"Nor did He redeem us with corruptible things--with silver and gold but with His own precious blood...not a mere measured drop of blood (which however because of its union with the Word would have sufficed for the redemption of all humanity) but as it were an unmeasured flood." This statement really stuck out to me last night when I read it for the first time. I thought it was a beautiful thought because I had never heard it said that way before. After thinking about it a little more, however, I'm not entirely sure I agree with it. According to the Bible, "the wages of sin is death." Would one drop of Jesus's blood have been enough to satisfy God's requirements? When God demanded an offering in the Old Testament, He didn't ask for a drop of blood from the animal. He commanded that the animal be killed at the alter and burnt. What do you think?
I commented on Collin's blog.
I don't know - I don't think I understand enough about the crucifixion to say for sure. Jesus was a much more powerful sacrifice than simple lambs and birds, so maybe that's where he's getting his reasoning? I don't think it could have been paid if Jesus had just pricked his finger, anyway, if that's what you mean - it definitely had to be a death.
ReplyDelete