Shedding of Blood for Atonement: A Christian Misunderstanding

[james1523]

In Christianity it is commonly believed that a blood sacrifice is always required to atone for sins based on this verse:
Lev 17:11 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.


It is commonly believed that all God has to do to forgive someone, is kill someone perfect (i.e. His Son Jesus) on a cross, see some blood being shed, and then God would be happy with that. But it is not quite that simplistic nor is God some kind of blood-lusting monster (this view of God, is closer to that of the pagan nations of old who and their pagan gods delighted in violence and bloody sacrifices "just because").


An implication is also that Jews, being unable to offer sacrifices in their Temple (due to its destruction by the Romans), are unable to obtain forgiveness. However this is simply not true. The context of Lev 17:11 is dietary laws - blood is not to be eaten because it is one way that atonement is made. This verse does not say that shedding blood is the only way to be forgiven.


God provided other (and more important) ways for a person to obtain forgiveness, the most obvious being repentance (with or without fasting and making amends). Before we go any further, the Biblical evidence is plain-
-Jesus forgave people before He died on the cross without shedding His blood or them offering any sacrifice (Luke 7:48, 23:43).
-God forgave a whole city because of their repentance without shedding blood (Jonah 3).

So we can see that a view that says God "always and only requires" shedding of blood in order to forgive sins, is false.


In general, modern day evangelical Christianity in its narrow focus on a select few verses in the gospels and "quick fix, fast convert" evangelical efforts, has failed to understand the significance of sacrifices and Christ's death on the cross. A focus too much on bloody sacrifices can, in some circumstances, portray the Christian (and Jewish) God as a blood lusting God of violence, which is far from the truth that God is a God of love. A rational and moral non-Christian may be stumbled by a gospel message which says that they can only be forgiven if they believe in blood sacrifice - rather than the truth, which is that they can only be forgiven if they repent and believe in Christ. In other words, a persons forgiveness does not rest upon whether or not they believe in the atoning aspects of blood sacrifices, it depends upon their own repentance before God, and belief in the crucified Christ as their substitute and their offering to bring them close to God. This is not to say that the blood has nothing to do with atonement, as it clearly does (Col 1:20), but the emphasis, should not be upon whether or not they believe in blood sacrifices, but whether or not they realize and repent of their sins, and the purpose of the shed blood, was not so much because God likes seeing blood, but because the blood signifies the death of a perfect substitute and that mankind (perhaps unknowingly) gave something of value up to God, in order for mankind's relationship with God to be restored. It is not at all, that God somehow is pleased with blood and death, as Scripture is clear that He does not (Ezekial 18:23, 1 Sam 15:22).

It's not all about atonement for sins - the purpose of sacrifices in the Temple (and sacrifices in general) was not just to obtain forgiveness of sins. Its purpose was to draw near to God, to love and worship God, to take something of value to us (such as a prized lamb or the best produce of the land), to renounce ownership of it, and offer it to God. Then there was the aspect of substitution- the thing being offered was a substitute for the person, and in a sense the things done to the offering was the "punishment" that should have been done to the person. Such an act was to please God, and to bring the offerer closer to God. So we can see that the sacrifices (including the sacrifice of Christ) was not simply to satisfy God's blood-lust.

In reality, the substitionary sacrifices that could be offered in the Temple only by priests had limited atoning value - they only atoned for unintentional sins, and could not atone for deliberate sins. Additionally, the temple sacrifices without genuine repentance and making amends was ineffectual. The Bible says in 1 Sam 15:22 that obedience is better than
sacrifice.


With this in mind, Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was not only to obtain forgiveness of sins through the shedding of blood. His sacrifice was to bring humanity closer to God. In a sense, His sacrifice was fallen humanity offering to God the best thing that humanity could offer - a perfect and sinless man. In a bitter-sweet moment, even though Christ's crucifiers and betrayers did not know it - Christs sacrifice on the cross was an act of worship to God that pleased Him greatly.

It is not necessary for us to make a blood sacrifice neither is it necessary for God to crucify His Son all over again just so that He can forgive us. Some people may believe that they must "sacrifice Christ" by taking mass in order to be forgiven. If we have sinned, it is not necessary to take mass, quote, plead, or remind God of the blood of Christ for
forgiveness of our sins - we only need to repent and confess our sins (1 John 1:9) and obey Him - this is what pleases Him the most. Neither does a simple acceptance of Christ's shed blood on the cross secure our forgiveness - we must display the genuine repentance and restitution to match (1 Sam 15:22).

