THE BLOOD OF JESUS
The churches of Christ Greet You (Romans
The inspired writer of Hebrews affirmed that
“apart from the
shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (
There is a human condition known as “sin” (cf. vv.
26, 28).
That condition requires “forgiveness.”
There is a divine plan by which that forgiveness
is
obtained.
Somehow, that plan involves the shedding of blood.
From the book of Genesis, to the concluding narrative of Revelation, the Bible is a story of blood. The spiritual rebel finds this concept detestable. A religious modernist has written:
“From the earliest records of primitive sacrifice man has been obsessed by the efficacy of innocent blood to save from disaster. Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have perpetuated this primitive tradition in all their ritual, in their hymns and sacred books. Realistically, shed blood is horrible beyond words; imaginatively, it has been used as a symbol of the omnipresence of sacrifice in human life. The scene when the priest carries the struggling little animal in his arms, takes it to the edge of the altar, or rock, or lintel, and draws a knife across its throat, letting the jet of blood spurt from its throat and fall on the stains made by blood shed before . . . [represents] a subconscious delight in gore. . . [and in this] there is also an ancient superstition that there is some magic efficacy in the murder of the innocent” (Park, pp. 917-918).
It requires little perception to determine that the preceding quotation is thoroughly infidelic in tone, with no semblance of respect for the sacred Scriptures.
Old Testament Previews
Beginning in Genesis there is the record of Abel’s
sacrifice
of the “firstlings of his flock,” concerning which God “had respect”
(Genesis
4:4), because the sacrifices were made “by faith” (Hebrews 11:4), i.e.,
according to divine directives (cf. Romans
The Passover animal, with its shed blood, was the
divine
remedy for saving the lives of every firstborn of the families of
As the Old Testament documents were compiled
across the
centuries, there were increased references to the coming of the Messiah
who
would shed his blood for the sins of humanity. Isaiah, for instance,
spoke of
him who would be “led to the slaughter” as a lamb (53:7). He also
indicated
that Jehovah’s suffering servant would “pour out his soul unto death”
(53:7, 12).
“Soul” frequently denotes “life,” of which blood is the depository
(Leviticus
Zechariah foretold of a time when a “fountain” would be opened for “sin and uncleanness” (13:1). In the same context the edict is issued: “Awake, O sword against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow. . . ” (v. 7).
The Testimony of John and Jesus
The theme continued as Jesus embarked upon his
public
ministry. John the Baptizer introduced the Lord as the “Lamb of God
that takes
away the sin of the world” (John
Christ carefully tutored his disciples about his impending death, though they scarcely could fathom the idea (cf. Matthew 16:21ff). On the evening of the last supper with the twelve, Jesus, in connection with the institution of the communion meal, said: “. . . this is [i.e., it symbolizes] my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).
New Testament Writers
It is hardly necessary to pile up evidence establishing the fact that the writers of the New Testament affirmed a connection between human redemption and the shedding of Jesus’ blood. The theme is everywhere – either explicitly declared or implied.
The blood of Christ was the purchase price for
man’s
salvation (Acts
But Why?
This question must challenge every sincere student of Scripture. But why did Christ have to die in order that the sin problem might be remedied? Was there no other way?
Surely it must not be concluded that the heavenly Father arbitrarily chose the path of a blood-letting suffering for his beloved Son, if another solution was available. Here are the facts of the case.
Human rebellion against the will of God
constitutes sin (1
John 3:4). Because Jehovah is a perfectly holy being (Isaiah 6:3;
Revelation
4:8), He cannot ignore man’s wickedness (Habakkuk
“. . . justified freely by [divine] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:24-26).
But why the shedding of blood? One recalls
that an
inspired writer declares that “apart from the shedding of blood there
is no
remission [of sins]” (Hebrews
From the heavenly vantage point, human life is
resident in a
person’s blood (see Leviticus
The New Testament concludes with a significant
emphasis on
the “lamb” that was slain. The Greek term arnion (lamb) is
found 29
times in the New Testament; 28 of these are in Revelation. It will be
by virtue
of the lamb’s blood that we will be viewed as victorious ultimately (
Accessing the Blood
Once the premise is accepted that the shedding of
Christ’s
blood was necessary for man’s reconciliation with God, the question
becomes: How
is that hope realized?
