Christianity 201

June 11, 2014

Without the Shedding of Blood

Filed under: Uncategorized — paulthinkingoutloud @ 5:07 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

Hebrews 9:16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

I John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Without the Shedding of BloodYesterday I shared in a conversation with a regular reader here about how “the blood of Christ” is one of several themes in Christian music and preaching that is not heard as often as it once was. So it was suggested we delve into this.

The Reformation Study Bible indicates that while “blood” is synonymous with “life,” it is also the case that the phrase, “blood of Christ” is usually paired with usage of “death of Christ.”

The justification achieved by the blood of Christ (Rom 5:9) is paralleled by the statements which speak of the sinner being reconciled to God “by the death of his Son” and being “saved by his life” (Rom 5:10). Other references to men being redeemed by the blood of Christ clearly indicate atonement through the death of a victim (cf. Acts 20:28; Eph 1:7, etc.). Since the death of Christ is sometimes considered in terms of a sacrifice (cf. Rom 3:25; 1 Pet 1:2), where the “sprinkling of blood” indicates a sacrificial ritual and continues the OT concept of the “blood of the covenant,” the emphasis is still upon the death of the victim that secured atonement for the sinner. The sacrificial blood is associated with the death of the Savior (Heb 9:14), and the author of Hebrews makes it plain that the blood is associated with death rather than life (12:24).  (Notes on Leviticus 17 passage above.)

At the blog LogosWalk:

It stuns my sensibilities when the same Christian parents who allow their children to own over-the-top, violent video games and to go to movies with excessive violence and gore, object to Sunday School lessons and sermons concerning the “gruesome” topic of crucifixion and Christ’s blood. The one is leading the pack down the wide path to hell, the other the narrow path to heaven. What we need are far more discussions concerning the blood. It’s the whole point.

Just as physical bodies cannot exist without blood, neither can spiritual without the blood of Christ. In the course of explaining the true purpose of the Old Testament system of sacrifices, that every offering was a substitute sentence of execution for the offender, God points forward to the substitutional death of Christ for each of us. The value of the life of a sacrifice is measured by its blood as repeatedly taught in the difference between those who can offer the more valuable offerings of oxen and sheep versus the poorer through doves and pigeons. But it is not the blood coursing through the veins of the offering that is of any use, but only when it is poured out in sacrifice on the altar. How incalculable the value of Christ’s blood that was shed in place of our own!

Brother Philip writes:

…The Lord declared that not only is the life in the blood but blood is also the form of “currency” to use in the matter of atonement.  Therefore, when considering what God would require to atone for sins, blood is the only suitable form of currency to make that payment.  Payment is required for atonement since God has been offended by sin and the disgusting nature of man’s depravity.  When considering all the “solutions” that people posit to “get man right with God,” it is always amazing to me how counterfeits are substituted for the only suitable currency payment.

Consider all the ways in which man has been told he can do this or do that to earn God’s favor and blessing to enter heaven’s pure world.  How many of them require blood?  Unless I am mistaken, the overwhelming majority of ideas are bloodless solutions.  Whether the answer given is baptism, belief, repentance, confession, acceptance, etc. they are all bloodless.  How can atonement possibly come without the right currency?  If God has required blood for atonement, He will not change His mind later and accept something else. (Malachi 3:6) Furthermore, only the right kind of blood would suffice to make the transfusion of life acceptable…

The doctrine salvation with respect to Christ’s blood is a thorny issue for Jewish apologists. I thought I would share a few lines from the blog Defending Torah in order for you to see what all this looks like from their perspective:

One cannot apply this verse to Jesus’ blood in any event, because it specifies blood on the altar, and Jesus did not die on any altar, let alone the altar in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem which is clearly the altar Leviticus is referring to…

…In other words, the verse has nothing to do with salvation. It is about the dietary laws — specifically, the comments about the life being in the blood are an explanation for the prohibition against eating blood.

There is no doubt equal objection by Jewish apologists to taking the Passover story and mapping it on to the idea of Christ as our passover lamb; but scripture tells us that in many cases the eyes of people are blinded to this truth. What is plain, simple and obvious to some of us is unacceptable to others.

In our conversation yesterday, I voiced something I have long held as key to understanding this, “Only the one who designs to automobile gets to write the Owner’s Manual.” The one who “created the heavens and the earth” exercised his prerogative to choose this way or this system to bring about atonement. If we challenge this, we are challenging the cross itself, and challenging the entire foundation or underpinnings of our faith. On the other hand, if we accept that this is God’s plan and God’s system, then we see clearly the efficacy of the cross for salvation and the sufficiency of the cross for covering our sin.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: