The Blood of Jesus Christ

[Gregg]

Jesus is both the first cause and the instrument for what the OT sacrifices typified. He Himself is both the Person (the place typified by the mercy seat Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5, 1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 4:10) and the means of the Propitiation (His blood Lev 17:11, Heb 2:7, 1Jn 1:7). But it is not as simple as that, as the Feast of Atonement involved many sacrifices which spoke of many things that Jesus would accomplish between His Trial (suffering), Crucifixion, Death, His going away, and His Resurrection.

Proof of the Atonement was given in at least two ways. 1. When the veil of the Temple was torn, that signified that believers have access to the Throne of Grace through Jesus Christ, He being typified by the Mercy Seat itself upon which the blood (His own) was sprinkled; and 2. His Resurrection was proof that both He, as the officiating High Priest, and His blood were accepted by the Father for our atonement to Him.

If we are in Christ, in His body, then we are covered with His blood.

- - -

The Passover addresses other things that the Father accomplished in His Son, the Lamb of God.

 

[Deborah13]

Jesus is both the first cause and the instrument for what the OT sacrifices typified. He Himself is both the Person (the place typified by the mercy seat Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5, 1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 4:10) and the means of the Propitiation (His blood Lev 17:11, Heb 2:7, 1Jn 1:7). But it is not as simple as that, as the Feast of Atonement involved many sacrifices which spoke of many things that Jesus would accomplish between His Trial (suffering), Crucifixion, Death, His going away, and His Resurrection.

Proof of the Atonement was given in at least two ways. 1. When the veil of the Temple was torn, that signified that believers have access to the Throne of Grace through Jesus Christ, He being typified by the Mercy Seat itself upon which the blood (His own) was sprinkled; and 2. His Resurrection was proof that both He, as the officiating High Priest, and His blood were accepted by the Father for our atonement to Him.

If we are in Christ, in His body, then we are covered with His blood.

- - -

The Passover addresses other things that the Father accomplished in His Son, the Lamb of God.

" 2. His Resurrection was proof that both He, as the officiating High Priest, and His blood were accepted by the Father for our atonement to Him."

Please explain how His resurrection from the dead is proof that He was accepted by the Father.

 

[Gregg]

" 2. His Resurrection was proof that both He, as the officiating High Priest, and His blood were accepted by the Father for our atonement to Him."

Please explain how His resurrection from the dead is proof that He was accepted by the Father.

Jesus' Resurrection is proof that both He and His blood were the acceptable Sacrifice for sin. That acceptance is spoken of in many ways:

- The waving of the barley sheaves coinciding with the day of His Resurrection (Lev 23:15-16, Deu 16:9)
- Moses hand restored after withdrawing it from his bosom Exo 4:7
- Melchizedek bring bead and wine to Abraham after his defeat of Chedorlaomer Gen 14:18-19
- Moses staff accompanying Israel at the Exodus [having cast it down and taken it up again]
- the high priest leaving the temple alive after the Atonement sacrifice, he announced God's acceptance [by a shout, or trumpet?]

 

[Deborah13]

Jesus' Resurrection is proof that both He and His blood were the acceptable Sacrifice for sin. That acceptance is spoken of in many ways:

- The waving of the barley sheaves coinciding with the day of His Resurrection (Lev 23:15-16, Deu 16:9)
- Moses hand restored after withdrawing it from his bosom Exo 4:7
- Melchizedek bring bead and wine to Abraham after his defeat of Chedorlaomer Gen 14:18-19
- Moses staff accompanying Israel at the Exodus [having cast it down and taken it up again]
- the high priest leaving the temple alive after the Atonement sacrifice, he announced God's acceptance [by a shout, or trumpet?]

Thank you for the types seen in the scriptures. I hadn't thought of Exo. 4:7.
So what if someone says, many people were raised from the dead, such as Lazarus and those who came out of the tombs after His resurrection. How was Jesus' resurrection different? So I think I would have to tell them it was His Ascension to the Father as the firstfruits offering that proves He and His blood was accepted. As pictured in the waving (lifting up) of the omar of barley flour that you mentioned. No one else had Ascended to the Father before Him.

 

[Gregg]

How was Jesus' resurrection different? So I think I would have to tell them it was His Ascension to the Father as the firstfruits offering that proves He and His blood was accepted. As pictured in the waving (lifting up) of the omar of barley flour that you mentioned. No one else had Ascended to the Father before Him.

Jesus Christ is the Resurrection, and had at that time become the Firstfruit offering (Exo 23:19, Lev 23:10, 1Cor 15:20-23), having been beaten and buried, and having already appeared before the Father, the Wave offering [between His Death and Resurrection]. Jesus Christ was the heave offering of the threshing floor (Isa 53:10, Num 15:20).

