The Blood of Christ

[HankD]

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.

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)

This is in reference to our glorified resurrected bodies not these corruptible bodies:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.​

HankD

 

[Truth Files]

A study of 1Corinthians 15:15-22 should be sufficient to address the argument of this post

 

[dwmoeller1]

This is in reference to our glorified resurrected bodies not these corruptible bodies:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.​

HankD

The passage speaks of the washing in his blood in the past tense (He *washed* us), yet the resurrected bodies are in the future. If the resurrected bodies were in view, then wouldn't it say "and will wash us"?

Here is my counter argument:
Premise: "Washed" refers to an act previous to when it is stated. (ie. past tense).
Premise: Rev 1:5 says we were "washed" in His blood.
Conclusion: The washing in blood occurred before the statement in Rev 1:5

Premise: The washing in blood occurred before the statement in Rev 1:5
Premise: Our resurrected bodies will not exist till some time after the statement in Rev 1:5
Conclusion: Rev 1:5 could not be speaking of our resurrected bodies

Premise: Rev 1:5 could not be speaking of our resurrected bodies
Premise: We will have only two bodies, the present corrupt bodies and the future resurrected bodies
Conclusion: Rev 1:5 must be speaking of our corrupt bodies.


So, if Rev 1:5 must be speaking of our present bodies, how can it be that these bodies are literally washed in Christ literal blood?

 

[HankD]

The passage speaks of the washing in his blood in the past tense (He *washed* us), yet the resurrected bodies are in the future. If the resurrected bodies were in view, then wouldn't it say "and will wash us"?

Here is my counter argument:
Premise: "Washed" refers to an act previous to when it is stated. (ie. past tense).
Premise: Rev 1:5 says we were "washed" in His blood.
Conclusion: The washing in blood occurred before the statement in Rev 1:5

Premise: The washing in blood occurred before the statement in Rev 1:5
Premise: Our resurrected bodies will not exist till some time after the statement in Rev 1:5
Conclusion: Rev 1:5 could not be speaking of our resurrected bodies

Premise: Rev 1:5 could not be speaking of our resurrected bodies
Premise: We will have only two bodies, the present corrupt bodies and the future resurrected bodies
Conclusion: Rev 1:5 must be speaking of our corrupt bodies.


So, if Rev 1:5 must be speaking of our present bodies, how can it be that these bodies are literally washed in Christ literal blood?

I disagree as the Atonement of Christ is outside the boundaries of time.
Later in the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. ​

Therefore everything related to it is "past".​

To be sure there are metaphysics concerning the blood atonement that are difficult to fathom. I don't know how Christ's blood could exist in two places simultaneously - on earth and in heaven and not only that but from the foundation of the earth, or how this blood can wash away all the sins of all believers, but evidently it is true.​

And as the Book of Hebrews shows every unclean thing must be purged by blood including we ourselves by the Blood of Christ to enter into the holy place.

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

I disagree as the Atonement of Christ is outside the boundaries of time.
Later in the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. ​

Therefore everything related to it is "past".​

You are basing your reasoning on a questionable reading of the passage. The clauses are not very clear to the modern English reader. Here it is with the clauses divided properly:
"...whose names are not written | in the book of life of the Lamb slain | from the foundation of the world."

The middle section is all one clause. The phrase "of the Lamb slain" all modifies "the book of life". IOW, the whole middle section can be seen as the title of the book. It's the book "The Book of Life of the Lamb slain". The last section does not modify "slain" but instead modifies "whose names are not written". Several translations make this more clear to the English reader by changing the order of the clauses. For example:

"...everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." (ESV)
"...everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain." (NASB)

So, it is saying not that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, but that the names were written from the beginning of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain.

Also, compare it to Rev 17:8 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (KJV)

And if your reading of the passage is questionable, then it seems the system of thought that extends from it is questionable as well.

And as the Book of Hebrews shows every unclean thing must be purged by blood including we ourselves by the Blood of Christ to enter into the holy place.

What verse?

 

[jbh28]

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

Yet, the Bible doesn't say that. It never one times say he collected his blood off the ground and took it with him to heaven.

 

[jbh28]

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?

I asked because I heard people say it many times, yet no Scripture to back it up. I didn't want to say it's not true without hearing their side of it.

 

[HankD]

You are basing your reasoning on a questionable reading of the passage. The clauses are not very clear to the modern English reader. Here it is with the clauses divided properly:
"...whose names are not written | in the book of life of the Lamb slain | from the foundation of the world."