It is commonly asserted that the Lord’s cleansing blood is accessed at the point of faith, and most particularly is it insisted that baptism has nothing to do with acquisition of pardon. The following points will highlight the fallacy of this dogma:
Jesus affirmed that “forgiveness of sin” is
connected with
the pouring forth of his blood (Matthew 26:28); it is also a fact,
however,
that baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins” to the penitent believer
(Acts
In the book of Revelation, those who had triumphed
over
tribulation had “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of
the
lamb” (Revelation
The sinner’s conscience is “cleansed’ by the blood
of Christ
(Hebrews
In giving consideration to the blood of God’s Son, other matters should be weighed carefully as well.
The Blood of Jesus and the New
Covenant
In the flickering light of that ever-so-dark night, Jesus instituted his memorial supper. In connection therewith, he said: “. . . this is my blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:28).
The Mosaic covenant had its blood, but as
mentioned earlier,
it was not efficacious to pay the ultimate price for sin (Hebrews
In view of this, how incredible it is that so many, who profess identification with Christ, would seek to justify their practices by an appeal to the covenant that had nothing but animal blood. The Romanist seeks justification for his clerical priesthood, the Adventist validates his “sabbath-keeping,” the denominationalist finds his mechanical instruments of praise, etc. What an insult this is to the blood of the new covenant.
Christ’s Blood and the Church
As noted earlier, Paul contended that Christ
“purchased” the
church “with his own blood” (Acts
In view of this reality, how can it possibly be
claimed that
the church was but an “afterthought” in the divine scheme of things –
as some
millennialists allege? How can it be alleged that, while “the church”
may serve
a helpful function in God’s order, nonetheless, it is not absolutely
necessary
that one be “in the church” in order to be saved? Are men utterly
oblivious to
the fact that Jesus is said to be the “savior of the body,”
(Ephesians
Christ’s Blood in Worship
Just prior to his death, Christ, in anticipation
of the
establishment of his church, instituted the Lord’s supper (see Matthew
26:26-29, etc.). The communion consisted of two elements – eating
bread, which
symbolized Jesus’ body, and drinking the “fruit of the vine,” which was
representative of the Savior’s blood. It was a solemn ceremony during
which the
participants reflected, with the deepest discernment, the significance
of the
Lord’s death (1 Corinthians
In his analysis of the mood that the church must have as it engages in the sacred communion, the apostle warns that those who trivialize the communion elements, going through the motions of eating bread and drinking the cup “in an unworthy manner,” become “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).
In view of that stinging admonition, is it not appropriate to ask: What is to be said of those who neglect the Lord’s day communion altogether – and that for the most mundane of reasons, e.g., family outings, sports events, etc.? What sort of culpability relative to the Savior’s body and blood does one of this disposition sustain? The answer is too frightening to contemplate.
Christ’s Blood and Apostasy
There may be no passage in the New Testament quite as terrifying as the warning of Hebrews 10:26-29.
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire that shall devour the adversaries. A man who set aside Moses’ law died without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, do you suppose, shall he be judged worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant whereby he was sanctified as an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
Some Hebrew Christians were on the brink of apostasy. They were under the delusionary influence of certain Jews who sought to convince them that Jesus of Nazareth was not the true Messiah; rather, they were to wait for the genuine article, who would come eventually.
It is out of this background that the inspired warning takes its rise. Those who were tempted to “sin wilfully,” i.e., revert to a life of flagrant, unrestrained wickedness (so the force of the present participle), in the expectation of a different Savior, were to be sorely disappointed. Moreover, there were grievous consequences associated with such a course of action – not the least of which was that the defectors would be counting “the blood of the covenant whereby [they] were sanctified [as] an unholy thing.”
The Greek term rendered “unholy” is koinos,
which, in
this context, most probably means that which is “of little value,
because of
being common. . . ordinary, profane” (Danker, p. 552). The word is
rendered
“defiled” (Mark 7:2), “common” (Acts
This attitude reflects a repudiation of the validity of Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for sin, and throws back in his face every blessing flowing from his loving heart. It is difficult to imagine the hardness that is harbored in the soul of one who is so incredibly insensitive to divine love. Count the number of people you have known who have turned their backs on Christ and pitched their tents back into the squalor of the world.
Conclusion
It is not difficult to see how vital it is to
understand the
role of Jesus’ blood in God’s redemptive plan. Let us appreciate that,
and do
nothing to nullify, or detract from this gospel truth. May we live and
teach so
as to honor the death of Christ.