To the Forum:
Neither, I, nor zeebrook is another man's annointing. 1 John 2:27
zeebrook: It is misleading to think that Morris is holding to your view of Christ's literal blood being literally shed as our salvation. Whilst he, and I also, believe that Christ did die on the cross, that he shed his blood (= His death), and that He also bled some, it was his death that saves (and that both spiritual and physical death).
Contrary to what you state when you say "The precious Blood of Christ is clearly sacrificial blood in 1 Pet 1:19". No sacrificial blood was just that Old Testament sacrificial literal blood. As Morris affirms Behm's statement "Blood of Christ" like "cross", only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning.
. You need to accuratley represent view points.
Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, no I do not hold to Thieme's view on the blood of Christ. I do believe Christ had to die physically upon the cross (as well as spiritually) for our salvation. His death upon the cross is what the the term "the blood of Christ" denotes. Refer to studies by Morris, Stibbs, Behm and many, many others.[/quote]
Truthtesty: I already do accurately represent viewpoints and you need to apologize for your false accusations. I said " Many things, but ONE of them specifically is..." This study is vast and I only have so much time to present information.
There are not many many others. I think the real Holy Author knew what imagination would be conjured up by modern people when they read the Bible. That blood equals blood.
Dr. Wall dissertation quote: "In a later section the relationship of the physical death and spiritual death of Christ to the atonement will be considered. At that point it will be shown
that Thieme's view of the term blood of Christ is not only doubtful linguistically but also impossible theologically."
Dr. Wall quote: See also 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.
Truthtesty: I have already clearly proven that Thieme misrepresented the figurative to literal meaning of "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice" in Bauer, Ardnt and Giingrich many times on this forum. Thieme completely misrepresents the figurative to literal meaning of Bauer, Ardnt and Giingrich p. 22, 23.
Also, I have clearly represented Dr. Chafer's blood Theology. Dr. Chafer understood that the "Blood of the Lamb" was figurative to endless literal meanings.
Thieme was a satanic denier of the literal Shed blood of Jesus, according to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology of the Blood. That is clear from Dr. Chafer's "Systematic Theology". One of Dr. Wall's measuring rods was Chafer theology.
It is significant to research that neither Thieme nor Dr. Wall mention the literal blood theology of Dr. Chafer. Dr. Wall for the purposes of his dissertation (on the blood theology only) must try prove DTS orthodoxy by it post-Chafer definition of orthodoxy.
And what did I say about Morris view of the Blood of Christ? I showed what I thought Morris meant in ONE case, NOT every case.
And what does Morris say about the Blood of Christ? Many things, but one of them specifically is
From "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM 'BLOOD" by Leon Morris...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 17 seems to be an allusion to sacrifice.
(Also note Morris' sub categorization and distinction of sacrificial action vs sacrificial blood)
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 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.
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.
Note this is consistent with Dr. Wall's description of the synecdoche of "The Blood of Christ": Thieme is correct in observing that the term blood of Christ is a pregnant term with figurative significance. The problem with
Thieme's interpretation is that he restricts the term solely to the spiritual death of
Christ and fails to see that it includes not only his spiritual death but also his
and the whole act of dying physically. Such a use of the term is a common literary device in the New Testament known as a “synecdoche,” that is “a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole.”
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 blood equals life vs the blood equals death controversy, when reading Morris and Nazi Behm.
By the way Bauer, Ardnt, and Gingrich removed Behm and kept Morris, in the later edition of their Greek lexicon.
Some deny that the Shed blood of Jesus was efficacious for salvation. Yet? They do not dare deny that Jesus bled. Why? Because if you did (as Thieme did) you'd be branded a heretic.
Also, I think academics can easily get disoriented here. Jesus in the flesh and blood(antitype) is salvatory, not the Old Testament sacrifices(types)
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2009 01:23AM by Truthtesty.