Over the history of Israel there have been a number of "sacrifice cults" or movements who place too much emphasis on the sacrifices, to the detriment of obedience and repentance (1 Sam 15:22), who have probably been inspired by gentile pagan worship which relies heavily upon sacrifice. Similarly there must be sacrifice cults or sects in Christianity (one of which, being the Roman Catholic church, believes taking communion effectuates forgiveness of sins). However a mere taking of communion, without genuine repentance, cannot secure forgiveness. Could it be, that the misunderstanding regarding the importance of blood for forgiveness in Catholic-descended Protestant denominations, has arisen from the Catholic mis-application of the mass? and that the Catholic overemphasis on blood and sacrifice (via the mass) has arisen from the influence of the Norse/Germanic pagan religions? (as also per Christmas, Easter, and the like).

 

[B-A-C]

An implication is also that Jews, being unable to offer sacrifices in their Temple (due to its destruction by the Romans), are unable to obtain forgiveness. However this is simply not true. The context of Lev 17:11 is dietary laws - blood is not to be eaten because it is one way that atonement is made. This verse does not say that shedding blood is the only way to be forgiven.

So we can see that a view that says God "always and only requires" shedding of blood in order to forgive sins, is false.

Rom 6:23; For the cost of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Heb 9:22; And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Heb 9:28; so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Rev 5:12; saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."
John 1:29; The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John the baptist (as well as Jesus) knew Jesus's destiny. Jesus knew his destiny before his "trial" (or mockery of a trial). In fact the night before He prayed that
this cup might be removed from Him. He told the disciples earlier that he would be handed over to the Gentiles and put to death.
Jesus forgave sins on a grace/credit before his death. He still does after His death.

 

[james1523]

Rom 6:23; For the cost of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Heb 9:22; And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Heb 9:28; so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Rev 5:12; saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."
John 1:29; The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John the baptist (as well as Jesus) knew Jesus's destiny. Jesus knew his destiny before his "trial" (or mockery of a trial). In fact the night before He prayed that
this cup might be removed from Him. He told the disciples earlier that he would be handed over to the Gentiles and put to death.
Jesus forgave sins on a grace/credit before his death. He still does after His death.

A keyword in Heb 9:22 is the word "almost", which I see the meaning of has been butchered to mean "always" by an appropriately placed comma "," in whatever Bible version you are using. The other ways that God cleanses is by water and by fire. Lev 5:11-13 is clear that there are other ways for atonement other than by shedding of blood, however God decreed that His Son's death on the cross would be the means by which mankind obtain forgiveness. However without faith and repentance, Christ's death on the cross is ineffectual.

 

[Travis]

A keyword in Heb 9:22 is the word "almost", which I see the meaning of has been butchered to mean "always" by an appropriately placed comma "," in whatever Bible version you are using. The other ways that God cleanses is by water and by fire. Lev 5:11-13 is clear that there are other ways for atonement other than by shedding of blood, however God decreed that His Son's death on the cross would be the means by which mankind obtain forgiveness. However without faith and repentance, Christ's death on the cross is ineffectual.

Hey James,

I like youngs literal translation once in a while, when things get nit picky especially:

Hebrews 9:22
and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come.​

The first part of the verse definitely means "almost." Which just bears witness to the fact that there is a strong correlation between blood and purification. But the second part of the verse is absolute. Without blood-shedding, there is no forgiveness. I take that to mean that without Christ's shed blood, there is no basis for forgiveness, ever. Not a single instance. And, purification only comes about as a result of forgiveness.

That's what I think anyway,

Travis

 

[james1523]

Hey James,

I like youngs literal translation once in a while, when things get nit picky especially:

Hebrews 9:22
and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come.​

The first part of the verse definitely means "almost." Which just bears witness to the fact that there is a strong correlation between blood and purification. But the second part of the verse is absolute. Without blood-shedding, there is no forgiveness. I take that to mean that without Christ's shed blood, there is no basis for forgiveness, ever. Not a single instance. And, purification only comes about as a result of forgiveness.

