Note: This is the fourth of a four-part series. You can read part one here and part two here and part three here . As stated in a previous post in this series, there’s arguably no Old Testament event more central to developing a theology of the cross than the Passover/Exodus account (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:7). In the traditional evangelical reading of the Passover/Exodus account, the blood on the doorposts functions primarily as a propitiation: God’s wrath is coming against both Egypt and Israel because of sin, and only the blood of a lamb turns that wrath aside so that the destroyer (or God Himself) can “pass over” the Israelite houses. Anthony Carter states the view clearly: God’s judgment would have fallen on Israel as well “unless they figuratively covered themselves in blood… What did the blood of the lambs do? It turned away God’s wrath and appeased His anger against sin.” But several features of the narrative sit uneasily with that framing. First, the distinction between...
As the people of God, we must hold to apostolic tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6) but reject human tradition (Colossians 2:8). Jesus criticized the religious leaders of His day for making void the word of God for the sake of their tradition (Matthew 15:6). And He said they did this in many ways (Mark 7:13b). We are not immune to this error today. This blog exists to test (1 Thessalonians 5:21) our modern Christian traditions against Scripture to discern where we might have done the same.