Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Revmitchell, May 21, 2008.
Did Christs sacrificial shed blood include creation other than man? Was that part of the purpose?
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Do trees have souls? Do trees sin? If not, then Christ did not shed His blood for trees. All of creation is under the curse because of man's sin. There will be a partial redemption of the earth during the Millennium (the earth during the Millennium will be like it was before sin entered the world). The final and complete redemption of the earth will occur after the Millennium when it will be destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3) and there will be a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21) where no sin will exist. This is the eternal kingdom.
I'm not sure what you are asking in your question. If it's asking whether Christ shed his blood to save the May Day tree in my yard, I'd say no.
He did, however, shed his blood to redeem creation in this sense: When the children of God are glorified (a blood bought benefit), creation itself will be made free from the corruption that came as a result of the fall, too. (Romans 8) When we are fully and finally redeemed, we will bring creation into the glory of that freedom with us. Since it is God's plan for the whole of creation to be made new with the glorification of God's children, then one of the intended purposes of Christ's death is the redemption of creation.
Therefore, I certainly think it's correct to say that Christ died in order to redeem creation.
Your question caused me to take pause and wonder if Christ had died today, in our society, after years and years of legal appeals, including the question as to the amount of pain and suffering He'd encounter on the cross [and if it was in fact a humane form of capital punishment?] would the "environmentalist" have approved of the use of two trees to makes the cross used for the crucifixion?
Just wondering out-loud. I'm NOT trying to hi-jack a great topic. A topic that I don't have an answer for, only an bit of insight.
I suppose I'll bite. Does the OP address the issue of whether the creation needed atonement and redemption?
He died for man but the rest of creation will benefit when the god of this world is chained in the bottomless pit for 1000 years. Then when Satan is cast into the lake of fire, all will be made anew.
22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
A really STUPID question.
Yes it is, but I saw this on anther thread, he is only asking opinion about what another poster here said.
OK, I just gotta say it . . .
What is blod? :laugh:
I'm Surprised No One Has Said This Yet
No, He shed His blood on the tree (no s).
I vant to dlink your blod.....hahahahahahaha :laugh:
Ok, it is now official.
Amy is scaring me
Paul appears to suggest this in Colossians.
Are trees sinners? Can they repent? Will trees face the judgement? If not, the answer must be no. Hebrews 9.26-28 (emphases added):
26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
But I know you have strong views on environmental matters, so perhaps there is a "hidden meaning" behind your question.
I was under the impression that Revmitchell is fairly anti-environmentalism but I could be wrong.
I discovered the thread that sparked this question and realized that the Colossians passage was already brought to your attention and ignored. Sorry for the repetition.
That is what I meant. I just said that he had "strong views on environmental matters", without saying whether those views were pro- or anti-.
Okay, I dare anyone to come up with a more nonsensical subject for a thread. On second thought ... don't. We're speaking of the blood of Christ people!
What is your response to Col 1:20? I would say that in a sense, the passage suggests that Christ did shed his blood for trees. According to the verse, his shed blood was for the reconciliation of all of creation in earth and heaven to the Father, including trees.
I would say that it is talking about people. The verse talks about reconcilliation. The Dictionary of Theology says:
Reconciliation is changing for the better a relationship between two or more persons. Theologically it refers to the change of relationship between God and man.
Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary says reconcilliation is:
A change from enmity to friendship.
Also, the word translated as "all things" is exactly the same word as is translated "whoever" or "whosoever" in John 3.16, and "everyone" or "all men" in John 11.48. Paul uses the same word at the ends of many of his letters, where he prays that God's grace would be "with you all."
For those reasons, I do not believe that Colossians 1.20 teaches that Christ shed His blood on behalf of trees.