Just whose life is it, anyway?

[Steve Lortz]

I was having a hallway discussion with one of my profs about spirit the other day, and he brought up an observation: the Bible doesn't ever tell us WHY a blood sacrifice was required. That set me to thinking:

The Bible doesn't say why blood sacrifice was required, probably because everybody back then knew why, and took it for granted that their hearers would know why.

The requirement of a blood sacrifice wasn't just part of religious ceremony back then. It was part of Hammurabi's civil law before the biblical material was ever written. It was lex talionis: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. That sounds barbarous to us today, but it was actually a method for limiting the escalating nature of blood feud. If somebody from the neighboring clan knocks one tooth out of your head, the most your clan can do in retaliation is knock one tooth out of the head of one of the neighboring clan's members.

If a member of your clan kills a member of the clan next door, then your clan owes that other clan one life, and one life only.

The debt for a life has to be paid in blood, because the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Blood sacrifice of animals enabled the life (blood) of the sacrificial victim to be substituted for the life (blood) of the human debtor.

After Adam sinned, God covered his sin with the hide of animals, which meant the blood of those animals was shed to pay Adam's life-debt.

We now know that the blood of those particular animals wasn't effective in itself. Their blood pointed to the genuinely effective blood that would be shed by Jesus Christ.

So Jesus' blood paid the life-debt incurred by Adam. The question becomes, how did Adam incur a life-debt?

I submit that Cain, even though he was the first murderer, was not the first person who took a life to which he was not entitled. That person was Adam.

God created Adam. Adam's life was God's property. When Adam decided to disobey God, he took his life into his own hands. Adam stole his life from God, and consequently owed God a life. That's what God meant when He said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." In the day that you disobey Me, you will have taken a life from Me, and you will owe Me a life. You can't pay Me what you owe Me yourself without remaining dead, so I'm gonna let you substitute the lives of animals, until Jesus comes along. He will be able to pay the debt you owe, and not have to remain dead.

I don't think that confessing the Lord Jesus with our mouths simply means saying that Jesus is the Ruler of the cosmos. I think it means something like "Jesus, you are my master and I am your slave. I give my life to you." In confessing with our mouths the Lord Jesus, we give to Jesus our lives, Who passes ownership of them to God.

Our lives are rightfully God's property. He made us. When we sieze ownership of our lives to do whatever WE please, we have literally taken our own lives. When we give our lives back to God through Jesus Christ, we are returning our lives to their proper owner. We recognize this change in relationship through obedience to the law of God that will be written in our hearts.

What do you, my companions in fellowship, think? Am I onto something or out in left field?

Love,

Steve

Edited March 23, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[Steve Lortz]

One of the personal reasons I find this stuff so interesting, and connected with my thinking about the idiom of permisssion, is because one of the last things I did for CES was to help edit Don't Blame God. I knew I was uncomfortable with the thinking of John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark Graeser, but I was not yet adequately prepared to do any genuine critical thinking on my own.

Don't Blame God takes the idiom of permission to its logical extreme. The book contends that God does not have foreknowledge, and could not foresee that Adam would sin. It also makes God's power seem pretty much like that of the Pillsbury Doughboy. Poke Him in the belly, and all He does in response is giggle. The adversary becomes more powerful than God.

The attitude of CES was similar that of TWI, except Wierwille potrayed God's power as that of a vending machine.

But we know from the Word that God foresaw the necessity of Jesus Christ's works from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ, not Adam, is the firstborn of all creation, that is to say, Jesus Christ, not Adam, is the main purpose of all creation.

I am coming to think that Adam's sin, taking his life into his own hands, and incurring the blood debt on his whole clan, was necessary for Jesus to settle the blood debt of the whole clan by giving His life, and enabling us in turn to voluntarily give our lives back to God. Otherwise, our obedience to God (our love for Him) would be that of little robots. It seems to me that this line of thought can explain many of the things Paul wrote in his letters about the nature of sin and death.

Thanks for your consideration!

Love,

Steve

Edited March 23, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[geisha779]

One of the personal reasons I find this stuff so interesting, and connected with my thinking about the idiom of permisssion, is because one of the last things I did for CES was to help edit Don't Blame God. I knew I was uncomfortable with the thinking of John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark Graeser, but I was not yet adequately prepared to do any genuine critical thinking on my own.