That's what I think anyway,

Travis

Thank you for sharing Travis, Christ's shed blood is certainly now the only basis for forgiveness, as long as it is accompanied by our repentance which makes it effectual for us.

 

[Travis]

In general, modern day evangelical Christianity in its narrow focus on a select few verses in the gospels and "quick fix, fast convert" evangelical efforts, has failed to understand the significance of sacrifices and Christ's death on the cross. A focus too much on bloody sacrifices can, in some circumstances, portray the Christian (and Jewish) God as a blood lusting God of violence, which is far from the truth that God is a God of love. A rational and moral non-Christian may be stumbled by a gospel message which says that they can only be forgiven if they believe in blood sacrifice - rather than the truth, which is that they can only be forgiven if they repent and believe in Christ. In other words, a persons forgiveness does not rest upon whether or not they believe in the atoning aspects of blood sacrifices, it depends upon their own repentance before God, and belief in the crucified Christ as their substitute and their offering to bring them close to God. This is not to say that the blood has nothing to do with atonement, as it clearly does (Col 1:20), but the emphasis, should not be upon whether or not they believe in blood sacrifices, but whether or not they realize and repent of their sins, and the purpose of the shed blood, was not so much because God likes seeing blood, but because the blood signifies the death of a perfect substitute and that mankind (perhaps unknowingly) gave something of value up to God, in order for mankind's relationship with God to be restored. It is not at all, that God somehow is pleased with blood and death, as Scripture is clear that He does not (Ezekial 18:23, 1 Sam 15:22).

This made me think of a passage from John,

John 6
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?​

It seems that Jesus didn't mind offending people talking about blood and eating his flesh. I think that this is a direct reference to his crucifixion.

From the quote above (from James) though, the part I bolded, isn't an understanding of Christ being our substitute and an offering inseparable from the atoning aspect of Christ's blood being shed, his death on the cross? If people are turned off by the fact that we must drink Christ's blood and eat his flesh to have any part in him, and they walk away from him because of that, doesn't that just prove they are not believers, like the disciples that left him in John 6?

I do think that the Lord was pleased with Christs punishment on the cross though:

Isaiah 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief;...​

The Father didn't hold anything back from crushing Jesus on that cross. God's holiness and righteousness demanded all this... but that's a whole separate and deep topic. If this seems like a sadistic God to someone, then they don't have a sufficient understanding of the fact that God is good. That he is just. That he is holy.

Grace to you,

Travis

 

[james1523]

This made me think of a passage from John,

John 6
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?​

It seems that Jesus didn't mind offending people talking about blood and eating his flesh. I think that this is a direct reference to his crucifixion.

From the quote above (from James) though, the part I bolded, isn't an understanding of Christ being our substitute and an offering inseparable from the atoning aspect of Christ's blood being shed, his death on the cross? If people are turned off by the fact that we must drink Christ's blood and eat his flesh to have any part in him, and they walk away from him because of that, doesn't that just prove they are not believers, like the disciples that left him in John 6?

I do think that the Lord was pleased with Christs punishment on the cross though:

Isaiah 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief;...​

The Father didn't hold anything back from crushing Jesus on that cross. God's holiness and righteousness demanded all this... but that's a whole separate and deep topic. If this seems like a sadistic God to someone, then they don't have a sufficient understanding of the fact that God is good. That he is just. That he is holy.

Grace to you,

Travis

Very good Travis, I agree, we shouldn't be worried about unduly offending anyone. Jesus was followed by crowds who wanted their belly fed after performing the miracle of the loaves and fish, he wanted to separate the spiritual from the carnal. My main concern was regarding the portrayal of the sacrifice as being only about shedding blood for forgiveness of sins. The latching onto this one aspect of the sacrifice and that forgiveness of sins is all about the sacrifice (or taking mass to remember it) rather than our own repentance to make it effectual. We could emphasize the other aspects of the sacrifice such as drawing near to God, Christ's death being perfectly acceptable to Him (and therefore God being perfectly acceptable of us). God was pleased to offer Christ as our sacrifice, but He was not pleased with Christ's death itself - as He judged Judas Iscariot. The event has two aspects - the human side and God's side.

 

[B-A-C]

However without faith and repentance, Christ's death on the cross is ineffectual.

I do agree with this statement 100%. However it seems to many that repentance is a "good work"so therefore it should be avoided.
(To me that is really twisting scripture).