Too much focus on the blood?

[Jair Crawford]

I have been thinking a lot lately. My faith has been on quite the rollercoaster ride the past seven months or so but, I feel like God is teaching me through all of this.

Ok so to cut right to the chase... what is the significance, specifically to US right now, of the blood of Christ? I am wondering, do we put too much emphasis on the blood in Salvation?

Now before anyone freaks out too much, let me explain a bit here what's going through my wild head... It is clear to me that Salvation is only achieved through the acceptance of Christ which includes accepting His death and resurrection. He died so that we might live. That's not the question.

The question is, is it literally the blood? Or is the blood simply a fulfillment of prophecy?

You might ask why I'm wondering so much about this? Well, a lot of people put a LOT of emphasis on the atoning power of the blood. But, that is a very Jewish concept. In fact the whole idea of God requiring blood sacrifice is very Jewish, and actually goes back even further in all cultures to very primitive practices.

I feel like I have always seen what Jesus did at Calvary to exceedingly transcend any such primitivism, which is why I always had a hard time interpreting the Old Testament sacrifices as literal requirements from God. But I KNOW that without Jesus death and resurrection, I could not have life.

So the question then really is, is the blood literally still significant for us? Or should we be more focused simply His death, and subsequent descent and removing the keys from Satan, and then return through His resurrection? And in that death and victory we too have victory over sin?

Am I making sense? I feel like I am rambling a bit. lol

 

[gomerian]

wow
I've been thinking along the same lines. I had almost stopped believing that Jesus came to die, as a reaction to the vats of blood thrown up by televangelists et al. Thanks for this thread.

 

[Southernscotty]

I would say it is equil, The Blood that is applied is from our loving Saviour and is proportionate to every aspect of salvation. Why the need to separate it if I may ask?

 

[JustRachel]

The blood that was shed in the Jewish sacrifices was representative of the blood shed by our ultimate sacrifice...Jesus. The Old Testament always pointed to Him.

 

[Jair Crawford]

I would say it is equil, The Blood that is applied is from our loving Saviour and is proportionate to every aspect of salvation. Why the need to separate it if I may ask?

To be quite frank, and this is honestly what I'm wrestling with trying to understand here:

That would make His death a human sacrifice.

Again, I've always believed that what happened at Calvary unfathomably exceedingly transcended anything that primitive. And I also believe that God NEVER requires human sacrifice. That is even biblical right there.

That is the need for separation.

Perhaps instead of insisting that Jesus died providing a blood sacrifice in order to "appease" the Father, we need to focus on the fact that it was God Himself who gave Himself up for our sakes?

 

[Southernscotty]

To be quite frank, and this is honestly what I'm wrestling with trying to understand here:

That would make His death a human sacrifice.

Again, I've always believed that what happened at Calvary unfathomably exceedingly transcended anything that primitive. And I also believe that God NEVER requires human sacrifice. That is even biblical right there.

That is the need for separation.

Perhaps instead of insisting that Jesus died providing a blood sacrifice in order to "appease" the Father, we need to focus on the fact that it was God Himself who gave Himself up for our sakes?

Jesus was fully human when the Holy Spirit left Him. That was when the sins of the whole world was laid upon Him. This is why He cried out My God, Why have you forsaken me?

 

[gomerian]

Or should we be more focused simply His death, and subsequent descent and removing the keys from Satan, and then return through His resurrection?

Matthew 24:14 "And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
Matthew 28:19-20 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world."

Jesus, today:

Revelation 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes [were] as a flame of fire; 15 And His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And He had in His right hand seven stars: and out of His mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength.

 

[Southernscotty]

To be quite frank, and this is honestly what I'm wrestling with trying to understand here:

That would make His death a human sacrifice.

Again, I've always believed that what happened at Calvary unfathomably exceedingly transcended anything that primitive. And I also believe that God NEVER requires human sacrifice. That is even biblical right there.

That is the need for separation.

Perhaps instead of insisting that Jesus died providing a blood sacrifice in order to "appease" the Father, we need to focus on the fact that it was God Himself who gave Himself up for our sakes?

God provided the perfect sacrifice that, We could never achieve on our own. He became man and was perfect... The only perfect one :]

 

[Jair Crawford]

Yes that I do understand.

I guess I'm just unsettled by what I've learned of the primitive practices of many ancient cultures and their tendency to perform human sacrifices in order to appease their bloodthirsty gods.

