To the Fourm:
Thieme quote BOC 1979 As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich, the latest Greek lexicographers. Under the word haima, "blood," they devote an entire paragraph to the figurative uses of the word. They describe it as
"the blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice, especially the blood of Christ as the means of expiation."17Thieme quote BOC 1979 "When the Scripture states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood"
(Lev. 17:10—14), it refers to animal flesh only. The Hebrew word nephesh sometimes means "life" and sometimes "soul," but when used of animals it obviously refers to animal life — not to human life."
Truthtesty:
In Arndt and Gingrich, no where are the words "spiritual death" used in Arndt and Gingrich's definition of "haima" on page 22 or 23. Also, be clear Arndt and Gingrich do use the words "spiritual death" on page 351 under the term "thanatos", but not on pgs 22 or 23. So Arndt and Gingrich are familiar with the term "spiritual death", but they do not use it or conclude with it under the term "haima" on pgs 22 or 23.
What I'd like people to note also is Lev. 7:11 in Arndt and Gingrich.
If someone mistakenly assumes Thieme's twisted interpretation of figurative usage used by Ardnt and Gingrich is correct, then how can they justify Arndt and Gingrich's figurative use of Lev. 17:11? Lev. 17:11 is not classified as under "b. of blood of animals"(Note Thieme does not mention this).
Lev 17:11 is classified by Arndt and Gingrich as "2. fig---a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2" Fig means figurative. Thieme says Lev. 17:11 is only referring to animals, but Ardnt and Gingrich classify Lev 17:11 blood usage as figurative. It is not classified under "b. of blood of animals" AT ALL.
By Arnt and Gingrich, if one is to say that the blood of Christ in Rom 3:25 is only figurative and not referring to literal blood then they'd be incorrect, just as if they'd be incorrect to say that the blood mentioned in Lev. 17:11 is only figurative and not referring to literal blood. Both are listed as figurative.
For correct figurative usage of blood used for "seat of life" in Lev. 17:11 contrast WSD 7:2 [
www.biblicalproportions.com]
Correct figurative usage of "seat of life" by Arndt and Gingrich in WSD 7:2 is literal human life compacted with literal human blood in a literal human womb.
Undoubtedly the readings in levitcus 17:10-14 refer to eating animals, but also the summarized plain reading of the text in Lev. 17:14 says "life of
all flesh is in the blood". Humans are a manner of flesh and are classified as part of "all flesh".
Leviticus 17:14
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of
no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Pg 799 Arndt and Gingrich "body":
body
1. body of man or animal —
a. dead body etc...
b. the living body (Hes. +; inscr., pap., LXX)
of animals h 3: 3.—
Mostly of human beings Mt 5: 29f; 6: 22f; 26: 12; Mk 5: 29; 14: 8; Lk 11 : 34a, b, c; J 2: 21; Ro 1: 24; 1 Cor 6: 18a, b; IRo 5: 3. etc...
... ---
The body as the seat of mortal life ; be in the body=alive, subject to mortal ills (Poryphr., Abst. 1, 38 ) Hb 13: 3.
Arndt and Gingrich clearly state that
"The body as the seat of mortal life".Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima
1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
2. fig---a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
Truthtesty:
Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...
1 Clement 55:1 says
1Clem 55:1
But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.
Truthtesty:
You can understand the true figurative usage meant by Arndt and Gingrich. In this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents[/u] literal blood and literal life sacrificed. The figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" being used to figuratively point to the ruler's own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Arndt and Gingrich are saying the figurative usage of haima in this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed.
Arndt and Gingrich goes on:
Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...
So comparing the Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage properly as in comparison with Cl 55:1 we see that the figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" "haima" being used to figuratively to point to Jesus' own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice (not just blood alone). Thieme is jumping to a false conclusion to provide false evidence for his false theory of "spiritual death only". Ardnt and Gingrich are not saying what Thieme is falsely stating.
You can compare and see that Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage haima in both cases 1Cl 55:1 with Rom 3:25, is the same figurative usages, although obviously used in different contexts.
Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only", is not substantiated by the evidence of Arndt and Gingrich.
Truthtesty