The Blood of Jesus Christ

[Gregg]

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?

What did God accomplish in and through Jesus blood?

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?

 

[Andrew Mason]

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

Jesus was a sinless offering (without spot or blemish) - Hebrews 9:14

What did God accomplish in and through Jesus blood?

He accomplished "propitiation" which means that the wrath of God upon mankind's sin was satisfied or appeased through the blood of Jesus - 1 John 4:9, 1 John 2:2, Romans 3:25, Heb 2:17

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?

I would say YES to all of the above (generally speaking).

 

[Kathi]

Jesus Christ is the sinless Son of God.Given to use for the atonement of our sins.

 

[WIP]

Jesus was a sinless offering (without spot or blemish) - Hebrews 9:14

He accomplished "propitiation" which means that the wrath of God upon mankind's sin was satisfied or appeased through the blood of Jesus - 1 John 4:9, 1 John 2:2, Romans 3:25, Heb 2:17



I would say YES to all of the above (generally speaking).

 

[Andrew Mason]

Meant to put 1 John 4:10 (not 9).

 

[Deborah13]

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?

What did God accomplish in and through Jesus blood?

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?

As to your first to question I can just agree with Mason.
As to this last one.....
I think we are individual made righteous (justified) by His blood, or more closely His life and death, and placed in His body, the church.
But as to " are we covered with His blood because He is (or was) covered?", I not sure I'm understanding this statement correctly. I don't think Jesus was covered by His own blood. He didn't need to be. His life and death were perfectly righteous, qualifying Him.
I believe we are justified, in Christ because He is justified.

 

[Gregg]

As to your first to question I can just agree with Mason.
As to this last one.....
I think we are individual made righteous (justified) by His blood, or more closely His life and death, and placed in His body, the church.
But as to " are we covered with His blood because He is (or was) covered?", I not sure I'm understanding this statement correctly. I don't think Jesus was covered by His own blood. He didn't need to be. His life and death were perfectly righteous, qualifying Him.
I believe we are justified, in Christ because He is justified.

He was covered in His own blood, not for His cleansing or forgiveness or atonement or redemption, but literally [as portrayed in the OT] covered head to foot, back to side as God's Lamb for us; for our sin He was covered in His own blood; those who would become members of His body.

"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2Cor 5:21)

 

[Deborah13]

He was covered in His own blood, not for His cleansing or forgiveness or atonement or redemption, but literally [as portrayed in the OT] covered head to foot, back to side as God's Lamb for us; for our sin He was covered in His own blood; those who would become members of His body.

"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2Cor 5:21)

Thanks Greg, now I think I understand what you are saying.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

 

[Just a servant]

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?

What did God accomplish in and through Jesus blood?

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?

Because a perfectly faithful friend had been hurt, a perfectly faithful friend had to reconcile this wrong. Since no human is perfectly faithful, God sent Himself as Jesus His Son.

We are all deserving of death, and our death does not pay for our sins. It does not reconcile us. We are just getting what we deserve. He didn't deserve to die and came here to take our place on the Cross. When we pick up our Cross and follow Him, we are receiving a free gift and we are not actually making a sacrifice (as some people seem to believe). We are allowed to rise in Him as a result of His goodness and grace, and not by anything we do. In fact, if not for His saving grace, we wouldn't even be able to trust His Blood.

The Blood of Christ is something we put trust in, and when we put trust in His Blood we are covered by it (which is His ultimate grace, saving grace). Anyone who does not trust in His Blood is not covered by it. Anyone who thinks they are justified through anything they do, such as good works or repentance, and not by the Blood of Christ, is not covered by it. Saying sorry for doing something wrong is just what we are supposed to do. If you hurt your friend, you say sorry.

All people are bad. All credit is God's.

 

[Gregg]

. . . we wouldn't even be able to trust His Blood.

The Blood of Christ is something we put trust in, and when we put trust in His Blood we are covered by it . . .

Do we put trust in the blood of Christ, or does a man believe in Jesus the Son of God who shed His blood? If you are looking to Rom 3:25 please parse the Gk. text of that verse here along with an exegesis.

By_Grace [By Grace] , would you parse Rom 3:25 for us and post it here?

 

[for_his_glory]

It was the atoning blood of Christ that through OT prophecy fulfilled the sacrifical law that even the Gentile may be grafted into the body of Christ. Christ being that of Gods very Spirit that was prepared for us even before the foundation of the world. In Gods timing his word made flesh came to earth as the final blood sacrifice for what the law could not do as being a curse, the blood of Christ fulfilled that of what the law could not do.

 

[Drew]

What did God accomplish in and through Jesus blood?

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?

I politely suggest that your second sentence suggests that you are perhaps assuming that the important aspect of Jesus' death was the shedding of His Blood, and our need to somehow be "covered" with that blood. First of all, I think I understand why you think this - we have (I believe) Paul using such an image and we also have the Old Testament model of animal sacrifice involving the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. So I am not necessarily taking issue with this idea.

