The Precious Blood of Jesus: Was One Drop Shed in Vain?

“…and you shall call Him Jesus, [Savior], for He will save His people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21.

First let me say this, I'm not the religius type thus why I put this forward for you to ponder.

This verse, near the beginning of the New Testament introduces the Christ child as someone who will save His people. It does not introduce Him as someone who will save some of His people, nor someone who will make salvation available for His people should they choose to take it. He will save His people.

Folks often object to the idea that Jesus did not shed His blood for everyone, but if we think about it further, I think we will see that it is even more objectionable to think that any of Christ’s blood and suffering was spent in vain.

First we need to remind ourselves what the atonement was about. We have sinned. Each sin we have sinned deserves eternal punishment. We are also sinful by nature, but although this sinful nature makes us unworthy to be in the presence of God, it is our sinful acts, not our natures, for which we deserve punishment. Our natures, in both the spirit and the body need redemption, too, but that is not what the atonement was primarily about. The atonement was about Christ acting as our Substitute to pay the penalty (in a legal sense) that His people owed for each one of their sins.

Let’s say Larry is this real nice guy who decides that to make the world a better place, he is going to pay other people’s speeding tickets.

So Larry goes to court and he sees Joe standing before the judge. He pays Joe’s fine, the judge is satisfied, and Joe goes home a happy man. Then it’s Suzie’s turn before the judge. Larry pays Suzie’s fine, the judge is satisfied, and Suzie goes home a happy woman. Now Dory stands before the judge. Larry says, “Well Judge, you can let Dory go home, I’ve already paid for speeding tickets.” Would a good judge buy it? Of course not. Larry didn’t pay for speeding tickets in general; he paid for two particular speeding tickets. Dory’s ticket still needs to be paid. Likewise, Christ died for sins in particular, not sins in general.

So let’s take our little analogy one step further. Let’s say Larry did pay for Dory’s ticket. What if the judge took the money from Larry, but still wouldn’t let Dory go until she paid for her ticket. Wouldn’t that judge be unjust? Wouldn’t he be wrong to insist that the fine be paid twice? Wouldn’t Larry have wasted his money to pay for a fine that was still considered unpaid?

Wasting money is a shame, but wasting the precious blood of Christ? Would God allow Christ to suffer for Dory’s sins and shed His blood for her and then make Dory pay for all those sins a second time? Wouldn’t Christ have wasted His blood on her if her debts were still unpaid?

If we reject the idea that Christ suffered and died to pay only for the sins of those who will be ultimately saved, and if we acknowledge that there are some people who will not be saved, then we are forced to accept the idea that God has taken the blood of Christ in payment for sins, and now insists that those sins be paid for a second time by the lost. This cannot be so.

He will save His people from their sins.

Hebrews 9:27, 28: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.”

Makes you think don't it?