Christ shed HIS blood.
Jesus said the shedding of His blood was going to be for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28). Paul stated that Jesus shed His blood to purchase the church (Acts 20:28). These purposes are one and the same, for those in His church are those who have had their sins remitted. To have sins remitted is to be "in" Christ's church. There is a connection between the two and lessons to be learned from that connection, one of which is, proper and improper concepts of Christ's church.
Jesus foretold of the shedding of His blood by saying that HE was going to "build" His church (Matt. 16:18). This "building", was also connected to the remission of man's sins, for His blood had to be shed before sins would be remitted (Heb. 9:22); and before the church would be "purchased" (Acts 20:28). The church being "built" and being "purchased" mean one and the same, the blood being shed for that purpose.
If Christ was to speak beforehand of the shedding of His blood in the manner in which He spoke of building His church, He would have said it this way:"I will shed My blood", as He said "I will build My church". We know this to be accurate, for He spoke beforehand of the purchasing of the church with His blood in this way.
If we were to refer to Christ's blood, we could express it in a number of ways: i.e., "Christ's blood"; the "blood of Christ", or "the blood belonging to Christ". Since Christ was "God" in nature (John 1:1), it would be in order to even refer to His blood as "the blood of God", so long as we understand that it was the Son, not the Father, who shed blood.
There is a lesson to be learned about Christ's church, by an analogy of the church and the blood are referenced. Christ shed his blood for "the world", [for God so loved "the world" ~ John 3:16]. But does it seem in order to refer to Christ's blood after those for whom it was shed, i.e., the "blood of the world" or the "universal blood"?
There is a lesson to be learned about Christ's church, by an analogy of the church and the blood are referenced. Christ shed his blood for "the world", [for God so loved "the world" ~ John 3:16]. But does it seem in order to refer to Christ's blood after those for whom it was shed, i.e., the "blood of the world" or the "universal blood"?
The church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 41). But does it seem in order to refer to Christ's church as the "pentecost" church", naming the church after the "day"?
There was a response from those who desired remission of sins on this same day (Acts 2:38, 41). But does it seem in order to refer to the Christ's blood as the "blood of repentance", or the "repentance blood"; because those on the day of Pentecost responded in repentance (v. 41)? Likewise, does it seem in order to refer to the Christ's blood as the "baptism blood", or the "blood of baptism", because those on the day of Pentecost submitted to baptism?
There was a response from those who desired remission of sins on this same day (Acts 2:38, 41). But does it seem in order to refer to the Christ's blood as the "blood of repentance", or the "repentance blood"; because those on the day of Pentecost responded in repentance (v. 41)? Likewise, does it seem in order to refer to the Christ's blood as the "baptism blood", or the "blood of baptism", because those on the day of Pentecost submitted to baptism?
Would these designations of Christ's blood seem in order? Again, WHOSE BLOOD IS IT?
Christ DID speak beforehand of purchasing, or building His church. He said, "I will build My church". As with reference to Christ's BLOOD, if we were to refer to Christ's CHURCH, we would express it in similar ways: i.e., "Christ's church"; the "church of Christ", or "the church belonging to Christ" would we not?
Christ DID speak beforehand of purchasing, or building His church. He said, "I will build My church". As with reference to Christ's BLOOD, if we were to refer to Christ's CHURCH, we would express it in similar ways: i.e., "Christ's church"; the "church of Christ", or "the church belonging to Christ" would we not?
Since Christ was "God" in nature (John 1:1), it would be in order to even refer to His church as the "church of God", as long as we understand that it was the Son, not the Father who purchased the church, for the Son, not the Father, shed blood.
Those who have had their sins remitted, are to follow a pattern or method in how they worship, and in how they are to work together in spreading the gospel and in the work of building/strengthening one another up. But is it in order for the church to be called after the method, i.e., the "method" church?
There is a pattern or method to follow in how those purchased by Christ's blood are to be fed and protected (Acts 20:17, 28); but is it in order for the blood/church to be called after it's leaders, such as the "elders church"?
Would these designations seem in order? Again, WHOSE CHURCH IS IT?
"... in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." ~ Ephesians 2:13
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins..." ~ Colossians 1:14
"...if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." ~ 1 John 1:7
copyright 2018
rdb
copyright 2018
rdb
No comments:
Post a Comment