I would tell them that the linen clothes [Lev 16:4, Lk 23:53, Lk 24:12] that Jesus left in the tomb were a symbol (Lev 16:23) that the High Priest completed the atonement [that portion involving blood] in the Most Holy place (Lev 16:11, Lev 16:15, Isa 53:12) and at the altar (Lev 16:18-19); and that God officiated over the Scapegoat (Lev 16:20-22).

And then I would have to tell them that Jesus Ascended to the Father [the one after the Resurrection] for this:
1. Given that the sacrifice necessary for atonement has been accomplished (Isa 53:12, Heb 9:12-14), Jesus ascended that He may continue (Lev 16:24 a, the Resurrection] to officiate on our behalf (Lev 16:24 b - Lev 16:25; see Ps 110:4, Rom 8:6, Rom 8:34, Heb 4:14-16, Heb 7:24-28, Heb 9:15, Heb 9:24);
2. to send His Spirit to indwell believers at Pentecost [Feast of Weeks, Day of Firstfruits], that His Spirit united with believers (Christ in you, the joy set before Him) may become His firstfruit (Isa 53:11, Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13-14); and
3. to finish putting His enemies under (Ps 110:1, 1Cor 15:25, Heb 1:13, Heb. 10:12-13).

 

[Drew]

G2433
ἱλάσκομαι
hilaskomai
hil-as'-kom-ahee
Middle voice from the same as G2436; to conciliate, that is, (transitively) to atone for (sin), or (intransitively) be propitious: - be merciful, make reconciliation for.

I find this idea that God needs to punish some living creature to deal with sin to be highly problematic - it casts God in the light of a petulant child who wants to lash out at those who have angered him or her. Let me be clear: By saying this, I am certainly not saying "the Bible is wrong"; I am instead challenging what I see as a presumption that the atonement was about punishment. As per earlier posts, I really think it was about "de-activating the power sin" and "wiping aways its damaging effects".

In any event, I certainly see your side of this argument. But I would counter that if we understand propitiation to be about reconciliation, the notion of reconciliation does not really require punishment - I can be reconciled with an estranged family member without anyone being punished.

Again, I fully recognize that it may indeed be difficult to legitimately read all atonement texts in a manner that gets rid of the "punishment" dimension, but I remain optimistic.

Remember Romans 8:3 - it is sin, not Jesus that is God's target.

 

[Drew]

Are you talking about two things 1. propitiation, and 2. justification; or are you relating the two? Please rephrase your question.

This is a complicated matter so let me try to make my position clear:

1. I do not like this idea that God has to "lay the smackdown" on someone to satisfy some abstract cosmic set of justice scales - we are certainly not called to act that way. And I would like to think that we can read all the relevant texts, without doing violence to author's intent, without invoking this concept that God has to "punish".

2. I do not deny that Jesus has to die, but not because He is being punished (on our account). I would propose the interpretation that I derived from reading NT Wright (and in so doing, I may well have misunderstood him, but that's beside the point): the atonement is more about defeating the power of sin and removing its stain. Think of chemotherapy: the patient suffers greatly, but the doctor is certainly not punishing the patient; he (or she) is instead attacking the cancer and, sadly, the patient has to suffer as a result.

3. On justification: Here I will more confidently assert that I am indeed correctly interpreting NT Wright who argues that justification is the declaration that a person is indeed a member of the true family of God. So I would say that justification is a result of the atonement, not constitutive (in away) of atonement.

So my question really arises out of points 1 and 2: You seem to believe that the atonement is about "punishing". Can you make a Biblical argument for this, especially since I believe my point 2 offers a different way of looking at the atonement?

 

[Deborah13]

Hey Drew,
I don't have an arguement against what you are saying.
Reconciliation doesn't necessary mean punishment to me either. I see that Adam disobeyed God bringing death on all mankind. I see that the man Jesus lived a life never disobeying the Father even onto death and restoring the relationship between God and man. This is the reconciliation.
I also see that His blood shed was the perfect sacrifice for the atonement for our sin. It would be more comfortable to think that He didn't have to suffer for me but He did. He had to fulfill all the types and shadows about Him and one of those was blood atonement for sin.
"No greater gift is there than a man lay down his life for a friend." (para)

 

[Deborah13]

Jesus Christ is the Resurrection, and had at that time become the Firstfruit offering (Exo 23:19, Lev 23:10, 1Cor 15:20-23), having been beaten and buried, and having already appeared before the Father, the Wave offering [between His Death and Resurrection]. Jesus Christ was the heave offering of the threshing floor (Isa 53:10, Num 15:20).

