Blood used metaphorically in Heb. 9:14???

[TCassidy]

Christ's blood was part of his human nature. It was regular, ordinary blood.

When the bible speaks of the "blood of Christ" it is speaking metaphorically of his violent death as our substitute. "The blood of Christ" is a verbal symbol for all aspects of the saving work of Christ.

To say that our redemption was purchased only by His shed blood is to ignore that "the wages of sin is death." Death. Not just bleeding. The violent, sacrificial death. He did not only bleed, but he suffered and died on the cross.

The term "blood of Christ" encompasses all of His salvific works.

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you "washed in the blood" does not mean one must literally bathe themselves in a pool of Christ's blood. It is an obvious metaphor and does not refer to literal cleansing with blood. The conscience of the believer is said to be cleansed by the blood. However, the conscience is a non-tangible spiritual entity while blood is a tangible substance. Hence, "blood" must be understood in such passages to be used metaphorically to represent something other than the literal physical substance called blood as no child of God is literally washed in physical blood.

Many argue that it is not the quantity but the quality of the blood of Christ that cleanses us from sin. Therefore, one drop of blood could have redeemed the whole universe. However, prior to the cross Christ sweat great drops of blood in the garden. Therefore, if quality were the criteria there was sufficient blood shed in the garden. However, Christ could not say "it is finished" (paid in full) in the garden.

After the garden he was flogged by Pilate. Flogging tore the flesh right out of his back and much blood would have been shed. Hence if quality where the criteria then much blood had been shed, but still Christ could not say "it is finished" (paid in full).

After the flogging a crown of thorns was pressed upon his head producing more blood, but still Christ could not say "It is finished" (Paid in full).

The phrase "shedding of blood" has only one Biblical definition from Genesis to the cross - QUANTITY OF BLOOD SHED SO THAT NO LIFE is left in the body = death. So the text "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" of sin means the Life must be poured out till death is the consequence. For example look at Genesis 9:2. The term "shed blood" refers to taking the life from a man or the pouring out of blood until the physical body dies. When Christ said "it is finished" (paid in full) the bible says he gave up his spirit and died - thus his blood had been "shed" in the Biblical sense poured out till death.

The Biblical Significance of Blood

With regard to PHYSICAL life, the life of the flesh is in the blood as the blood literally nourishes the body with life sustaining essentials. However, this is equally true of animals as it is with man. The blood of animals satisifes this as much as the blood of man. Quality of the blood shed plays absolutely no part in fulfilling this criteria of life being in the blood.

With regard to CEREMONIAL CLEANSING blood signifies more than mere physical life but signifies the MORAL QUALITY OF LIFE of the one whose blood is being shed unto death. For example, every sacrificial victim had to be "without blemish." If a sacrifice were offered that had physical defects the blood regardless of how physically pure would be worthless. The PHYSICAL CHARACTER of the sacrificial victim had to conform to the TYPOLOGICAL truths found in the moral quality of life found in the person of Jesus Christ:

1 Pet. 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

What made the blood of animals valuable as a sacrifice was not the physical quality of their literal blood. What made the blood of an animal sacrifice precious or valuable for sacrifice was that its blood represented the moral quality of its life symbolized in the words "without blemish."

With regard to the SACRIFICIAL typology of the blood, it represents a substitutionary atonement.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. – Lev. 17:11

And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement FOR him. - Lev. 1:4

And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: - Lev. 16:21

It required two goats to sufficiently convey the proper typology for the substitutionary atonement of Christ. One goats blood was required to convey the MORAL QUALITY OR VALUE of Christ's life while the other goat was requires to convey the SUBSTITUTIONARY VALUE of that blood. Again, the physical quality of the blood played NO PART.

Hands laid upon the head symbolized the transfer of all their sins to the substitute thus making the substitute the object of death (first goat) and separation from God (second goat) while substituting the MORAL QUALITY and LIFE to the sinner.

