The Blood of Christ

[jbh28]

Hebrews chapter 9 tells us this.

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Does't say his blood entered. It says that by his own blood HE entered.

This again is the issue I have here. Where does it say that Jesus entered into heaven and sprinkled his literal blood anywhere?

 

[Winman]

Does't say his blood entered. It says that by his own blood HE entered.

This again is the issue I have here. Where does it say that Jesus entered into heaven and sprinkled his literal blood anywhere?

The high priest was not allowed to enter the Holiest of Holies without blood.

Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

 

[jbh28]

The high priest was not allowed to enter the Holiest of Holies without blood.

Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

So we have no passage that said that Jesus took his blood into heaven then.

 

[Winman]

So we have no passage that said that Jesus took his blood into heaven then.

Of course we do. First, we know in verse 7 that the high priest could not enter the second tabernacle (the Holiest of Holies) without blood. This was a figure or picture of Jesus entering the Holiest of Holies in heaven. Aaron had to do what Christ would do, except he only had the blood of goats and lambs.

Then we see in verse 18 that it says that "neither" the first testament could be dedicated "without blood" which directly implies that the second testament could not be dedicated without blood. The word "neither" in this verse directly implies this.

Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

That is about as clear as it gets.

You must be a student of John MacArthur. No?

It is not enough for blood to be spilled, it had to be offered on the mercy seat. God had to see it.

Exo 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

When God sent the destroyer through Egypt, it was not enough to simply slay a lamb without blemish (representing Christ). It had to be put on the two side posts and upper door post. God was very specific about this.

Exo 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

Exo 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

If the Jews had simply killed a lamb and poured out it's blood on the ground do you know what would have happened? They would have died that night.

When Aaron entered the Holy of Holies, he had to dip his finger in blood and sprinkle it on the mercy seat.

Lev 16:14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

Everything that Aaron did was a picture of what Christ was to do. If Jesus did not sprinkle his blood on the mercy seat, then Aaron would not have been required to do so either.

 

[jbh28]

Of course we do. First, we know in verse 7 that the high priest could not enter the second tabernacle (the Holiest of Holies) without blood. This was a figure or picture of Jesus entering the Holiest of Holies in heaven. Aaron had to do what Christ would do, except he only had the blood of goats and lambs.

Then we see in verse 18 that it says that "neither" first testament could be dedicated "without blood" which directly implies that the second testament could not be dedicated without blood. The word "neither" in this verse directly implies this.

Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

That is about as clear as it gets.

You must be a student of John MacArthur. No?

Yes, like MacArthur. What has he said on the subject?

It is not enough for blood to be spilled, it had to be offered on the mercy seat. God had to see it.

Exo 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

When God sent the destroyer through Egypt, it was not enough to simply slay a lamb without blemish (representing Christ). It had to be put on the two side posts and upper door post. God was very specific about this.

Exo 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

Exo 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

If the Jews had simply killed a lamb and poured out it's blood on the ground do you know what would have happened? They would have died that night.

When Aaron entered the Holy of Holies, he had to dip his finger in blood and sprinkle it on the mercy seat.

Lev 16:14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

Everything that Aaron did was a picture of what Christ was to do. If Jesus did not sprinkle his blood on the mercy seat, then Aaron would not have been required to do so either.

again, no passage that says the blood went to heaven. What about Jesus Christ being the mercy seat and the blood was on Jesus on the cross.

 

[Winman]

Yes, like MacArthur. What has he said on the subject?


again, no passage that says the blood went to heaven. What about Jesus Christ being the mercy seat and the blood was on Jesus on the cross.

John MacArthur is known for denying that Jesus had to offer his literal blood on the mercy seat in heaven.

Heb 9:18 clearly implies that the second testament had to be dedicated with blood.

You can deny this if you wish, but it is perfectly clear. Scholars understand this verse, look what Matthew Henry said of verse 18.

v. 18, 19, etc. All men by sin had become guilty before God, had forfeited their inheritance, their liberties, and their very lives, into the hands of divine justice; but God, being willing to show the greatness of his mercy, proclaimed a covenant of grace, and ordered it to be typically administered under the Old Testament, but not without the blood and life of the creature; and God accepted the blood of bulls and goats, as typifying the blood of Christ;

So, anyone can easily comprehend what verse 18 says unless they have a bias against it.

1 Peter 1:2 clearly speaks of Jesus's blood being sprinkled on the mercy seat.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 

[jbh28]

John MacArthur is known for denying that Jesus had to offer his literal blood on the mercy seat in heaven.

OK

Heb 9:18 clearly implies that the second testament had to be dedicated with blood.

You can deny this if you wish, but it is perfectly clear. Scholars understand this verse, look what Matthew Henry said of verse 18.

My issue is not with blood. Of course the blood of Christ had to be shed. He died for our sins and the shed blood is a sign of that death.

So, anyone can easily comprehend what verse 18 says unless they have a bias against it.