Don't Blame God takes the idiom of permission to its logical extreme. The book contends that God does not have foreknowledge, and could not foresee that Adam would sin. It also makes God's power seem pretty much like that of the Pillsbury Doughboy. Poke Him in the belly, and all He does in response is giggle. The adversary becomes more powerful than God.

The attitude of CES was similar that of TWI, except Wierwille potrayed God's power as that of a vending machine.

But we know from the Word that God foresaw the necessity of Jesus Christ's works from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ, not Adam, is the firstborn of all creation, that is to say, Jesus Christ, not Adam, is the main purpose of all creation.

I am coming to think that Adam's sin, taking his life into his own hands, and incurring the blood debt on his whole clan, was necessary for Jesus to settle the blood debt of the whole clan by giving His life, and enabling us in turn to voluntarily give our lives back to God. Otherwise, our obedience to God (our love for Him) would be that of little robots. It seems to me that this line of thought can explain many of the things Paul wrote in his letters about the nature of sin and death.

Thanks for your consideration!

Love,

Steve

Bad theology dishonors God....it just does and it hurts people. What could these guys be thinking embracing this kind of theology? I know in TWI we had an unhealthy obsession with the devil ......who we found lurking in books and dust bunnies....but what you describe in CES is even more extreme. People buy into this? I don't mean to derail your thread, but I find myself uncomfortably fascinated. What do they believe again?

As for the rest....I don't know why God required a blood sacrifice....He could have required anything, but He had to be satisfied. Only God knows what would cover or satisfy Him and why and only God could provide the sacrifice needed..... which is why He provided the covering for Adam. He provided the sacrifice for the sins of all men in Jesus Christ. Adam's sin seperated him from God and look how bad it got just a generation later.....murder, envy.....all kinds of things going on. God didn't require Cain's life.....but marked him for protection. If it is a life for a life then God let that one slide. I doubt God was influenced by Hammurabi's code and as you say an eye for an eye was a good deterrent.

The sacrifice isn't really for God's benefit.....He doesn't need anything from us.....the sacrifice is mercifully provided by Him for us so that we can be reconciled. Not the other way around. Some people call what Adam did spiritual death so I guess what you say makes sense as long as you factor in that God is yet again providing, being merciful and has done it for our benefit .... not His. God is perfectly perfect in Himself and needs nothing from us. That He desires a relationship with us and that He provided a way that would satisfy justice speaks to Him.

[Rejoice]

Bad theology dishonors God....it just does and it hurts people. What could these guys be thinking embracing this kind of theology? I know in TWI we had an unhealthy obsession with the devil ......who we found lurking in books and dust bunnies....but what you describe in CES is even more extreme.

I read that book and thought it was BLASPHEMOUS! We were taught to emphasize the works of Satan more than we ever focused on the simplicity and goodness of God's hand on our lives. And they call themselves Christian? We glorified Satan by looking for him at every turn more than we did God; our focus was seriouly narrowed. If God was not all knowing and we had no strength in his power to overcome evil and protect us, than what was the point of worshipping an impotent spirit?? Rubbish!

[Steve Lortz]

One of my profs objects to the idea I sketched in my posts above, saying it is too much like the ransom theory of atonement. This theory holds that Adam sold out mankind to the devil, and that Jesus' life was paid to the devil to buy mankind back. Wierwille didn't call what he taught a "ransom theory", but that's what it was. Remember the words from the song "We are sons of God with power"? Weren't some of them "We've been bought back from the devil's power"?

Ransom theories are generally held to be deficient because they view Jesus' life as a payment TO the devil. The devil, being a liar and a thief, is not viewed as being capable of putting a legitimate lien on God OR man. I am inclined to view whatever power the devil wields over men as being the result of illegitimate deception. I don't think he has any real power, and he certainly doesn't exercise ANY power over God.

TWI's and CES' adherence to a ransom theory may be one reason why they attribute such extraordinary power to the devil, and turn God into such a puffball.