Hence, when we are "washed" or "cleasnsed" by the blood of Christ it has nothing to do with the PHYSICAL QUALITY or character of his physical blood, but it refers to the MORAL and SUBSTITUTIONARY ceremonial nature represented by his blood. His "shed blood" represents HIS HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS MORAL SUBSTITUTIONARY LIFE. Hence, the words of the old hym:

Nothing can for sin atone:
nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Naught of good that I have done:
nothing but the blood of Jesus

The blood of Christ has its value not in its physical quality but in representation of Christ's MORAL SUBSTITUTIONARY RIGHTEOUSNESS as "a lamb without blemish or spot" and thus "naught of good that I have done, nothing but the blood - meaning NOTHING BUT THE RIGHTEOUS LIFE OF CHRIST AS MY PLEA. To be "washed in the blood of Jesus" simply means I have his righteousness imputed to me as the basis for justification before God and thus God sees me MORALLY CLEAN. To have my conscience cleansed from the defilement of sin, simply means I have been imputed the righteousness of Christ and therefore my conscience cannot find any grounds for condemnation in the righteousness of Christ which is now my own righteousness imputed to me by faith. To be WASHED in the blood of Jesus has NOTHING to do with the PHYSICAL quality of His blood but with his MORAL LIFE which is "without blemish and spot" - meaning, his SINLESS LIFE that is what makes me CLEAN in the sight of God.

 

[Aaron]

Christ's blood was part of his human nature. It was regular, ordinary blood.

When the bible speaks of the "blood of Christ" it is speaking metaphorically of his violent death as our substitute. "The blood of Christ" is a verbal symbol for all aspects of the saving work of Christ.

To say that our redemption was purchased only by His shed blood is to ignore that "the wages of sin is death." Death. Not just bleeding. The violent, sacrificial death. He did not only bleed, but he suffered and died on the cross.

The term "blood of Christ" encompasses all of His salvific works.

I was going to state something very much like this. So I will just quote it and save myself some time.

 

[InTheLight]

Interesting conversation and one I never really considered too much.

True, no one is literally "washed in the blood". But if blood is used metaphorically to symbolize something other than the literal physical substance called blood, then what is the wine in communion symbolizing?

 

[HankD]

This does not help you. The Father ordained that the Son would suffer as He did. So it must be that the Father had something in mind other than the simple shedding of blood. It was the obedience of death on the cross after a life of obedience.

Never said He didn't. The blood was the cleaning agent of all our sin.

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.

HankD

 

[percho]

I have a few questions for each of you.

Lev 17:11 Lit. The soul of the flesh is in the blood. That verse actually speaks of Christ for it was the soul of his flesh, in the blood, which was poured out for our atonement, I assume. Isa. 53:12 because he hath poured out his soul unto death:

What does soul mean in context of, the soul of the flesh? Life? What does life mean?

Christ prior to his death was flesh and blood with the soul of his flesh in the blood. Yes or No?

Acts 2:30,31 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Is the soul of his flesh in the blood of him today? From whence is the life of the flesh of him today?
Consider Romans 6:9, Acts 13:34

Is it not this present life, apart from the blood, that allows our sins to be washed away in the life that was in the blood?

Consider:
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Peter 3:18
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:17

 

[HankD]

FWIW I don't hold to the doctrine that it was His death not His bleeding that saved me from my sins.
some modern preachers propound this doctrine.

But...

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

His blood was the cleansing agent of my sin. Without the shedding of His blood there would be no forgiveness of sin.

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.

HankD

 

[Van]

One of many problems with ambiguity is it allows mistaken doctrine to be poured into obscure passages. Now we have two pages of posts claiming Christ's death was not enough, His laying down His life was not enough, 1 John 1:7 does not mean what it says.

Lets consider

Hebrews 9:14: how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ​

How much more than what? the blood of goats and other animal sacrifices
will the blood of Christ - literally without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin
who through the Eternal Spirit - Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power which strengthen Him
offered Himself - Christ did not metaphorically go to the cross
without blemish - Christ was flawless, absolutely no sin (works of death) was upon Him
to God - God is propitiated toward anyone placed in Christ and washed by His blood
cleanse your conscience - removal of our sin burden, the consequences of our sins known by us and God
from works of death - the wages of sin is death
to serve the living God - as a vessel of mercy.

Lets keep our eye on the prize, Christ's death provides the redemption allowing those called to receive the eternal inheritance. Romans 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Only ;those redeemed (transferred into Christ) are justified, made righteous, by the washing of regeneration.

 

[HankD]

The basis of our salvation is the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Without that basis nothing else can follow.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

The basis of our salvation is the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Without that basis nothing else can follow.