The middle section is all one clause. The phrase "of the Lamb slain" all modifies "the book of life". IOW, the whole middle section can be seen as the title of the book. It's the book "The Book of Life of the Lamb slain". The last section does not modify "slain" but instead modifies "whose names are not written". Several translations make this more clear to the English reader by changing the order of the clauses. For example:

"...everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." (ESV)
"...everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain." (NASB)

So, it is saying not that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, but that the names were written from the beginning of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain.

Also, compare it to Rev 17:8 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is." (KJV)

And if your reading of the passage is questionable, then it seems the system of thought that extends from it is questionable as well.

That is an alternative with which many other versions disagree.

REurged with blood:

The earthly tabernacle was a "figure/pattern" of the heavenly:

Hebrews 9

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.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
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:​

HankD​

 

[dwmoeller1]

That is an alternative with which many other versions disagree.

Hence my point. Your reading is questionable. Basing a line of reasoning on a questionable reading is unsound.

Also, given that no translation I am aware of disagrees with the rendering of Rev 17:8, and given that this verse supports one particular reading of the verse in question, this alternate reading can't easily be dismissed.

REurged with blood:

The earthly tabernacle was a "figure/pattern" of the heavenly:

Hebrews 9

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.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
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:​

HankD​

Vs 22 indicates that the shedding of blood is what purges. Thus Christ's blood being shed was all that was necessary for purging. There is no mention of it needing to be taken to heaven (literally or figuratively), much less of it needing to be sprinkled on the mercy seat in heaven.

Also, be careful with the concept of the earthly being a patter/figure of the heavenly. This concept does not in any way imply one to one correspondence. For instance, Adam is a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14) yet to apply a sort of one to one correspondence between the two would quickly lead to absurdity and heresy. The differences between Adam and Christ are as important as the similarities which make Adam a figure of Christ. Also, Noah in the ark is said to be a figure of salvation. Again, the figure needs only have a vague similarity to the reality.

So, suggesting that the tabernacle is exactly like the set up in heaven is not more sound than suggesting that Adam is exactly like Christ or Noah in the ark is exactly like salvation.

 

[HankD]

Not sure what happened, I responded and it disappeared.

Hence my point. Your reading is questionable. Basing a line of reasoning on a questionable reading is unsound.

Well, so say you, but I have no question as to what it says.

given that no translation I am aware of disagrees with the rendering of Rev 17:8, and given that this verse supports one particular reading of the verse in question, this alternate reading can't easily be dismissed.

There is no problem, that I can see.

[Vs 22 indicates that the shedding of blood is what purges. Thus Christ's blood being shed was all that was necessary for purging. There is no mention of it needing to be taken to heaven (literally or figuratively), much less of it needing to be sprinkled on the mercy seat in heaven.

Also, be careful with the concept of the earthly being a patter/figure of the heavenly. This concept does not in any way imply one to one correspondence. For instance, Adam is a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14) yet to apply a sort of one to one correspondence between the two would quickly lead to absurdity and heresy. The differences between Adam and Christ are as important as the similarities which make Adam a figure of Christ. Also, Noah in the ark is said to be a figure of salvation. Again, the figure needs only have a vague similarity to the reality.

So, suggesting that the tabernacle is exactly like the set up in heaven is not more sound than suggesting that Adam is exactly like Christ or Noah in the ark is exactly like salvation.

I never said the earthly tabernacle was exactly like the heavenly, in fact one of the differences is that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin but the blood of Christ does.

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

Not sure what happened, I responded and it disappeared.

Well, so say you, but I have no question as to what it says.

There is no problem, that I can see.

I give other translations and you claim its just what *I* said? Bah! So I say and so I demonstrate.

I guess productive discussion is at an end then...

 

[HankD]

I give other translations and you claim its just what *I* said? Bah! So I say and so I demonstrate.

I guess productive discussion is at an end then...

NIV Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

NKJ Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

DRA Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world.

RWB Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

HankD​

 

[dwmoeller1]

NIV Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

NKJ Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

DRA Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world.

RWB Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

HankD​

Some translators give it one way, some give it another. Hence, both readings are questionable - neither reading by itself can be the basis for a sound line of reasoning. Questionable does not mean it is wrong for certain, questionable means you have no basis for claiming it is right for certain. Thus, it can't be used as a basis for sound reasoning. This is especially true when the one clarifying verse supports one particular reading...and that reading is contrary to yours.

And that doesn't even touch on the unsound logic you use your reading for. That the lamb may be said to be slain in the past does not make all things to do with his death to be in the past. At the very least, such a position requires confirming support from another verse. To use this one passage (and a questionable reading at that) to come to such a conclusion is unwarranted.

