THE CROSS WAS NOT NECESSARY (Good Friday)

 At first glance, such a claim might seem shocking, but no, there is a significant point to be made.

The symbolic value of the Cross is taken from the Israelite/Old Testament images of God’s salvific and redemptive acts, with particular focus on the atonement system.  The whole Temple ritual system was symbolically heuristic.  Through memorable sights, sounds, and smells the atonement system taught people graphically about sin, mercy, and restorative forgiveness.

A brief overview:
The Temple symbolized God’s relational presence with God’s people.  Sin, transgression of the people’s relational covenant with God, was portrayed as a kind of miasmic “trash” that polluted God’s dwelling.  That invisible miasma symbolized the reverse of God’s will for the world, chaos and death.  Enough pollution and God’s Presence would depart; the relationship would be over.  However, if people in repentance confessed their sins, God would forgive them.  Restoration needed to be expressed.  Forgiveness and restoration were displayed symbolically as the people were walked through rituals in which the blood of a sacrifice was applied to the Temple paraphernalia and symbolically atoned (wiped over/away) the pollution, cleansing the Temple, and restoring right relationship with God.  The message: sin is deadly serious, but God is mercifully willing to forgive.
Why blood?  Blood was the counter symbol to chaos and death.  Blood symbolized life.  (Both breath and blood symbolized life in that culture.  Blood, though, could be manipulated for a visible symbol.)  In this God-given symbol system (Leviticus 17:11), application of that “lifeblood” prevailed over the effects of chaos and death.*  That is the nature of God-given life.  Therefore, this atonement system physically demonstrated how serious sin is and how important forgiveness and restoration are.

Application:
The Cross was not necessary.  None of the blood sacrifices in the Temple system coerced God to forgive.  God does not need killing to forgive.  People needed the atonement system to understand sin and forgiveness.  So, too they/we need the Cross.  The Cross demonstrates the seriousness of sin and that God is the initiator and provider of the grace of forgiveness.  The Cross communicated how incredible it is that our God does forgive, receive back, restore into a right relationship.  The God of life prevails over the chaos and death of our sin.  (Of course, as we move to Easter, the empty Cross shows us so much more: the victory of Life over death and the resurrected life to come.)

Jesus, I still cannot fathom the Incarnation, your life, the Cross, your Resurrection.  For me?  For us?  All I can do is worship you.  Amen.
----
*Note: Someone might point out that Hebrews 9:22 says, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”  That text obviously is not communicating that there is some external, universal law binding on God.  The whole chapter is working with those who knew the Temple symbol system and is teaching them by portraying Jesus as the superlative high priest and sacrifice for purification.  As in Romans 8:3, a new age has been inaugurated by Jesus standing in as the sin/purification offering.

BLOOD OF CHRIST: CLEANSING FROM “SIN”

 The author of 1 John, whichever John that is, thinks Christians should sin no more: “My children, these things I write to you in order that you not sin” (2:1a).  That is a well-known thesis of the letter, but I see it now from a different perspective.

As an OT scholar, I am aware of what were and were not the symbolic functions of blood in the Israelite sacrificial system – even whether it was applied or sprinkled had different functions.  I am also fairly convinced that Paul used the sacrificial language carefully, the precision of which is sometimes overlooked in NT interpretation and theology, particularly at a popular level.  (Some favorite hymns about blood are offtrack.  That bothers me, but I still sing with the congregation.)  1John 1:7 caught my attention: “… and the blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin [singular].”

Technical details:
Problem: In the Israelite sacrificial system, the blood of the purification/sin offering was not applied to people to cleanse them from sins.  Rather, it was applied to the altar to symbolically cleanse God’s dwelling from the contamination of sins.  That God allowed the blood to cleanse away this impediment in relationship with repentant Israelites was symbolic of God’s willingness to forgive.  So, I wondered if John did not know this technical feature of the sacrificial system.  (And, as a good NT scholar and friend pointed out, I might be expecting too much consistency within first-century Judaism.)

Observations: John uses the word for “sin” (harmartia) in the singular and the plural.  All of the plural forms use the term as a “product” of human behavior (1:9; 2:12; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10).  Moreover, all of the atonement concepts associated with the plural are appropriate to the sacrificial system (e.g. confessing, forgiving, “atoning offering,”*  taking up).  The singular forms may refer to a product (3:4 2x’s, 8, 9; 5:16 (1^st) or to a sinful state of being (1:8; 3:5).  (Some singular uses that are not clear by context also seem to refer to a state: 5:16 2^nd, 17.)  In our text, 1:7 in conjunction with verse 8, then appears to refer to a state of being.

Solution: John is thinking of the blood of Jesus as sanctifying people.  In the OT, after blood was applied to the altar to symbolically cleanse it of contamination sins, it was sprinkled with blood to re-sanctify it, to make it holy again.  In the dedication of the Israelite priesthood (Ex 29:16, 20 - 21, Lev 8:24, 30), after blood was applied to their extremities – the only time it is applied to people for the purpose of first purifying them# – it was then sprinkled on them to sanctify them, to set them apart as holy for the service of the priesthood.  Moreover, 1:9, which uses a different word for sin, “unrighteousness” (adikia) that also can communicate a state or a product, follows the same OT sequence of purifying and then consecrating: “If we confess our sins (plural), he is faithful and righteous in order to forgive us our sins (plural), AND cleanses us from all unrighteousness (singular).”  Therefore, it seems that John has extended the OT concept of blood for sanctification of the altar and the priests to those who profess Christ.  John in this letter appears to be saying two things: that sins are forgiven by Christ AND, given John's participatory theology (e.g. walking in the Light), that the believer’s character/heart has also been cleansed/sanctified by Christ's blood.

Application:  To me the extension John has made is beautiful and profound!  Having been forgiven through the process of Jesus' blood as a purification sacrifice, believers have also been sanctified by it to be holy.  That which has been made holy is not to become contaminated by sins again.

Lord, what I am offered in Christ is beyond wonder.  Having been forgiven and sanctified by Christ’s blood, I want to walk in the Light and sin no more.  Amen

*Sometimes translated as “propitiation.”
#In the covenant ratification ceremony of Ex 24:3 – 8, blood was sprinkled on people (or perhaps on the 12 pillars representing them), but this ritual was not for sins.  (The author of Hebrews does refer to this rite in 9:19 – 20 and probably 12:24, though, as one of three symbolic uses of the blood of Jesus that he mentions.