Blood is definitely used for cleansing. The “seal” we have is the Holy Spirit, but I do not see “blood” being a seal? Circumcision is a seal, but not the “blood” of circumcision?
You can't have circumcision without blood.
Blood is definitely used for cleansing. The “seal” we have is the Holy Spirit, but I do not see “blood” being a seal?
The Spirit is our guarantee. WE are sealed by the Spirit:
Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were
sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are
sealed unto the day of redemption.
Adam and Eve’s sin gave us lots of curses which really turned out to helping us fulfill our earthly objective and we gained knowledge, but is knowledge bad in and of itself?
It is not all kinds of knowledge... It was explicitly the "knowledge of good and evil." I ask myself the same question you asked ... how is that bad - especially as it was/is a quality that God Himself had? (Genesis 3:22). When Solomon asked for "a discerning heart to govern your people and
to distinguish between right and wrong" God was pleased. And many passages in the NT urge believers to become discerning So there must have been another element in Adam and Eve's situation that lay behind the prohibition to eat the fruit of that tree. Some have suggested it was a matter of time and maturity. Who knows for sure? Their sin was not in wanting the knowledge of good and evil, but rather in doubting God's intentions and disobeying his command, ignoring his warning, and submitting to a serpent - as it appeared to them - over which they had been given dominion. In the context of two trees, one explicitly called the Tree of Life, and the other whose fruit was death, they chose the tree whose fruit was death, against the warning, advice, and command of God.
Another way of looking at it is that an "immature" knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, leads to absolutist decisions of what it "right" and what is "wrong" - i.e. the LAW. The correct understanding and application of the (spirit of the) law is good, but the literal imposition of the letter of the law leads to death (see Romans).
Blood is definitely used for cleansing.
Yes, but note what Hebrews 9: 18-20 says: "This is why even
the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and
sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, ‘
This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.' " This blood is not the same blood used in various other sacrifices for sins, for guilt, etc etc. It is blood sprinkled on the document itself, like the "insignia" or the "seal" of an authority.
And in Hebrews 10:29 "How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing
the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? " In Jesus case, his blood is both
the blood of the covenant, and equivalent to
all the other blood sacrifices in the Old Covenant that were intended to appease and cleanse (even to give thanks!).
It is in this sense that the covenant, as a covenant, requires blood to be spillt to come into effect. Instead of being a written contract that is "signed and sealed" (I.e. stamped with a Seal that confirms the authority and right of the signer to sign) by the very blood (life) of Christ, to whom the Father had given all authority in heaven and on earth and under the earth. It wasn't a fake signature - it was "signed and sealed" in blood that bears the "DNA" of the Son of God.