1 Peter 1:2 clearly speaks of Jesus's blood being sprinkled on the mercy seat.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Again, please share with me that the mercy seat was in heaven. Peter says the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." He doesn't say that this mercy seat was something that was in heaven that Jesus had to take his blood to. I still haven't seen any passage that says that Jesus put his "literal blood on the mercy seat in heaven." I've seen a lot of passages about blood, but none about a mercy seat that is in heaven.

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. I just want to believe and teach what the Bible clearly teaches and this is one thing I am having an issue with that I see people teach.

 

[dwmoeller1]

So, anyone can easily comprehend what verse 18 says unless they have a bias against it.

1 Peter 1:2 clearly speaks of Jesus's blood being sprinkled on the mercy seat.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

It is not clear as all that.
The verse speaks of the sprinkling of blood. The verses says NOTHING about it being sprinkled on the mercy seat. Claiming it clearly says this when it says nothing of the sort is highly fallacious. You might *infer* that its an allusion to sprinkling on the mercy seat, but to claim the passage clearly says it is begging the question.

I think we would all agree that the whole concept of Christ's blood and sacrifice is drawn from OT practices. So if we find in the OT law that blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat from sacrifices, then a reasonable conclusion *might* be that I Pet 1:2 is an allusion to this. Furthermore, if you were able to show that the only reference to blood being sprinkled in the OT law was that sprinkled on the mercy, then such a parallel would become very strong - strong enough that it would be unreasonable to deny that I Pet 1:2 is referring to sprinkling blood on the mercy seat.

However, even if the above is true,
a. its still fallacious to claim that this is what the passage *says*
b. and its highly fallacious to insist that it is meant literally w/o some clear supporting evidence. Its possible that I Pet 1:2 is making a reference to something that is symbolically true and not literally.

But, even if I Pet 1:2 is to be taken literally, there is an even larger problem for your "clear" reading. The problem is that sprinkling of blood in the OT is not only found in reference to the mercy seat. Instead we find that blood is sprinkled on the altar (Exodus 24:6;29:20), around the altar (Leviticus 1:5), it is sprinkled on the people (Exodus 24:8), its sprinkled on Aaron (Exodus 29:21), it is sprinkled before the veil of the Holy place (Leviticus 4:6). So, claiming its "clearly" talking about sprinkling blood on the mercy seat is w/o warrant. It might be speaking of the sprinkling on the people, the altar, the high priest, before the tabernacle...or all of these together.

So, clearly, the verse is not so clear as you claim

 

[Winman]

OK
My issue is not with blood. Of course the blood of Christ had to be shed. He died for our sins and the shed blood is a sign of that death.


Again, please share with me that the mercy seat was in heaven. Peter says the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." He doesn't say that this mercy seat was something that was in heaven that Jesus had to take his blood to. I still haven't seen any passage that says that Jesus put his "literal blood on the mercy seat in heaven." I've seen a lot of passages about blood, but none about a mercy seat that is in heaven.

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. I just want to believe and teach what the Bible clearly teaches and this is one thing I am having an issue with that I see people teach.

Read Hebrews chapter 8 and 9. It explains that the tabernacle Moses fashioned was fashioned exactly after what is in heaven.

Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Moses didn't just design the tabernacle at his whim, he was instructed exactly in every detail what to do.

And as the high priest was not allowed to enter the Holiest of Holies without blood, this was a picture of Jesus entering the heavenly Holiest of Holies with his own blood.

 

[jbh28]

Read Hebrews chapter 8 and 9.

will do, thanks

 

[dwmoeller1]

Then we see in verse 18 that it says that "neither" the first testament could be dedicated "without blood" which directly implies that the second testament could not be dedicated without blood. The word "neither" in this verse directly implies this.

Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

That is about as clear as it gets.

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya

Certainly Heb 9:18 is speaking of the necessity of blood. However, to claim that is clearly speaking of sprinkling blood on the mercy seat is highly problematic. In fact, Heb 9 speaks of sprinkling of blood on in more detail. Its talks specifically about the blood being sprinkled on the people, the tabernacle, the book and on the vessels of ministry, but, interestingly, never mentions sprinkling blood on the mercy seat.

Again, nothing is more clear about this passage than that its not at all clearly about sprinkling blood on the mercy seat.

You must be a student of John MacArthur. No?

It is not enough for blood to be spilled, it had to be offered on the mercy seat. God had to see it.

Exo 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

When God sent the destroyer through Egypt, it was not enough to simply slay a lamb without blemish (representing Christ). It had to be put on the two side posts and upper door post. God was very specific about this.

Exo 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

Exo 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

If the Jews had simply killed a lamb and poured out it's blood on the ground do you know what would have happened? They would have died that night.

When Aaron entered the Holy of Holies, he had to dip his finger in blood and sprinkle it on the mercy seat.

Lev 16:14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

Everything that Aaron did was a picture of what Christ was to do. If Jesus did not sprinkle his blood on the mercy seat, then Aaron would not have been required to do so either.[/QUOTE]

 

[dwmoeller1]

Read Hebrews chapter 8 and 9. It explains that the tabernacle Moses fashioned was fashioned exactly after what is in heaven.

I can't find anything in those chapters which argues, implies or says what you claim. The most clear statement about the matter seems to not that heaven has a holy place, but that heaven IS the holy place Christ entered:
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Moses didn't just design the tabernacle at his whim, he was instructed exactly in every detail what to do.

