The Careless Sinner's Thoughts Concerning It

Perhaps there is nothing connected with Christ and his work which the careless sinner slights so much as the blood. In his eyes it has no value and no attraction. He dislikes all reference to it in connection with salvation. Thus he tramples it under foot.

He thinks less of it, lays less stress upon it, ascribes to it less of sacredness and of value than a Jew, or even a heathen, in regard to the blood of their victims. Its very name is repulsive, as if the mention of it suggested only what was unplea-G8

sant and unnatural. To owe salvation to this blood alone, seems not only unreasonable, but hateful. Words such as these, “by his stripes we are healed,” have no relish, and no meaning to him. They who make reference to the blood, are perhaps accused of want of refinement and delicacy, or despised as enthusiasts and mystics. Thus, “the blood of the Lamb” is trifled with or despised, or scoffed at in the wantonness of unbelief.

It was so when Christ was on earth. From his cradle to his cross this contempt was exhibited. Herod sought to shed his blood in infancy. The people of Nazareth, “where he had been brought up,” laid hands upon him that they might slay him. Frequently throughout his ministry his life was aimed at, as if it would have been a light thing to shed his blood. And when betrayed at last, thirty pieces of silver was

G9

the goodly price at which his blood was valued! It was all that man would give for it! Then in their eagerness to shed it, they urged Pilate to put him to death, crying, “Crucify him, crucify him,” preferring Barabbas to Jesus, setting a higher price on the blood of the robber than on that of the Son of God. And as if to show their utter disregard for it, — as if in mockery of it, — they volunteered to bear the curse which that blood might bring down on its shedders, — “his blood be upon us and on our children.”1 Then, lastly, on the cross it was poured out like water. The thorns, the scourge, the nails, the spear, were man’s instruments for draining that blood, that, flowing down upon the ground, it might be trodden under foot, and treated as the vilest thing on earth. So vile did they reckon it, that 1 Matt, xxvii. 25. though bent on shedding it, they would not allow this to be done within Jerusalem. It must be shed “without the city,” as if it would have been pollution to the temple of God, and the dwellings of Israel, to have allowed it to be shed within its consecrated walls. They treated it as the blood of one who was not only unworthy to live, but unworthy even to die within J erusalem.

Such were man’s thoughts respecting the blood in the days when Christ was here. Such was his estimate of its value, such his idea of its sacredness.

And in this, do we not see not only indifference, but contempt, — not only contempt, but mockery, — not only mockery, but hatred? In this treatment of the blood of Christ, do we not discover the na- 1 Heb. xiii. 11, 12; Lev. xvi. 27; Numb. xix. 1-10, tural heart of man speaking out, or rather acting out its enmity?

It is still the same. There has been no relenting on man’s part: no softening of the carnal heart. His estimate of the blood has not risen higher since these days. His indifference and his enmity are unremoved. And sometimes we find the former of these, and sometimes the latter, in exercise. When the subject is not pressed home upon his conscience so as to confront him, it is indifference that we find. When that blood is presented to him, and he is told of its power either to cleanse or to condemn, and of his own interest in it, so that it must either be for or against him for ever, then his displeasure awakes: the hidden enmity of his soul comes up, and he manifests a feeling of hatred, such as would have placed him. perhaps, among the foremost ranks of the crucifiers.

Even should he remain calm and candid, he will not admit the preciousness of the blood, or the claims which it has upon him. Claims! He rejects the thought. He think he does well if he admits that it is the blood of a holy man shed without cause. But as to the claims of blood shed eighteen hundred years ago, this seems monstrous. He does not see how blood shed so many centuries ago can affect his present or his future condition, either for condemnation or salvation. He deems it unreasonable in us to ply him with such an idea, and thinks it would be unjust in God to deal with him in such a way and on such terms as these.

1 “Unbelief in its essence, is nothing else than mockery of the Lord.” — Frederick Arndt — Ser - man on “Chi’ist between the two thieves”

Even should he he disposed to listen with more than candour, — with something like commencing anxiety and teachableness, he still stumbles at this stumbling stone. He does not see how this blood alone, without one good thing in himself, can justify. Forgetting that it is what God sees in the blood that gives it all its justifying and cleansing power, he refuses to receive the truth concerning forgiveness of sin solely through the blood of the cross. He does not understand how the sight of that blood alone should give peace to the troubled spirit, and allay its rising storms. It seems incredible that in simply believing God’s testimony concerning that blood, our consciences are purged from dead works to serve the living God.

Such is man’s sense of the value of this blood! How different from God’s! And is it conceivable that God can allow such a difference of opinion to exist between him and the sinner, on a matter in which his own honour, and the honour of his Son are concerned, and yet treat this difference as trivial? Is it possible that God would give that blood to be shed for sinners, and yet allow them to treat it as they please, either rejecting it or despising it as each one may think fit?

Careless sinner! Trifle not with that blood. It is too precious to be sported with or slighted. And woe be to him who, either by indifference, or denial, or derision, shows that he has dared to form an estimate of it different from that of God,