Question: You said that the blood of Jesus shed during the beatings by Roman soldiers was not ...

November 1, 2004

TBC Staff

Question: You said that the blood of Jesus shed during the beatings by Roman soldiers was not efficacious for our salvation but that the blood shed on the cross was. Since that, too, was caused by Roman soldiers driving nails into His hands and feet, and a Roman spear piercing His side, why did the blood shed on the cross cleanse our sins but the blood of the scourging did not?

Answer: I did not suggest that Christ’s blood that was shed through His scourging and the crown of thorns had nothing to do with our salvation. I simply stated that it was not sufficient for our redemption. I pointed that out because Gibson’s movie gives the false impression that Christ’s suffering, endured at the hands of Roman soldiers, paid for the sins of the world. In fact, it was Yahweh who laid upon Christ our sins; and it was God’s bruising of Christ that meted out the penalty that purchased our redemption. “Stripes” is a wrong translation in the KJV, as elsewhere. The Hebrew word is singular and indicates one blow from God in bruising Christ “for our iniquities” (Is 53:5).

For that position, I was criticized by a number of “experts” who wrote to correct me. Thankfully, some genuine Hebrew experts (from Seminary professors who teach Old Testament Hebrew, to Jews who are fluent in Hebrew, to other scholars) wrote to declare unequivocally that the Hebrew word translated as “stripes” is indeed singular (See TBC Extra).

Scripture is clear that Christ “made peace through the blood of his cross” (Col:1:20). Whenever the shedding of blood is mentioned, it means the death of the victim: “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (1 Cor:15:3).

Printer-friendly version