Let me tell me you my present take on the nature of the atonement:

1. I do not accept the widely held concept that Jesus was punished in our place - it seems incoherent and "dishonest" to me to have God punishing Himself for the sins of humanity. And I think this idea that God needs to punish someone is at odds with Jesus' admonition to forgive sins; in other words, if God expects us to simply forgive sin (i.e. without demanding that someone "pay"), then why would God not hold Himself to such a high standard as well?; The standard model cast God in too much of a vengeful mode for my liking.

2. I think a better metaphor for thinking about the atonement is to think of sin as a destructive virus that has infected humanity and that Jesus draws this virus into Himself. When Jesus then dies on the cross, the virus dies with him (in the same way the virus particles will soon die in the body of a host that has died). So by Jesus's stripes we are indeed healed. Note the difference between this metaphor and the widely accepted metaphor of the lawcourt where Jesus "takes our punishment". Again, this idea that God needs to inflict violent death to satisfy a need for justice strikes me as the behaviour of a petulant, immature "god".

3. I also believe that Jesus' death on the cross effected a damaging blow against Satan (or "the power of evil", if you would rather). Paul certainly writes about sin as if it were a malevolent force that works in the world and he argues that it was dealt a damaging blow on the cross. On this view, which I think can be integrated with what I have written in point 2, sin is "lured" into attacking Jesus on the cross. But then it is localized in one place and is therefore vulnerable - God then "blasts" sin and Jesus dies as "collateral" damage. So the real target is "sin", not Jesus, even though Jesus has to die in the process. I got this idea from theologian NT Wright. Note that Romans 8:3 clearly states that it was sin (and therefore not Jesus) that was "condemned" on the cross.

I realize what I have written requires much more explanation, but I want to keep this post reasonably short.

 

[Gregg]

.

I politely suggest that your second sentence suggests that you are perhaps assuming that the important aspect of Jesus' death was the shedding of His Blood, and our need to somehow be "covered" with that blood. First of all, I think I understand why you think this - we have (I believe) Paul using such an image and we also have the Old Testament model of animal sacrifice involving the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. So I am not necessarily taking issue with this idea.

Let me tell me you my present take on the nature of the atonement:

1. I do not accept the widely held concept that Jesus was punished in our place - it seems incoherent and "dishonest" to me to have God punishing Himself for the sins of humanity. And I think this idea that God needs to punish someone is at odds with Jesus' admonition to forgive sins; in other words, if God expects us to simply forgive sin (i.e. without demanding that someone "pay"), then why would God not hold Himself to such a high standard as well?; The standard model cast God in too much of a vengeful mode for my liking.

2. I think a better metaphor for thinking about the atonement is to think of sin as a destructive virus that has infected humanity and that Jesus draws this virus into Himself. When Jesus then dies on the cross, the virus dies with him (in the same way the virus particles will soon die in the body of a host that has died). So by Jesus's stripes we are indeed healed. Note the difference between this metaphor and the widely accepted metaphor of the lawcourt where Jesus "takes our punishment". Again, this idea that God needs to inflict violent death to satisfy a need for justice strikes me as the behaviour of a petulant, immature "god".

3. I also believe that Jesus' death on the cross effected a damaging blow against Satan (or "the power of evil", if you would rather). Paul certainly writes about sin as if it were a malevolent force that works in the world and he argues that it was dealt a damaging blow on the cross. On this view, which I think can be integrated with what I have written in point 2, sin is "lured" into attacking Jesus on the cross. But then it is localized in one place and is therefore vulnerable - God then "blasts" sin and Jesus dies as "collateral" damage. So the real target is "sin", not Jesus, even though Jesus has to die in the process. I got this idea from theologian NT Wright. Note that Romans 8:3 clearly states that it was sin (and therefore not Jesus) that was "condemned" on the cross.

I realize what I have written requires much more explanation, but I want to keep this post reasonably short.

Jesus is our High Priest who propitiates, who offered Himself as the propitiatory sacrifice. Death passed over Christ and those in Him, in whom we have standing with the Father.

 

[LovethroughDove]

His DNA (blood) is human and divine at the same-time. Matthew 27:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

His sacrifice tore the veil between heaven and earth. Allowing believers to be covered with his righteousness.

 

[Drew]

.

Jesus is our High Priest who propitiates, who offered Himself as the propitiatory sacrifice. Death passed over Christ and those in Him, in whom we have standing with the Father.

Can you make a Biblical case that Jesus is specifically propitiatory (satisfying a need for justice), rather than expiatory (wiping away impurity)?

 

[Gregg]

Can you make a Biblical case that Jesus is specifically propitiatory (satisfying a need for justice), rather than expiatory (wiping away impurity)?

His sacrifice and offering accomplished both for believers - both propitiation and expiation.

 

[WIP]

His sacrifice and offering accomplished both for believers - both propitiation and expiation.

Okay, but the question was to provide Biblical support for your answer. Can you provide this?

 

[Deborah13]

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.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin: and if any one may sin, an advocate we have with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one,
1Jn 2:2 and he--he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

[TimothyW]

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?

What did God accomplish in and through Jesus blood?

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?

Jesus is the perfect mediator between God and man. He is both fully God and fully man, so He is uniquely qualified to intermediate between God and man.

 

[Gregg]

Can you make a Biblical case that Jesus is specifically propitiatory (satisfying a need for justice), rather than expiatory (wiping away impurity)?

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