 

[HankD]

Some translators give it one way, some give it another. Hence, both readings are questionable - neither reading by itself can be the basis for a sound line of reasoning. Questionable does not mean it is wrong for certain, questionable means you have no basis for claiming it is right for certain. Thus, it can't be used as a basis for sound reasoning. This is especially true when the one clarifying verse supports one particular reading...and that reading is contrary to yours.

And that doesn't even touch on the unsound logic you use your reading for. That the lamb may be said to be slain in the past does not make all things to do with his death to be in the past. At the very least, such a position requires confirming support from another verse. To use this one passage (and a questionable reading at that) to come to such a conclusion is unwarranted.

Like I said, I have no question concerning how it is to be translated, my conscience is perfectly clear and I have certainty about it whether you do or not and perhaps you think my logic is unsound because it disagrees with yours.

Here is another passage :

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

"Cleanses us from all sin". The verb is present tense, active, indicative. The Blood of Christ is still cleansing us from sin continuously.
It is timeless - from the foundation of the world.

It has to be timelesss because it is the only propitiation for sin. It is the basis of the cleansing of the sin of all believers, past present and future.

The blood of Christ is continuously cleansing us because it still exists somewhere and that somewhere is the Holy place in the heavenlies.

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

Like I said, I have no question concerning how it is to be translated, my conscience is perfectly clear and I have certainty about it whether you do or not and perhaps you think my logic is unsound because it disagrees with yours.

I didn't say it was questionable to you, merely that it was in question - there is more than one valid way of translating it. It is also perfectly clear to me how it is to be translated and my conscience is perfectly clear and I have certainty about it. The problem is that my certainty is contradictory to yours. Since we both can't be right ultimately, and since there is no way to demonstrate certainty, both of our "certain" renderings have to be considered "questionable" in a logical and debate sense. Basing doctrines on such readings is fallacious.

Here is another passage :

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

"Cleanses us from all sin". The verb is present tense, active, indicative. The Blood of Christ is still cleansing us from sin continuously.
It is timeless - from the foundation of the world.

Present active indicative does not imply continuous action extending to the beginning of time. Such a claim is so out of left field that I can't even think of more to say about it. I think I will let the Greek scholars come and mock you instead

 

[HankD]

I didn't say it was questionable to you, merely that it was in question - there is more than one valid way of translating it. It is also perfectly clear to me how it is to be translated and my conscience is perfectly clear and I have certainty about it. The problem is that my certainty is contradictory to yours. Since we both can't be right ultimately, and since there is no way to demonstrate certainty, both of our "certain" renderings have to be considered "questionable" in a logical and debate sense. Basing doctrines on such readings is fallacious.



Present active indicative does not imply continuous action extending to the beginning of time. Such a claim is so out of left field that I can't even think of more to say about it. I think I will let the Greek scholars come and mock you instead

OK so it's my own personal conviction. I combined what I am certain is the conceptual meaning of

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.​

and the force of the present active indicative of "cleanse" in​

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

And several other passages in Hebrews and came to the conclusion that the crucifixion somehow in God's reality is outside of time, though it happened at a definite point in the time continuum.

And that Christ bled and that precious blood somehow is in the Holy Place in heaven continuously cleansing sin.

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

OK so it's my own personal conviction. I combined what I am certain is the conceptual meaning of

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.​

and the force of the present active indicative of "cleanse" in​

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

And several other passages in Hebrews and came to the conclusion that the crucifixion somehow in God's reality is outside of time, though it happened at a definite point in the time continuum.

And that Christ bled and that precious blood somehow is in the Holy Place in heaven continuously cleansing sin.

HankD

I find several problems with that line of thinking. But as long as we are clear that this is your own personal take and not what Scripture *says* per se, then I have no real problem with it.

 

[HankD]

I find several problems with that line of thinking. But as long as we are clear that this is your own personal take and not what Scripture *says* per se, then I have no real problem with it.

OK, but think about it yourself.

Thanks
HankD

 

[Winman]

Here is a very interesting article on the blood of Christ. It is not too long.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/toc.htm

I do not know if I agree with this author, but he does make some good arguments from scripture.

 

[HankD]

Here is a very interesting article on the blood of Christ. It is not too long.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/toc.htm

I do not know if I agree with this author, but he does make some good arguments from scripture.

I am old enough to remember Dr Dehann.

He certainly said it better than I did.
His view of the Blood of Christ was the common "fundamentalist" view in his day.

He said that he expected to see a golden chalice filled with the Blood of Christ in the Holy Place in heaven.

I agree.

HankD