I would not call the idea I put forth a "ransom" theory. I would call it a "restitution" theory, since it views the human life Jesus gave up on the cross as paid TO GOD to make restitution for the clan obligation Adam brought on mankind by taking his life (God's property) away from God through disobedience. Jesus' dual nature, as both Son of God and Son of man, would have qualified Him to pay our clan debt.

All for now. Later on, we'll look at the "satisfaction theory" of atonement, and how the idea I've put forth differs from it.

Love,

Steve

Edited March 25, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[cman]

I think understanding what the 1st Adam is, means and did,

would be essential to knowing what the last Adam really did.

'I AM the First and Last'

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

[cman]

ok, how bout this

what would die when Adam ate-thou shalt surely die-

why didn't Adam see that he was naked before he ate

was he naked before he ate

is Adam a son of God?

[Ham]

After Adam sinned, God covered his sin with the hide of animals, which meant the blood of those animals was shed to pay Adam's life-debt.

is it possible that this is an assumption?

OK. Assuming this is possible.. the blood of beasts has to be more holy than the blood of man..

I can't see an infinite God paying a debt with wooden nickels, so to speak..

[Ham]

Sowy, just a few more thoughts.

There are two cats here.. I would NEVER request them to give up their life, or blood, for mine..

I'd rather die in wickedness or something..

first of all.. if something such was even possible.. they would have to have the capacity to agree with this..

then they would have to logically agree with this..

or are their Souls just ripe for some kind of harvest..

just a few thoughts. I can't harvest souls for my own benefit. Maybe other humans can do this.. whose life is it, anyway..

[cman]

imo it's the flesh, the clothes of Gen 3

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

Paul talks about being clothed as well.

A bit different though, as I don't hold with the same meaning stays with the same words.

2 Corinthians 5

1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord

[geisha779]

Sowy, just a few more thoughts.

There are two cats here.. I would NEVER request them to give up their life, or blood, for mine..

I'd rather die in wickedness or something..

first of all.. if something such was even possible.. they would have to have the capacity to agree with this..

then they would have to logically agree with this..

or are their Souls just ripe for some kind of harvest..

just a few thoughts. I can't harvest souls for my own benefit. Maybe other humans can do this.. whose life is it, anyway..

If you are interested .....read Leviticus 17....it might help to shed some light.

[Steve Lortz]

Thanks for the tip, geisha. I went and read the whole chapter, and I found a lot of food for thought!

Love,

Steve

[cman]

imo, Lev 17 doesn't relate specifically to Adam and Eve being clothed in Gen 3

nor does it have anything to do with some supposed sin of Adam and Eve being covered

[geisha779]

Thanks for the tip, geisha. I went and read the whole chapter, and I found a lot of food for thought!

Love,

Steve

I am really glad you found it useful. It kind of supports what you articulated in your initial post.....with God providing the sacrifice for atonement. Of course, He was the first to do this with Adam.....but it explains, at least the point, if not the why God used blood sacrifice.

The other thing to remember is that people ate of the sacrifice...it served a dual purpose. I eat meat and I give thanks. Taking certain objections to their logical end......did the steak I ate last night really have a choice? I don't know if that is harvesting souls for my benefit, but it did nourish mine! Oddly, I feel little guilt about that or the broccoli ripped up in its prime to provide the vitamins and calcium I need for nourishment.

Some things are provided for our benefit and God provided the sacrifice used for their benefit......not his.

[Abigail]

ok, how bout this

what would die when Adam ate-thou shalt surely die-

why didn't Adam see that he was naked before he ate

was he naked before he ate

is Adam a son of God?

*waves hi** Good question. What was lost and what was gained? Layers. Innocence was lost and shame replaced it. Before he ate, Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil. After he ate he did. Before he ate he could know no shame. After he ate he could.

Clothed in animal skin? In what form was Adam before he ate and in what form was the animal skin? We assume Adam was just like us, but maybe he wasn't?

[cman]

not so sure about the shame part

it does say this

Genesis 2:25

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

but it never says they were ashamed after that i can find

although one can be ashamed of something as i know from experience

and that can be beaten

was he naked before he ate

yes, according to that verse, but did he know it

and was he still naked after he ate

just covered with skin

i think yes, we all are, just 'layers' to uncover

if we see what those skins are

animals? beastly? not literaly imo....more human and flesh

covering spirit

thanks Abigail, and Hi to you too!