HankD

Jesus was the Passover Lamb, and His blood was shed for the remission of sinners....

It was prophcied that he would die upon the Cross, so HAD to die in that manner, and that his blood would seal the New Covenant between God and Man!

 

[TCassidy]

The basis of our salvation is the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Without that basis nothing else can follow.

So, Hank. If our salvation is limited to having been bought by the shed blood of Christ only, do you, then, deny He had to live a sinless life? Do you deny He had to die? Do you deny He had to be resurrected?

Or is the term "the blood of Christ" inclusive of his Perfect Life, Substitutionary death, and His triumphant Resurrection?

 

[TCassidy]

This "magic blood" teaching seems to have originated with Bob Jones University when John MacArthur took over Los Angeles Baptist College and changed its name to "The Masters College" (now University) and "The Masters Seminary."

Bob Jones considered that to be a betrayal of BJU (John MacArthur attended BJU before transferring to Los Angeles Pacific College (now Azusa Pacific University). BJU considered the LA based college and seminary to be "competition" for students and feared they would draw students away from BJU. Much of that fear may have been that BJU was still, at that time, unaccredited while The Master's College had been accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges since 1975 (granted candidate status in 1971). Bob Jones did not receive accreditation until 2008, and that was by TRACS, which many educators consider substandard. BJU has still only received candidate status, but remains unaccredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges as of 2016.

So BJU searched every book/article he had ever written, and the transcripts of every interview, and found a 10 year old Q&A session at Grace Community Church sometime in the early 1970s. MacArthur's comments had been transcribed and published in the May 1976 issue of the Grace Church newsletter "Grace Today." In an article written by Bob Jones, Jr. in the April 1986 issue of Faith For The Family (a Bob Jones University-sponsored magazine) Jones quoted some remarks MacArthur had originally made in the Q&A session. The Jones article cited the comments without any documentation, and without noting that they were from a ten-year-old source.

In the BJU article, Jones quoted MacArthur as saying, "It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying." Jones then cited Hebrews 9:22 ("without shedding of blood is no remission") and claimed "MacArthur's position is heresy."

On June 13, 1986, MacArthur wrote to Bob Jones III, explaining that Faith for the Family had taken snippets of his remarks out of context and made them seem sinister (deliberately?). MacArthur assured the magazine's editors that he absolutely affirms the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for atonement and explained that the point he was trying to make in the quoted excerpt was merely that the saving efficacy of Christ's blood is not because of some magic property in the blood itself, but rather because Christ had poured it out in death as a substitute for sinners.

And now, 30 years later, there are still some who cannot see the truth in this matter.

This is a tempest in a teapot with no actual exegetical support.

 

[Yeshua1]

So, Hank. If our salvation is limited to having been bought by the shed blood of Christ only, do you, then, deny He had to live a sinless life? Do you deny He had to die? Do you deny He had to be resurrected?

Or is the term "the blood of Christ" inclusive of his Perfect Life, Substitutionary death, and His triumphant Resurrection?

He had to be sinless, had to die on the Croos and shed his blood for the remission of sins, and had to be resurrected in order to obtain for us the justification with God, as God showed that he approved of His act by raising Him from the dead!

 

[HankD]

So, Hank. If our salvation is limited to having been bought by the shed blood of Christ only, do you, then, deny He had to live a sinless life? Do you deny He had to die? Do you deny He had to be resurrected?

Or is the term "the blood of Christ" inclusive of his Perfect Life, Substitutionary death, and His triumphant Resurrection?

I don't deny any of those things including the power of His blood.

To me, as I previously said, the Blood of Jesus Christ is the rock upon which the propitiation of the world is based.

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.

I believe this statement "His physical blood could not save" is John MacArthur's concept, I don't agree with MacArthur and I never will.

For more than 30 years John Macarthur has been consistent in teaching that there is no saving power in the blood of Jesus Christ. In 1976, John Macarthur said in an article he wrote entitled, "Not His Bleeding But His Dying":
"It was His death that was efficacious...not His blood...Christ did not bleed to death. The shedding of blood has nothing to do with bleeding...it simply means death...violent sacrificial death...Nothing in His human blood saves..." (John Macarthur and the Blood of Christ). (The 3 dots between phrases is how Macarthur was quoted and it doesn't represent something I left out.)
In a letter dated August 29, 1986 Macarthur said, "The blood of Christ is precious-but as precious as it is, His physical blood could not save." (John Macarthur and the Blood of Christ).

http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/John-Macarthur-Heresy-Blood-of-Christ.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1636009/posts?page=303

HankD

 

[HankD]

I reject the sentiment that Christ's blood is "magic" it is "precious" according to the scripture.

