covenant Academy
http://www.facebook.com/JesusNewCovenantAcademy

 

[hummerpoo]

I'm 63 with a failing memory but I'll take your word about the discussion! And not to excuse myself, but 10 years ago I had just come out of the mixed message gospel and was starting to see grace and the righteous identity of the believer then, and quite possibly had not communicated the better benefits of the NC. I've never looked back from the mess of the "self-effort, law burdened theology" and maybe that wasn't the discussion then? I'm now all for claiming His grace for Life from the dead, no works at arrival of redemption and certainly none going forward, just simple faith in the cross and resurrection. That's the backbone of the NC, no additives of Moses needed or included.



That the pre cross OT saints we saved by grace thru faith I can conclude has a correlation to the New, but since a Covenant, or testament is not in place until the death of the testator, then no, the New Covenant came after Christ's death, not before. Plus Ezek. 36 speaks of the New coming at a later time, not sooner. The book of Hebrews is all about this. Time limits me to go verse thumping, lol, so please excuse more missing notes in this short note to discuss.

Concerning "special" well, true, but never would I conclude that that is the reason Christ came and died. If God is love, that's reason enough for the New.

Enjoy the weekend, HP & all.

Back at you on the weekend.

Ah yes; Ezekiel 36:22 ff: probably the one passage that kick started my travel to a one dispensation interpretation by concisely explaining THE COVENANT.

22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went....26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. 28 You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.

I once went through the book of Ezekiel and counted almost 50 times where it was said that God had acted, or would act, so that somebody (the Jews, their enemies, the nations, etc.) would know that He is God.

 

[BANDERSNATCH]

LOOKING AT THE LAMB

In the Old Testament Law of Moses, the Lord God had established a sacrificial system for the Israelites to deal with their sins until the Messiah would come.
It was called the Day of Atonement and it is a picture of the sacrifice of Jesus for us.

On the Day of Atonement, the Israelite would pick out a lamb from his flock. This lamb had to be spotless and have no blemish. This lamb was to be his substitute for the sins the man had committed that year. The lamb was to pay the price (die) in place of the man

The lamb was brought to the priest, and the priest would inspect the LAMB carefully to make sure there was no spot or blemish on it. If there was, the lamb was denied and was not qualified to be the sacrificial lamb for the man.

Once the lamb was found to be spotless, and the priest approves of it, the lamb was slaughtered and the blood sprinkled on the altar of the High Priest as an acceptable sin offering for the man.

Notice something interesting though!

Does the priest EVER examine the man that brought the lamb?? NO!!

Who had sinned? The man!
Who was examined? The lamb!

Only the LAMB is examined and either the lamb is a worthy sacrifice or it’s not! The man himself is NEVER examined.

**IF THE LAMB IS GOOD, THE MAN IS GOOD**

I hope you see the picture that is painted here.

CHRIST IS OUR SACRIFICIAL LAMB

The Lord Jesus is our sacrificial Lamb for our sins. He was examined by God and was found to be spotless and without blemish (no sin found in Him). So God approved of Him and deemed Jesus to be a worthy sacrifice for our sins (propitiation).

So the Lamb of God, who was spotless, was slain for us and His blood was sprinkled on the altar of our hearts (those who believe in Him as our sacrifice) which cleanses us from all our sin.

Notice again who the examiner (God) DOESNT look at? You and me. He examines the sacrifice, not us!

So when we sin today, does God examine you and the sin you committed? Does He find YOU guilty and convict you? NO!

He examines the sacrifice, Jesus Himself. And since the ONE TIME sacrifice of Jesus satisfied God for all time, then God is satisfied with you! Forever! Isn’t that good news?? ?

If you are in Christ, then IF THE LAMB OF GOD IS GOOD FOR ALL TIME, THEN YOU ARE GOOD FOR ALL TIME, because God looks at the sacrifice for your sins, not you!

Praise God that the sacrifice of Jesus satisfied the righteous demands of God as payment for our sins, not just once a year, but forever!

Thank you Lord Jesus! Amen ?

- David Moss

Not sure who this "David Moss" is, but he knows nothing of the Day of Atonement. lol Clueless.

On the Day of Atonement - which that sacrifice was for the sins of Israel AS A NATION, not individually - two GOATS were brought out. (Think i've explained that recently in the "Day of Atonement" thread lol)

On Passover, a lamb was inspected for 4 days to verify that it was perfect. Jesus, too, our Passover Lamb, was tested and inspected for 4 days before He was found perfect. Keep in mind that the Passover lamb sacrifice was for redemption.

 

[StriperAddict]

Not sure who this "David Moss" is, but he knows nothing of the Day of Atonement. lol Clueless.

On the Day of Atonement - which that sacrifice was for the sins of Israel AS A NATION, not individually - two GOATS were brought out. (Think i've explained that recently in the "Day of Atonement" thread lol)

On Passover, a lamb was inspected for 4 days to verify that it was perfect. Jesus, too, our Passover Lamb, was tested and inspected for 4 days before He was found perfect. Keep in mind that the Passover lamb sacrifice was for redemption.

Well I don't see the article as not adding "enough" to the national sins of Israel, but the article points out the relational side of Gods love as it applies to the inspections of the two lambs, and not the "sin inspection" of either of the recipients, both in Israel's time and ours in Christ after the cross.
I often don't toss the baby out with the bathwater when the message is Father's amazing grace, is seen in the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. Call me an easy yoke believer, a simpleton if you must. The post, IMO, doesn't contradict the heart of the gospel.
Peace.