[Ham]

The more I think about this..

The two black cats here will NEVER burn as some kind of denizen of hell in medieval Europe.

Some of those primitive beliefs actually had the arrogance.. well.. whatever. To think they could rid the land of evil spirits around Easter time, by gathering black cats and burning them..

they are free as they wish, to consume tuna, as much dry cat food as they wish. Even the occasional mouse that might stupidly enter a cat's residence..

Edited March 31, 2012 by Ham

[geisha779]

The more I think about this..

The two black cats here will NEVER burn as some kind of denizen of hell in medieval Europe.

Some of those primitive beliefs actually had the arrogance.. well.. whatever. To think they could rid the land of evil spirits around Easter time, by gathering black cats and burning them..

they are free as they wish, to consume tuna, as much dry cat food as they wish. Even the occasional mouse that might stupidly enter a cat's residence..

Well, it is a good thing that God doesn't require cat sacrifice then.......and that He has already provided the perfect sacrifice in the person of Jesus Christ.

Reducing the gospel and faith down to mocking and silliness is nothing new......I just know I don't have to be a part of it.

[sirguessalot]

perhaps he became aware of his self as a form of animal for the first time.

the only thing that changed was his perspective...as if he had noticed and identified his own human animal body for the first time.

like an infant not being aware that the toes are attached to the same body as the mouth that is sucking on them.

at some point..."oh, i am a me!"

and then, hopefully..."oh, you are a me too"

and then, hopefully..."oh, we all have a me."

then, "oh, i have a me, but i am also much more than just a me."

[Ham]

Well, it is a good thing that God doesn't require cat sacrifice then.......and that He has already provided the perfect sacrifice in the person of Jesus Christ.

Reducing the gospel and faith down to mocking and silliness is nothing new......I just know I don't have to be a part of it.

I'm sorry that you take me wrongly here friend.. the laughter is not of mocking, but more of joy.

[Ham]

But you know.. less than a thousand years ago, they were busy rounding up black cats in Christian(?) Europe this time of year..

I'd like to be able to claim that this kind of insane belief will NEVER reign again..

yeah.. they actually thought they were ridding the land of devilish influence, so they could properly enjoy Easter..

maybe I have an over-active imagination..

But the cats here were running from door to door, window to window today.. the one cat has quite a loud voice.

maybe they saw some far off past, where there was a mob of religious fanatics trying to hunt down black cats or something..

Well. There was no "trial".. these primitive bastards just plain burned black cats outright..

Interesting..

There are other countries, and other cultures that consider a black cat to be GOOD luck.

[waysider]

There are other countries, and other cultures that consider a black cat to be GOOD luck.

Yes, the black cat is considered to be both bad luck and good luck, depending on the location and circumstances. Likewise, this so-called idiom of permission can be see from two (or more) different perspectives as well. Does God cause the evil? Does God simply allow the evil? It all appears to be relative to one's ability to rationalize and justify the illogical.

[TrustAndObey]

I was having a hallway discussion with one of my profs about spirit the other day, and he brought up an observation: the Bible doesn't ever tell us WHY a blood sacrifice was required.

Are you sure about that? For some odd reason, I could have sworn that was one of the main points in Romans. For without death, life, the sacrifice of man's life, the shedding of his blood, we are still bound...

[Twinky]

The more I think about this..

The two black cats here will NEVER burn as some kind of denizen of hell in medieval Europe.

Not talking about me, are you Ham, or my girlies? :blink:

[Ham]

Not necessarily. But that was the standard operating procedure in medieval Europe to prepare for Easter. Do a little spring cleaning, round up the black cats..

The superstitious would go absolutely nuts with our Samantha.

She loves to talk with the humans. Can't figure out what she's trying to say all the time, but she is quite vocal.

When I leave the house, for whatever reason.. she is quite annoyed about it. I come back in, and it's five minutes of "rowler, rowler, rowl" along with the tip of her tail quivering..