And I've always seen Jesus and the Father and Holy Spirit as the true God who is diametrically opposed to such disturbing practices.

Yet sometimes the way it is described feels too close to that other stuff. Hence my question.

 

[Southernscotty]

Yes that I do understand.

I guess I'm just unsettled by what I've learned of the primitive practices of many ancient cultures and their tendency to perform human sacrifices in order to appease their bloodthirsty gods.

And I've always seen Jesus and the Father and Holy Spirit as the true God who is diametrically opposed to such disturbing practices.

Yet sometimes the way it is described feels too close to that other stuff. Hence my question.

I see, God never wanted sacrifice in the first place but since sin came through Adam and Eve, Sin brought death and things became nasty. God foresaw that we could never save our worthless selves so He became a man to finish it. To stop the sacrifices and so we could have fellowship with Him :] I hope I have explained it well enough. lol I aint real smart.

 

[Jair Crawford]

Also, this is a hot topic among learned skeptics so it is a valuable discussion to be had for apologetics purposes too, imho.

 

[joshua 1 9]

what is the significance, specifically to US right now, of the blood of Christ?

We need to study the Blood Atonement: "it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Hebrews 9:22 "almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Lev17:11 "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life".

 

[JustRachel]

Also, Jesus himself told us to remember His body and His blood... His sacrifice. This is why we have the Lord's Supper.

 

[Jair Crawford]

We need to study the Blood Atonement: "it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Hebrews 9:22 "almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Lev17:11 "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life".

That bit from Leviticus was for the Jews. And that is why I wonder if the connection is symbolic and prophetic? A sign for the Jews to understand who He was?

The shedding of blood can simply mean death. Without death there is no remission of sins. Obviously so since the wages of sin is death.

And I am not denying that there was blood. Of course there was. There was blood and He literally died and He literally rose again and had literal scars.

But are we literally saved by the literal blood?

 

[mkgal1]

Perhaps instead of insisting that Jesus died providing a blood sacrifice in order to "appease" the Father, we need to focus on the fact that it was God Himself who gave Himself up for our sakes?

I agree. I gave up that belief framework a while ago. Instead....I believe that God's death on the cross was about demonstrating His love for us (like it's written in Romans 5:8).

I think the whole "shedding of blood" was more about bridging a gap between what we (humans) believe is justice (in our egocentric nature)...and God's perfect justice (a sort of justice that reforms and brings about maturity in us). Whenever most people experience betrayals or crimes against them...how do they respond? Normally they want the person that crossed them to "pay"....right? I agree with Fr Richard Rohr (and the Franciscans) on this:

Jesus came to radically undo this illusory scapegoat mechanism, which is found in every culture in some form. He became the scapegoat to reveal the universal lie of scapegoating. Note that John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin [singular] of the world” (John 1:29). It seems “the sin of the world” is ignorant killing, hatred, and fear. As Blaise Pascal so insightfully wrote, “People never do evil so completely and so cheerfully as when they do it with a religious conviction.” [2]. ~https://cac.org/jesus-reveals-lie-scapegoating-2016-10-13/

Something interesting I discovered very recently, is that it seems that there was a sort of parallel running throughout history between the "Priesthood of Melchizedek" and the Priesthood of Levites (that began after the Israelites worshiped the golden calf--as I understand it). Melchizedek's offering was bread and wine.....not animal sacrifices. It also seems that God was sovereign to put a final halt on animal sacrifices in 70 AD.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I have been thinking a lot lately. My faith has been on quite the rollercoaster ride the past seven months or so but, I feel like God is teaching me through all of this.

Ok so to cut right to the chase... what is the significance, specifically to US right now, of the blood of Christ? I am wondering, do we put too much emphasis on the blood in Salvation?

Now before anyone freaks out too much, let me explain a bit here what's going through my wild head... It is clear to me that Salvation is only achieved through the acceptance of Christ which includes accepting His death and resurrection. He died so that we might live. That's not the question.

The question is, is it literally the blood? Or is the blood simply a fulfillment of prophecy?

You might ask why I'm wondering so much about this? Well, a lot of people put a LOT of emphasis on the atoning power of the blood. But, that is a very Jewish concept. In fact the whole idea of God requiring blood sacrifice is very Jewish, and actually goes back even further in all cultures to very primitive practices.