Agreed...but not seeing your point.

And as the high priest was not allowed to enter the Holiest of Holies without blood, this was a picture of Jesus entering the heavenly Holiest of Holies with his own blood.

Again, agreed...but not seeing your point.

 

[Truth Files]

Just wht is your point Winman?

What are you trying to say?

I think I know but tell the forum in a few words ... what are you attempting to convey

Bottom line?

 

[jbh28]

Just wht is your point Winman?

What are you trying to say?

I think I know but tell the forum in a few words ... what are you attempting to convey

Bottom line?

I was asking where the Bible says that Jesus took literal blood to the mercy seat in heaven. He was attempting to prove it without a verse that says that. From what I can tell, there is a lot of speculation because people think that's the way it works, but yet no verse seems to say that.

 

[HankD]

Does't say his blood entered. It says that by his own blood HE entered.

This again is the issue I have here. Where does it say that Jesus entered into heaven and sprinkled his literal blood anywhere?

Its called deductive reasoning. Going from the general to the specific.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Hebrews 9

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.​

Christ entered into the Holy Place in heaven with His own blood to put away sin.

This is what I believe.

HankD

 

[rsr]

John MacArthur is known for denying that Jesus had to offer his literal blood on the mercy seat in heaven.

I admit that until this thread I had no idea some Christians believed that Jesus had to offer his literal blood at a specific spot in heaven.

I find MacArthur's explanation unexceptional and, in fact, what I have always believed.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Its called deductive reasoning. Going from the general to the specific.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Hebrews 9

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.​

Christ entered into the Holy Place in heaven with His own blood to put away sin.

This is what I believe.

HankD

Premise: Paul mentions sprinkling of blood in association with sanctification
Premises: Hebrews says that God entered into the holy place, which is heaven
Conclusion: Christ entered heaven with this own blood.

It may be deductive reasoning but it is fallacious. Its a non sequitor - the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Is sprinkling of blood associated in the first verse with "putting away sin"? Yes. Does Christ enter the Holy place/heaven in the second verse? Yes. Does this lead to the logical conclusion that He must have entered heaven with this own blood? No.

Given the premises it is just as possible that the sprinkling of blood occurred before Christ entered the Holy place. In fact, given the context of Heb 9, if anything, it is more likely that sprinkling occurred before the entering into the holy place. After all, every specific mention of blood found in Heb 9 are ones that occurred outside the Holy place.

And there is still the problem with taking parts of two different passages, linking them together and then insisting that both are to be taken literally instead of figuratively. This is especially curious for Baptist thinkers given the typical preference to take such things more figuratively.

 

[HankD]

Premise: Paul mentions sprinkling of blood in association with sanctification
Premises: Hebrews says that God entered into the holy place, which is heaven
Conclusion: Christ entered heaven with this own blood.

It may be deductive reasoning but it is fallacious. Its a non sequitor - the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Is sprinkling of blood associated in the first verse with "putting away sin"? Yes. Does Christ enter the Holy place/heaven in the second verse? Yes. Does this lead to the logical conclusion that He must have entered heaven with this own blood? No.

Given the premises it is just as possible that the sprinkling of blood occurred before Christ entered the Holy place. In fact, given the context of Heb 9, if anything, it is more likely that sprinkling occurred before the entering into the holy place. After all, every specific mention of blood found in Heb 9 are ones that occurred outside the Holy place.

And there is still the problem with taking parts of two different passages, linking them together and then insisting that both are to be taken literally instead of figuratively. This is especially curious for Baptist thinkers given the typical preference to take such things more figuratively.

I'm not convinced of your reasoning, in this case I reject the appeal to the "figurative" and accept the literal blood of Christ as the true meaning.

Repeat:

Christ entered into the Holy Place in heaven with His own blood to put away sin.

This is what I believe.

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

I'm not convinced of your reasoning

I gave very little reasoning in that post. I merely pointed out the problems with your reasoning - the main being the non sequitor used to reach your conclusion.

in this case I reject the appeal to the "figurative" and accept the literal blood of Christ as the true meaning.

I am not sold on either end of this. I merely point out that its an issue that needs to be dealt with in this discussion. Assuming a literal view and then basing one's arguments on that assumption is the fallacy of begging the question. If you believe it to be literal, then give some sound reasoning for that assertion.

But, let me just raise some problems with the literal view to start. If passages dealing with the sprinkling o Christ's blood are meant literally, then please explain the following in literal terms:
1. the believer being sprinkled with blood (Heb 9:19)
2. the testament being sprinkled with blood (Heb 9:19)

Repeat:

Christ entered into the Holy Place in heaven with His own blood to put away sin.

This is what I believe.

HankD[/QUOTE]

 

[Truth Files]

The Lord's blood was literally shed at the cross

All other subsequent references are given symbolically and referring to His physical death for the purpose of expounding upon salvation offered for the lost

I see an argument on this post with much to do about nothing

What is the interpretive objective by the contenders in this process?

What is the bottom line rub from either side?