|
|
Post by jaybee on May 12, 2016 16:02:41 GMT -8
Did the Gentiles, not having been given the Law, even need a sacrifice/offering to be given in the form of Christ?
Hopefully the question makes sense.
Hebrews 10:1-18 discusses Christ as the final sacrifice to end all sacrifices, but this is written to Jews under the Law which necessitated sacrifices in the first place.
For Gentiles outside the Law, not having a sacrificial system in the first place, is Christ to be understood as a sacrifice for them? If so, what scriptures would you use to support the idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 13, 2016 7:54:55 GMT -8
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
This verse comes to mind. john seems to go out of his way to differentiate between the two camps (depending on interpretation, either Jew vs. Gentile or Current believers vs. everyone else). No matter how you parse it he seems to be saying that Jesus death is atoning for all humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on May 13, 2016 12:21:40 GMT -8
That was the only place I could think of, with the addition of 1Jn 4:10 where he again uses the word hilasmos - a word whose meaning is debated based upon how you believe Christ's work saves.
Let me elaborate my thoughts with several questions if you don't mind which I am considering, and may bring us back to 1 John to consider the meaning of his usage of hilasmos.
Here is some of my continued thought and questions I am tackling:
Hebrews 9:13-14 speaks to the old sacrifices related to the original covenant, and the superiority of Christ's sacrifice to do for the Jews what their old sacrifices could not.
However, the Gentiles were under no sacrificial system in the first place. So should Christ's death be spoken of in terms of a sacrifice for those not under a sacrificial code?
Or should Christ's death be seen to work in one way for the Jew who needed sacrifices in their covenant and another way for the Gentile who was not under the old covenant?
Besides Hebrews, whose context is the Jews, is Christ's death clearly spoken of elsewhere as being a sacrifice for the Gentiles in same sense the Jews needed sacrifice?
Going on in Hebrews it says that Christ died for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant (9:15), but the Gentile had no transgressions under the first covenant because they were not in it... Thus, did the sacrificial aspect of Christ's death only apply to the Jews, while the forward action of Christ brought Jews and Gentile's together into a new covenant?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 13, 2016 21:27:57 GMT -8
As a relevant side note here, seems like we ought to consider the universal prevalence of blood sacrifice in the ancient world. Blood sacrifice did mean something to Gentiles; seems like they had a hint of a deeper truth; corrupted as that hint might have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 22, 2016 7:51:41 GMT -8
Also, of note I think is this:
The author of Hebrews uses the "ransom" metaphor for Christ's work in relation to the old covenant, pointed at a Jewish audience. But, elsewhere, with a decidedly Gentile audience in view, he uses the "ransom" metaphor for Christ's work in relation to all mankind.
Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
1 Timothy 2:5-7
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by avafipeqevo on Apr 22, 2019 14:42:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ujaruag on Apr 22, 2019 16:49:52 GMT -8
|
|