I would tell them that the linen clothes [Lev 16:4, Lk 23:53, Lk 24:12] that Jesus left in the tomb were a symbol (Lev 16:23) that the High Priest completed the atonement [that portion involving blood] in the Most Holy place (Lev 16:11, Lev 16:15, Isa 53:12) and at the altar (Lev 16:18-19); and that God officiated over the Scapegoat (Lev 16:20-22).

And then I would have to tell them that Jesus Ascended to the Father [the one after the Resurrection] for this:
1. Given that the sacrifice necessary for atonement has been accomplished (Isa 53:12, Heb 9:12-14), Jesus ascended that He may continue (Lev 16:24 a, the Resurrection] to officiate on our behalf (Lev 16:24 b - Lev 16:25; see Ps 110:4, Rom 8:6, Rom 8:34, Heb 4:14-16, Heb 7:24-28, Heb 9:15, Heb 9:24);
2. to send His Spirit to indwell believers at Pentecost [Feast of Weeks, Day of Firstfruits], that His Spirit united with believers (Christ in you, the joy set before Him) may become His firstfruit (Isa 53:11, Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13-14); and
3. to finish putting His enemies under (Ps 110:1, 1Cor 15:25, Heb 1:13, Heb. 10:12-13).

Thank you for all the scriptures.
I think I can agree with most of what you are referring to here. Lev.16 is so full of types and shadows it's hard for me to separate them all. Two goats, one for blood atonement and the other has the sin placed on him and is taken to the wilderness. I haven't got a clear vision of the second goat. Of coarse they both represent the Christ but it is incomplete for me yet.
We do see the ascension timing differently. I believe He was literally in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, whether that was in Abraham's bosom or in the tomb. I believe He was resurrected after sunset on our Saturday and ascended to the Father early in the morning on the eighth day, our Sunday.
I see those filled with the Spirit on Pentecost as the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit. But I also believe that the OT saints had already been resurrected.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I find this idea that God needs to punish some living creature to deal with sin to be highly problematic - it casts God in the light of a petulant child who wants to lash out at those who have angered him or her.

Here we see that God demands that the person who sins be punished for that sin:

19 'If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 21 'Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death. (Leviticus 17:19-21 NASB)

In any event, I certainly see your side of this argument. But I would counter that if we understand propitiation to be about reconciliation, the notion of reconciliation does not really require punishment - I can be reconciled with an estranged family member without anyone being punished.

Here we see that blood guilt in effect cut the people of God off from God. The remedy for that was the innocent blood that was shed was to be avenged by killing the one who shed the innocent blood, and avenged in order that the people of God could be reconciled to God and their inheritance in him 'that it may go well with you':

10 "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you. 11 "But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, 12 then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 13 "You shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with you. (Deuteronomy 19:10-13 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

1. I do not like this idea that God has to "lay the smackdown" on someone to satisfy some abstract cosmic set of justice scales - we are certainly not called to act that way.

But as we see the law demanded that the people of God themselves carry out the just penalty and punishment for wrong-doing. The reason we don't have to do that now is because Christ died the death for everybody condemned by the law and subject to immediate execution. This is what it means for Christ to have come to fulfill the law, not abolish it:

"17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17 NASB)

By dying the death the law requires, Jesus fulfills the justice of the law that requires punishment, not abolishes it. If no one died then that would in effect be abolishing the requirement of the law for just and rightful punishment of the offender.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:14 NASB)

The certificate of debt that stands against us is the lawful decree for punishment for the one who offends. Because we have sinned it stands as a witness against us and places over us the debt we owe for that sin:

26 "Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you. 27 "For I know your rebellion and your stubbornness... (Deuteronomy 31:26-27 NASB)

In Christ, this law, and the debt of the law that we all owe--the debt of punishment and death--is marked 'satisfied' in God's sight by Christ's substitutionary death on the cross, thus the debt of punishment is 'taken out of the way'.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Isaiah speaks to this matter, too.

5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him..." (Isaiah 53:5 NASB)

"He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth." (Isaiah 53:9 NASB)

"...who considered That He was cutoff out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?" (Isaiah 53:8 NASB)

The penalty stroke for sin is due us, not Christ. We as the transgressors owe the penalty payment owed for sin. But Christ, although he was innocent, took the stroke of punishment due to the guilty for us in our stead.

 

[Gregg]

This is a complicated matter so let me try to make my position clear:

1. I do not like this idea that God has to "lay the smackdown" on someone to satisfy some abstract cosmic set of justice scales - we are certainly not called to act that way. And I would like to think that we can read all the relevant texts, without doing violence to author's intent, without invoking this concept that God has to "punish".