1 Peter 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

And it cleanses us from ALL sin.

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 it freed us from our sins.

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/loosed us from our sins in his own blood,

HankD

 

[HankD]

I believe many preachers/teachers today are only keeping cadence with MacArthur because he is a prominent voice in the world of conservative bible teaching.

Maybe some here at the BB, maybe not.

However I can't agree with him on this the doctrine of the blood of Christ.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

And it cleanses us from ALL sin.

Just the liquid, red, blood, or all that a violent, bloody death implies?

And it freed us from our sins.

Just the liquid, red, blood, or all that a violent, bloody death implies?

I believe many preachers/teachers today are only keeping cadence with MacArthur because he is a prominent voice in the world of conservative bible teaching.

Or could it be because he is right? The term "shed blood" means much more than just bleeding. It includes His sinless life, His suffering, His sacrificial death on the cross, and His triumph over death in His Resurrection?

Maybe some here at the BB, maybe not.

Maybe there are some that agree the term "shed blood" means more than just bleeding? For sure! I am one of them! I would never denigrate the sacrifice of Christ on my behalf. Therefore I stand with those who understand the scope and value of His life, death, and resurrection.

However I can't agree with him on this the doctrine of the blood of Christ.

What do you disagree with? Do you know what his doctrine of the blood is, or are you taking the word of his detractors?

Give me a statement he made, in context, that you disagree with.

 

[HankD]

Just the liquid, red, blood, or all that a violent, bloody death implies?
Just the liquid, red, blood, or all that a violent, bloody death implies?
Or could it be because he is right? The term "shed blood" means much more than just bleeding. It includes His sinless life, His suffering, His sacrificial death on the cross, and His triumph over death in His Resurrection?

Maybe there are some that agree the term "shed blood" means more than just bleeding? For sure! I am one of them! I would never denigrate the sacrifice of Christ on my behalf. Therefore I stand with those who understand the scope and value of His life, death, and resurrection.

What do you disagree with? Do you know what his doctrine of the blood is, or are you taking the word of his detractors?

Give me a statement he made, in context, that you disagree with.

OK

So I believe in the literal death of Christ, the literal shed blood of Christ, that He was fulfilling the
pictures and symbols of the Old Testament in dying a sacrificial death. Now what I said some years
ago was that I do not believe that there is...there was something in that blood itself that saves
people. In other words, in the chemicals of it, that's what I said. I don't believe, for example, the
Roman Catholic transubstantiation where, for example, the cup is turned into blood, you drink the
blood that ministers grace to you. I don't accept that. I don't accept something magic and nobody has
in the history of Christianity that has been in the mainstream of the doctrine of soteriology. We see
that the death of Christ was an atonement for sin. He died a sacrificial blood-shed death but there's
nothing in the blood to save or Jesus could have bled on people and not died. He could have cut His
finger and that would have been enough if it's just the bleeding. So I said that some years ago.

https://www.gty.org/resources/pdf/sermons/80-44

I agree that Jesus had to die but He had to die shedding that precious blood WHERE the power to save was located - in the blood itself in opposition to his statement above "I do not believe that there is...there was something in that blood itself that saves people".

He like all his followers can only come up with "what-if-like" unbiblical scenarios like what if Jesus cut His finger to prove his unscriptural ideas.

Also and IMO its a cheap shot comparing popish magic transubstantiation of wine to the precious blood of the lamb of God.

HankD

 

[HankD]

And now, 30 years later, there are still some who cannot see the truth in this matter.

This is a tempest in a teapot with no actual exegetical support.

Yes, both are true.

HankD

 

[percho]

I do not know how it could be made any clearer than it is stated in Lev 17:11. I stand with Tom in that the blood is inclusive and I will add Jesus, though he was Son, through the things he suffered, learned- the obedience unto the absence of soul living being in the blood of his flesh on the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him Phil 2:9 by, Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; Gal 1:1