To the Forum:
Again, the Morris controversy here is not about literal or figurative to literal blood per se. It is actually, a Protestant the "" term "blood" equals death"" vs Catholic the ""term "blood" equals blood equals life"" controversy.
zeebrook is taking Morris' SUMMARIZATIONS to SPECIFIC extremes. Morris: "Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments
the blood signifies essentially the death. It is freely admitted that
there are some passages
in which it is possible to interpret the blood
as signifying life, but even these yield a better sense (and one which is
consistent with the wider biblical usage) if understood to mean 'life
given up in death'
Morris SUMMARIZES and states "tolerably certain" not "intolerably certain". Morris also states ESSENTIALLY indicating a TOLERABLE VARIATION of the meaning of the term blood.
Leon Morris's study of the blood in his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955). And pp. 108-124 is titled: "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM 'BLOOD" by Leon Morris. Anyone can order this right off the internet here and read for themselves:
Morris clearly states in this SPECIFIC case (and there is really no way around it):...The remaining passages seem to point to sacrificial blood. Six times there is reference to covenant blood, which calls for no comment to show the sacrificial reference; in Rom. 3:25 God is said to have set forth Christ as hilasterion ... en to autou haimati , where the word hilasterion points us to the sacrifices. In Heb. 9 the whole context with its mention of the blood of sacrificial victims shows that verses 12 and 14 carry a reference to the sacrificial system when they speak of the blood of Christ, and the same is true of 10:19. The unusual phrase 'blood of sprinkling' (Heb. 12:24) points to a sacrificial action, and the context shows that in Heb. 13:12 the sin offering is in mind. The sprinkling of the blood in 1 Pet. 1:2 again indicates a sacrificial action, while the blood 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood, and the same is probably true of 'the blood of the Lamb' in Rev. 7:14, 12:11. Finally, the thought of cleansing associated with the blood in 1 John 1:7 seems to be an allusion to sacrifice.
(Also note Morris' sub categorization and distinction of sacrificial action vs sacrificial blood. Note this is not in the violent death category but in the sacrificial blood category)
And what does the KJV say about the Blood of Christ 1 Pet. 1:19 says?
1 Pet. 1:19 (KJV) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Leon Morris clearly states above: The sprinkling of the blood in 1 Pet. 1:2 again indicates a sacrificial action, while the blood 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood,The precious Blood of Christ is clearly sacrificial blood in 1 Pet 1:19
, by Morris' relating the blood of the Blood of Christ to the literal shed blood of the lamb sacrifice,while the blood 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood,
But? What is the "blood" in 1 Peter 1:19 that Morris mentions? It is the "precious Blood of Christ" that is the blood that is clearly related to the literal shed blood of sacrificed lamb.
Morris is clearly speaking of the literal blood in 1 Peter 1:19. Which is what blood? Do you see any other mentioning of "blood" in 1 Peter 1:19 other than the Blood of Christ? I don't. And? It is related to the literal sacrificial blood of the lamb.
The only blood that I can see when Morris says " while the blood, 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood]
" is directly related by Morris to the Blood of Christ. The ,Blood of Christ,
is directly related in this particular case by Morris to the literal sacrificial blood of the literal lamb. Morris says it is clearly sacrificial blood (related to literal sacrificial blood NOT (i) Death with violence of some kind
, but blood of Christ in this case is related to sacrificial blood). According to Morris, Blood of Christ equals sacrificial blood in this case. (Remember Morris did not group the 103 sacrificial blood examples with death by violence examples or any othr group.) How so? Because if you look at Morris' grouped classifications of passages, what are they?:
'Blood' in the Old Testament
Classification of Passages
The word W[ is used in the Hebrew Bible some 360 times with
various shades of meaning
, and the occurrences may usefully be grouped
as follows:(i) Death with violence of some kind
, 203 examples.
(b) In the phrase 'innocent blood', 21 examples... (c) One's blood being on oneself, 12 examples...
(d) Death of animals, 5 examples. (ii) Connecting life with blood, 7 examples...
(iii) Eating meat with blood, 17 examples. The practice prohibited,
12 examples...(iv) Sacrificial blood, 103 examples.
(a) Generally, 94 examples. 'Thou shalt not offer
the blood of my
sacrifice with leavened bread' (Exod. 2318).
(b) The institution of the Passover, 6 examples.
(c) Heathen sacrifices, 3 examples, (v) Other uses, 32 examples.
(a) Turning the Nile into blood, 8 examples.
(b) Processes of birth, &c., 12 examples.
(c) Bleeding, 3 examples.
(d) Colour, 3 examples.
(e) Of grapes, 2 examples.
(f) 'A bridegroom of blood', 2 examples.
(g) Metaphorical, 2 examples, 'shall I drink the blood of the men
that went in jeopardy of their lives?' (2 Sam. 23*1).
It may well be that after examination it will appear that the meaning
of sacrificial blood is essentially that of one of the other groups, but for
the present it seems best to leave it as a separate group.
The overall controversy here is not about literal or figurative to literal blood actually,(summarizing) it is a Protestant blood equals death vs Catholic blood equals life controversy.
See "The Perpetuity of Christ's Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews" by Walter Edward Brooks
"The arguments put forth by L. Morris ("The Biblical Use of the Term 'Blood' ", JThS (1952, pp. 216-27) and J. Behm ("alps," ThDNT, 1, pp. 172-77) that blood
refers to life violently taken away and therefore that in Hebrews atonement is accomplished in the death of Jesus cannot be accepted. We are interested in the meaning of blood in the sacrificial ritual known to our author. Num 35 33, contrary to Morris (p. 221), sheds no light on Lev 17:11. Clearly Lev 1-7 (the postexilic code) denotes
no idea that atonement is accomplished by violent death. The killing of the victim was not done by the minister of the sacrifice, so hardly could it be considered central (cf. Lev 1 5, 3 2, 8, 13, 424, 29, 33).
'7 Bruce, pp. 200-01. " ...On this whole matter one should consult: A. Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews; H. A. CITolfson,Philo;...S. G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews.
...must note that in the OT the priestly function in the sacrifice does not begin
until after the death of the victim. This function consists of bringing (npk or H'?;r)
the blood of the victim into contact with the altar. Thus the manipulation of the
blood, which contained life (Lev 17 ll), is the priestly work. Contrary to certain
opinions then, the death of the victim was not central and did not constitute the
essence of sacrifice. Central was the achieving at-one-ment with God, and this was done through the manipulation of blood. Cf. F. C. N.Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice,
esp. pp. 12-13.
So keep in mind the Catholic blood equals life vs the Protestant blood equals death controversy.
I think playing with metaphorical meanings serves distraction, danger, and division. At what point does it stop? The "son of G-d"? Is that just figurative "son" only? The "body of Christ" is that just figurative "body"?, so that Jesus' physical body did not exist? and had no soteriological significance? (See The Soteriological Significance of the Physical Sufferings and Death of Christ, by P.Mitchell, 1978.)