I feel like I have always seen what Jesus did at Calvary to exceedingly transcend any such primitivism, which is why I always had a hard time interpreting the Old Testament sacrifices as literal requirements from God. But I KNOW that without Jesus death and resurrection, I could not have life.

So the question then really is, is the blood literally still significant for us? Or should we be more focused simply His death, and subsequent descent and removing the keys from Satan, and then return through His resurrection? And in that death and victory we too have victory over sin?

Am I making sense? I feel like I am rambling a bit. lol

It isn't any less important now than it ever was. It is just not important to you.

Acts 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

 

[~Anastasia~]

To put a complete emphasis only on "blood and atonement" IS limiting what Christ did.

The early Christians focused heavily on the fact that Christ (as immortal God) dying - actually defeated/destroyed death, broke the curse we have been under since the fall, and made the way for bodily resurrection and immortality in that body possible for mankind. Death is the enemy, and that we have been rescued from.

Christ's death accomplished many things in fact. But the breaking of the curse from the fall was paramount for the Apostles and those they taught and so on.

 

[mkgal1]

Jair.....I'm not sure if this article will help you in your search, but I appreciated it and wanted to share:

Franciscans never believed that “blood atonement” was required for God to love us. Our teacher, John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), said Christ was Plan A from the very beginning (Colossians 1:15-20, Ephesians 1:3-14). Christ wasn’t a mere Plan B after the first humans sinned, which is the way most people seem to understand the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Great Mystery of Incarnation could not be a mere mop-up exercise, a problem solving technique, or dependent on human beings messing up.

Scotus taught that the Enfleshment of God had to proceed from God’s perfect love and God’s perfect and absolute freedom (John 1:1-18), rather than from any mistake of ours.~https://cac.org/incarnation-instead-of-atonement-2016-02-12/

The Internet Guide to Bl. John Duns Scotus

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I have been thinking a lot lately. My faith has been on quite the rollercoaster ride the past seven months or so but, I feel like God is teaching me through all of this.

Ok so to cut right to the chase... what is the significance, specifically to US right now, of the blood of Christ? I am wondering, do we put too much emphasis on the blood in Salvation?

Now before anyone freaks out too much, let me explain a bit here what's going through my wild head... It is clear to me that Salvation is only achieved through the acceptance of Christ which includes accepting His death and resurrection. He died so that we might live. That's not the question.

The question is, is it literally the blood? Or is the blood simply a fulfillment of prophecy?

You might ask why I'm wondering so much about this? Well, a lot of people put a LOT of emphasis on the atoning power of the blood. But, that is a very Jewish concept. In fact the whole idea of God requiring blood sacrifice is very Jewish, and actually goes back even further in all cultures to very primitive practices.

I feel like I have always seen what Jesus did at Calvary to exceedingly transcend any such primitivism, which is why I always had a hard time interpreting the Old Testament sacrifices as literal requirements from God. But I KNOW that without Jesus death and resurrection, I could not have life.

So the question then really is, is the blood literally still significant for us? Or should we be more focused simply His death, and subsequent descent and removing the keys from Satan, and then return through His resurrection? And in that death and victory we too have victory over sin?

Am I making sense? I feel like I am rambling a bit. lol

Our Father in Heaven made the first blood sacrifice after Adam sinned.
Gen. 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Our Father also honored the blood sacrifice of Abel.
Gen. 4: 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Also Noah made blood sacrifice unto God after the flood.
Gen 8:
20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

All of these were done before there were Jews. So the idea for blood sacrifice came directly from our Father and is not pagan as some would think. But the Bible teaches us that Lord Jesus(as the lamb of God) was slain before the foundation of the world.
Rev. 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.

So while the blood of bulls and goats was only able to temporarily cover the sin nature of mankind, and the ritual given only to the Jews, the blood of Lord Jesus removes/takes away the sin nature of all mankind that believes. I hope this helps.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't know. That seems to be adding a lot to what's in the text (which is, as you posted, “God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.”). We don't know what kind of skin it was. I've read that some believe it was that Adam & Eve didn't have skin as we do prior to them eating the fruit (that maybe they were "clothed in light" like God). Another thought from The Jewish Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says that the Lord made garments for Adam and Eve from the skin which the serpent in the garden had cast off.

All it says is that God gave them skin to wear. The rest is just speculation.