The Riddleblog

“Once for All” Hebrews 9:11-28 (An Exposition of the Book of Hebrews–Part Thirteen)

God Is Holy

The animal sacrifices and the purification rites of the old covenant served a number of very important purposes. The very need for such sacrifices demonstrates that our sins are a great offense to a holy God, and that satisfaction must be made to his holy justice in order to turn aside his wrath. That the sacrifices were offered by a high priest who alone could enter the Most Holy Place after making sacrifices for his own sins is a graphic illustration that our sin separates us from the presence of God. And while providing a provisional and temporary relief from sin, ultimately, the nature of these sacrifices demonstrates that they were intended to teach God’s people and prepare the nation of Israel for the coming of Jesus Christ.

As the author of Hebrews continues to make his case for the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and the new and better covenant, he now describes how Jesus offers a sacrifice that is much superior in every way to the types and shadows of the old covenant, thereby rendering it obsolete, and establishing the new covenant in his blood. This is why Christianity is not primarily a religion of morals and ethics. Christianity is a religion centering around shed blood, a Roman cross, and an empty tomb.

Christ’s Superior Priesthood

As we continue our series on the Book of Hebrews, we are working our way though that section of the author’s extended argument for the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ, and the nature of the once for all sacrifice for sin made by our Lord, the great high priest. One of the remarkable things about the Book of Hebrews is that the author keeps building his case by adding additional arguments to those made in the earlier chapters.

In chapter 7, the author described how Jesus is an eternal priest after the order of Melchizadek, tying our Lord’s priestly office to this mysterious figure to whom Abraham paid tithes. Then, in chapter 8, we saw that with the coming of Jesus Christ the new covenant era is now a reality, and the old covenant is no longer in force. Jeremiah’s well-known prophecy of a new and better covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), was the fulfillment of the covenant promise God made to Abraham, so that all those who are Christ’s are also the children of Abraham.

Throughout both of these chapters, the author has shown that everything in the Siniatic covenant (the law, the tabernacle, and the priesthood) was designed to teach the people of God about the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ whose once for all sacrifice for sin puts an end to the Old Testament sacrificial system. Jesus is the better priest with the better sacrifice (himself), and his death alone, once and for all, turns aside God’s wrath toward all those for whom he dies.

To read the rest follow the link below

HebrewsKim RiddlebargerApril 16, 2025Christ's death necessary, Hebrews 9:14-29Comment

“The Error of Teaching That the Death of Christ Was Not Necessary for Salvation” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (7)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ.

For they contradict the apostle, who says: “Christ loved me and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20 ), and likewise: “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died,” that is, for them (Rom. 8:33–34). They also contradict the Savior, who asserts: “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15), and “My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:12–13).

_________________________________________

The conclusion to the refutation of errors under the second head of doctrine challenges the Arminian perspective on the atonement by pointing to scriptural evidence that Christ’s death is for particular sinners, thereby saving them. In Arminian theology, Christ’s death is viewed as a general provision for all, demonstrating God’s moral governance and love, but not necessarily satisfying the demands of God’s justice. The Arminian approach contends that Christ’s sacrifice was not aimed at securing salvation for anyone in particular, but was a general offer, leaving the decision to individuals on the presumption that those said to be dead in sin, actually possess such ability to choose Christ and live. It is a short step from here to the error condemned at the Synod of Dort in the refutation above—that the death of Christ is really not necessary to save anyone, important as it is.

The Canons highlight those passages from Scripture which point to Christ’s death being for specific individuals, such as Galatians 2:20 (“Christ loved me and gave himself up for me”) and Romans 8:33-34 (“Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died,”that is, for them [i.e., the elect]), suggesting that his sacrifice had a particular and intentional focus. The cross was not an arbitrary means of salvation (and therefore not entirely necessary), but essential for satisfying God’s justice for the elect.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerOctober 7, 2024Christ's death necessaryComment