2. I do not deny that Jesus has to die, but not because He is being punished (on our account). I would propose the interpretation that I derived from reading NT Wright (and in so doing, I may well have misunderstood him, but that's beside the point): the atonement is more about defeating the power of sin and removing its stain. Think of chemotherapy: the patient suffers greatly, but the doctor is certainly not punishing the patient; he (or she) is instead attacking the cancer and, sadly, the patient has to suffer as a result.

3. On justification: Here I will more confidently assert that I am indeed correctly interpreting NT Wright who argues that justification is the declaration that a person is indeed a member of the true family of God. So I would say that justification is a result of the atonement, not constitutive (in away) of atonement.

So my question really arises out of points 1 and 2: You seem to believe that the atonement is about "punishing". Can you make a Biblical argument for this, especially since I believe my point 2 offers a different way of looking at the atonement?

Perhaps the Passover also addresses punishment of an innocent victim.

There is punishment for sin. But the verdict for that crime and its punishment has been announced to man since the Garden of Eden: that sin causes spiritual death in that it separates man from God (Gen 3:7-9, Adam could no longer discern the Lord's presence); and that sin causes physical death (Gen 3:19, returning to the dust). "The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned, for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God" (Jn 3:18).

God declared the manner in which sin is to be remedied, that is through the shedding of innocent blood (Gen 3:21, Lev 17:11. Isa 53, Mat 20:28, Mat 26:28, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, 20). If a man remains in his sin, then the verdict will stand and the punishment will be served for eternity. Not knowing the LORD [separation from Him for eternity] is the punishment. So John writes, "And this is everlasting life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent" (Jn 17:3 LITV).

However, Christ intervened. ". . . then I restored what I did not take by violence" (Ps 69:4). His intervention involves suffering; the One atoning with His blood, and the Lamb who suffered that death may pass over His Father's house]. But His suffering is not like ours might be, or of animals; but as having taken upon Himself the enormous weight of the sin of the world. He became sin for us. "As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men" (Isa 52:14 KJV). Immanuel paid the unfathomable price for the sin of the world. I can not stand my own sin, but can you imagine the lifetime of sin for billions of men being pressed upon you for a brief moment. I can not imagine that terrible punishment, but it was portrayed through the various OT sacrifices; namely through the Atonement.

Sin is the expression of man's hatred toward God, and it is displayed by man with violence. Sin is also taken away with violence. A blood sacrifice involves punishment and remedy; rather Immanuel's experiential acknowledgment and remedy of it. The fact is that God loves us, and He suffered greatly both spiritually and physically; more than any man can possibly imagine.

 

[Gregg]

We do see the ascension timing differently.

I understand that the Ascension happened 40 days after the Resurrection; but, He also that He ascended to the Father between the time of His death and Resurrection. Scripture portrays this in many places.
- In that the high priest entered into the Most Holy during the Atonement, it would be expected that Christ entered the heavenly one.
- In that the high priest brought the Menorah [Messiah anointed by the Spirit] from the outer room and into the Most Holy during the Atonement, it would be expected that Christ entered the heavenly one.
- in that the high priest brought coals from the altar mixed with incense into the Most Holy during the Atonement, it would be expected that Christ entered the heavenly one to appear Personally before His Father.
- "Jesus said, 'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.' And saying this, He breathed out the spirit" (Luk 23:46; see Psa. 31:5).
- "by how much more the blood of Christ (who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God) . . ." (Heb 9:14 a).

- - -

You mentioned the scapegoat led into the wilderness. I believe that it portrayed Jesus' body being crucified outside the city, His being buried in an empty place, and that He carried our sins away that they not be remembered against us.

 

[Gregg]

But the verdict for that crime and its punishment has been announced to man since the Garden of Eden: that sin causes spiritual death in that it separates man from God (Gen 3:7-9, Adam could no longer discern the Lord's presence); and that sin causes physical death (Gen 3:19, returning to the dust). "The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned, for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God" (Jn 3:18).

That verdict was pronounced when sin came into the world. But another verdict was know to God before the world was made, "according as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, for us to be holy and without blemish before Him in love" (Eph 1:4). And here is the verdict as spoken to Nicodemus, 'And this is the verdict: that the Light has come into the world . . .' (Jn 3:19), a verdict demonstrating His grace and love.

