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

[The Biblicist]

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?

It would seem that "the blood" here is used metaphorically for the sinless substitutionary sacrifice of the life of Christ ["offered himself without spot"] or the gospel truth that the righteousness of Christ (His sinless life) fully justifies believers. Thus satisfying and removing the condemning voice of conscience bringing internal peace based wholly upon Christ's sinless life imputed unto the sinner by faith.

Otherwise, the condemnation by conscience would motivate the sinner to produce good works in hope of achieving justification for eternal life. However, such works are regarded as "dead" because no sinner can be justified in the sight of God by their own works but can only be further condemned unto death. Hence, the works do not obtain the goal which motivates them (life) but obtains death.

The conscience is cleansed (katharsis) by the blood. Here "the blood" is used metaphorically for the gospel truth of Christ substitionary life of righteusness ("offered himself without spot") that removes the guilt produced by the condemnation of the conscience. Christ's substitutionary life and death is wholly sufficient to justify them before God thus cleansing the conscience from both condemnation and guilt.

So when we sing "what can wash away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus" we are really saying the righteous life of Christ offered up in death satisfies the demands of the law for my justification before God. When someone prays "I claim the blood of Christ" over something or with regard to some promise of God, they are really saying "based upon the righteousness of Christ imputed to me" I come before the Father and claim these promises due to his righteousness not mine. "The blood" of Christ is used metaphorically in the Scriptures or to represent the gospel truth that sets us free based upon His righteousness.

 

[HankD]

I disagree. I look to the material blood of Christ as genetically pure blood.
Where it is presently located is not important to me.

I do also look to His sinless life as my own motivation to "Be ye holy; for I am holy.".

I know some believe that Christ was able to sin but He did not.
Personally I believe He was spotless and holy from the moment of conception in the womb of the virgin Mary.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Though He is/was God come in the flesh (mortal and subject to death) He was God nonetheless.

Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

The temptation in the wilderness and the agony in the garden was the evidential proof that He could not sin or be tempted with evil, the cross the final witness.

HankD

 

[Van]

One of many problems with ambiguity is it allow mistaken doctrine to be poured into obscure passages.

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.

 

[rsr]

I fail to see how this passage is ambiguous.

"The blood of Christ" represents not just the physical blood, but also His obedience in living a sinless life and being offered as a perfect sacrifice. It was the blood — representing that obedience and sacrifice — that cleanses us. We are cleansed by that "blood" and what it represents, not by equally pure and real blood that he might have shed when he was working in Joseph's shop or scraping his leg on while walking through Galilee.

 

[HankD]

Leviticus 17:11 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.

It is the blood of Christ that cleanses sin and makes atonement not what it metaphorically represents.

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

 

[rsr]

Certainly it was necessary that Christ's blood be shed (to conform to the Old Testament), but his sacrifice was far more than shedding of His blood. Without his sinlessness and obedience and suffering, would His blood have been more efficacious than that of the bulls and rams offered up in the Old Testament?

 

[percho]

Had he remained dead would his blood have cleansed us of our sins or did it require that he be made alive by/to the Spirit?

 

[percho]

Certainly it was necessary that Christ's blood be shed (to conform to the Old Testament), but his sacrifice was far more than shedding of His blood. Without his sinlessness and obedience and suffering, would His blood have been more efficacious than that of the bulls and rams offered up in the Old Testament?

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

 

[HankD]

Certainly it was necessary that Christ's blood be shed (to conform to the Old Testament), but his sacrifice was far more than shedding of His blood. Without his sinlessness and obedience and suffering, would His blood have been more efficacious than that of the bulls and rams offered up in the Old Testament?

The life of the flesh is in the blood, His human blood was not contaminated by original sin and yes it was infinitely more precious and efficacious than the animal blood of bulls and goats which could never take away sin.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Had he remained dead would his blood have cleansed us of our sins or did it require that he be made alive by/to the Spirit?

I don't know but I do know that He rose from the dead.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Why all the "WHAT IFs" concerning the cleansing power of the blood of Christ?

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

 

[rsr]

So why did God tell Joseph to take the Christ child away from Bethlehem? If the spilling of blood was all that was necessary, the sacrifice would have been fulfilled if He'd been killed in the slaughter of the innocents.

No, it was necessary for Christ to live in obedience and offer Himself as a sacrifice to make His blood efficacious. And it is the entire submission of Christ to the will of the Father that makes Christ's blood an acceptable offering that cleanses us of sin.

 

[HankD]

So why did God tell Joseph to take the Christ child away from Bethlehem? If the spilling of blood was all that was necessary, the sacrifice would have been fulfilled if He'd been killed in the slaughter of the innocents.

No, it was necessary for Christ to live in obedience and offer Himself as a sacrifice to make His blood efficacious. And it is the entire submission of Christ to the will of the Father that makes Christ's blood an acceptable offering that cleanses us of sin.

I disagree.

The blood of Christ did not need to be made efficacious, He was holy from His conception in the womb of the virgin Mary. That would of necessity include His blood

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

The cross was necessary to fulfill scripture at the right time and place not because there was unholy blood in His veins and arteries waiting to become efficacious - waiting to see whether He would sin or not, He was not able to sin. He is/was God in the flesh.

James 1
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

what if; what if; what if...

HankD

 

[rsr]

So, why was it necessary for Christ to live and suffer if His blood would have been efficacious from his birth? I never said His blood was unholy, only that the entire life of Christ was the sacrifice, not just His blood. You prefer a genetic explanation of the holiness of the blood of Christ; I believe that it is far more than that,

 

[percho]

I believe he was born, holy. Matt 1:20 the for in her being generated out of spirit is holy. That God, The Father, anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:38 “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.

However I also believe he learned, the obedience. That obedience being, suffering unto death, even the death of the cross.

Even being the Son of God.

Hebrews 5:8 YLT through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience,
Phil 2:8 KJV And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

[HankD]

So, why was it necessary for Christ to live and suffer if His blood would have been efficacious from his birth? I never said His blood was unholy, only that the entire life of Christ was the sacrifice, not just His blood. You prefer a genetic explanation of the holiness of the blood of Christ; I believe that it is far more than that,

Either His blood was holy from the first molecule produced or it was not.
He lived and suffered in the manner recorded in scripture because it was the will of the Father, to fulfill all things written of Him.
His holy efficacious blood was waiting in His veins and arteries to be shed on the Roman cross as predestined.

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

 

[HankD]

I believe he was born, holy. Matt 1:20 the for in her being generated out of spirit is holy. That God, The Father, anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:38 “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.

However I also believe he learned, the obedience. That obedience being, suffering unto death, even the death of the cross.

Even being the Son of God.

Hebrews 5:8 YLT through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience,
Phil 2:8 KJV And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

No problem.

HankD

 

[rsr]

But would not "all things written of him" have been accomplished without the cross?

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.

No one is arguing against that verse. Please don't suggest otherwise..

 

[HankD]

But would not "things written of him" have been accomplished without the cross?

The cross was foreordained, His life, His suffering as well and foretold in a wealth of scripture.

When all things had worked together to bring the Son of God/man to the cross then the blood which was holy from His conception was shed on that cross.

Acts 2
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

HankD

 

[rsr]

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.