Regarding punishment for sin: It was demonstrated publicly through Christ's suffering and Crucifixion. As He took our sins upon Him, His awareness of His Father's presence was obscured. Although innocent of sin, He experienced what it was like to be separated from the Father; not in relation to how you and I might perceive separation, but as set against the eternal depth of Their own relationship. That is His visage and form being marred more than any man (Isa 52:14); that is punishment incurred on our behalf; and it was depicted in the flesh of Christ that all may see it, the living and the dead.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar, to atone for your souls; for it is the blood which makes atonement for the soul" (Lev 17:11 LITV).

 

[Drew]

I also see that His blood shed was the perfect sacrifice for the atonement for our sin. It would be more comfortable to think that He didn't have to suffer for me but He did. He had to fulfill all the types and shadows about Him and one of those was blood atonement for sin.

OK, but I do not see how any of this requires us to think of Jesus being punished. Here is an analogy: when a firefighter enters a burning building and dies, he has "sacrificed" his life in an attempt to save others. But he is certainly not being punished.

To be sacrificed does not necessarily mean to be punished.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

OK, but I do not see how any of this requires us to think of Jesus being punished. Here is an analogy: when a firefighter enters a burning building and dies, he has "sacrificed" his life in an attempt to save others. But he is certainly not being punished.

To be sacrificed does not necessarily mean to be punished.

Drew, what happened to the requirements of the law for the offender to be punished? If those aren't being fulfilled in you and I, and Christ didn't fulfill those, what happened to them? Did they get abolished?

 

[FreeGrace]

This is a general discussion regarding Jesus Christ shedding His blood, the efficacy of that blood and the results of His having shed it.

Why the blood of Jesus; and not of another man or of an animal?

First, let's agree that the phrase "blood of Christ" refers to His sacrificial death on a cross for the sins of humanity. Apart from that, further discussion will be unproductive. The phrase has literally nothing to do with the literal blood that flowed through his blood vessels.

That said, why Jesus? God demands justice for all sin. Only a perfect Sacrifice could satisfy (propitiate) God the Father. Only humans sin; not animals, birds, fish. Angels were already dealt with when Adam was created, which isn't covered in Scripture, other than the note of why the Lake of Fire was created. Therefore, Jesus, the perfect Sacrifice, was the only human who could be sacrificed for the sins of humanity, all of who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

What did God accomplish in and through Jesus blood?

Through His death (separation from God), Christ's sacrifice paid in full (tetelestai) the penalty or debt of the sins of humanity. This removes the issue of sin regarding final residence in heaven or hell. Leaving the only issue left: whether or not one possesses God's life, which is eternal life, which is a free gift given to those who have believed in Jesus Christ as Savior. Those who do not possess this free gift from God are not qualified (Col 1:12) to live with God eternally, and will be cast into the LoF (Rev 20:15).

Are believers individually covered or sprinkled with His blood; or by virtue of our being placed into Christ Jesus, as members of His body [the Church], are we covered with His blood because He is (or was) covered?

First, no one is covered in any literal sense. But those who have believed in Christ for salvation have been forgiven (Acts 10:43), which is different than reconciliation. Why? Because God reconciled the WORLD in Christ (2 Cor 5:19), yet Paul admonishes people to be "reconciled to God". God's side of reconciliation was accomplished by the finished work of Christ on the cross. Man's side of reconciliation is accomplished when man believes in Christ as Savior.

 

[gr8grace3]

First, let's agree that the phrase "blood of Christ" refers to His sacrificial death on a cross for the sins of humanity. Apart from that, further discussion will be unproductive. The phrase has literally nothing to do with the literal blood that flowed through his blood vessels.

That said, why Jesus? God demands justice for all sin. Only a perfect Sacrifice could satisfy (propitiate) God the Father. Only humans sin; not animals, birds, fish. Angels were already dealt with when Adam was created, which isn't covered in Scripture, other than the note of why the Lake of Fire was created. Therefore, Jesus, the perfect Sacrifice, was the only human who could be sacrificed for the sins of humanity, all of who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).


Through His death (separation from God), Christ's sacrifice paid in full (tetelestai) the penalty or debt of the sins of humanity. This removes the issue of sin regarding final residence in heaven or hell. Leaving the only issue left: whether or not one possesses God's life, which is eternal life, which is a free gift given to those who have believed in Jesus Christ as Savior. Those who do not possess this free gift from God are not qualified (Col 1:12) to live with God eternally, and will be cast into the LoF (Rev 20:15).


First, no one is covered in any literal sense. But those who have believed in Christ for salvation have been forgiven (Acts 10:43), which is different than reconciliation. Why? Because God reconciled the WORLD in Christ (2 Cor 5:19), yet Paul admonishes people to be "reconciled to God". God's side of reconciliation was accomplished by the finished work of Christ on the cross. Man's side of reconciliation is accomplished when man believes in Christ as Savior.

:amen:yes