frostymama

I posted originally over at Christian Forums but I'm not exactly getting a straight answer over there so far.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/38406-1.html

This is actually one of the main reasons I began questioning my faith. I have asked this question many times and NEVER recieved a straight answer. Does anyone over here have a better answer than quoting scripture verses at me that just assert that blood is necessary or attacking my motives for asking such questions?


My personal veiw it that it is for purely cultural reasons, but that doesn't exactly mesh well with Christian salvation doctrines.

christ-on-a-stick

Hi frostymama, Me neither. Other than your view (for purely cultural reasons) - unfortunately not.

There's usually a bunch of hemming-and-hawing about "Old Covenant" vs. "New Covenant" and such, but nothing that makes an iota of sense.

Also, I have not (yet) received an answer to the question that I just recently posed to Christian on the "Calling Yourself a Christian" thread - which was I look forward to hearing the answer to that. It seems as though even we puny and supposedly "inherently sinful" humans can come up with methods of justice that don't involve the massive spilling of blood - it's a mystery as to why an omnimax God couldn't seem to.

Mageth

The way I understand it, in the bible blood is, contains, or is symbolic of Life (see Lev. 17). To the writers of the bible and other ancients, blood was the essence of life. Death (the shedding of blood) is a required payment for sin, as established by God himself (again see Lev. 17).

I know I'm giving scriptures again, but that's the way I understand it.

BrotherMan

My meager understanding of it is that it's tied to original sin. Eve and Adam ate the fruit and realised their nekkidness. Instead of leaving them with simply leaf coverings, God provided them with animal skins (the first shedding of blood).

Although it still leaves open the question of why must more blood be spilled to rectify this.

Christian

FM,

I’ll try to answer the questions you asked in the other forum.

Blood is almost always equated with life or with sustaining life throughout the Bible.
The due punishment for sin is death.
Therefore there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.

Blood = life. In certain situations (such as certain temple sacrifices) the blood is “holy” and whatever it touches in “holy.” The purpose of the blood there was to be a shadow and form of Christ’s blood which was shed for the remission of sins. Therefore, it was holy.

In other situations it is consider “unclean” or bad. Eating meat with the blood still in it was repeatedly condemned in the Mosaic Law. And repeatedly the reason is given explicitly “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.” This makes sense if blood = life. The blood especially symbolizes the life of the creature. Drinking a creature’s blood would be basically adding insult to injury. It would symbolically be sucking the life away from the creature, in a much more graphic symbolism (for that day) than just eating the meat. Also, drinking the creature’s blood would be a grave misuse of something that God had set aside for a specific purpose. When blood symbolizes Christ’s atonement for sins it is holy. When you take God’s instrument for such a holy purpose and use it for a much lower purpose it is unclean.

As far as the menstruation laws, if blood = life then bleeding = losing life. The purpose of the ceremonial cleanness laws (beyond the hygienic purposes most of them have) was to teach the Israelites to revere God’s presence. Anything less than perfect was not allowed anywhere near the tabernacle. No animals or people with any blemish or deformity was allowed in the tabernacle. If you had 6 fingers, then you were not allowed to come so near the place where God dwelled among the people. This was not because having 6 fingers was bad, but because God was teaching the Israelites that He was perfect and that only perfection could be allowed in His immediate presence. It’s not difficult to see the parallels between menstruation and an injury (especially given the medical knowledge of that day), and an injury is a flaw. Something that is injured is something that is less than “without blemish.”

God would not allow David to build the temple because of all the blood David had shed. Human life is holy to God because we were created in His image, and causing the loss of life (even at God’s explicit command) was something of symbolic significance when it comes to dealing with the place where God dwelled among the people – the temple. A man with no such visible flaw in his life would be the one to build God’s temple.

So far I have argued for why shedding of blood is required for remission of sins. The same reason seems to work for why God used it as a basis for covenants. Gen 15:8-20 is the passage where God makes His covenant with Abram. (I’m addicted to scripture … deal with it.) several animals were cut in half and lined up next to each other. According to my study Bible this was the standard means of making a blood covenant in that day. You would cut some animals down the middle, then both of you would walk barefoot through the blood and gore and meet in the middle. You would recite the parts of the covenant and exchange some token such as a coat or a sword. The gory symbolism basically meant “may the same thing happen to me that just happened to these animals if I break our covenant.” Or in other words “I stake my very life on it.”

A blood covenant is a covenant where you promise with your very life (blood) to abide by the terms.

Thanks for the thought provoking question. Hope that helps.

Respectfully,

Christian

christ-on-a-stick

Christian,

Has you ever really thought about how incredibly superstitious all that is? Sorry but this one cracked me up.... tell me, if menstruation is somehow "unclean" or "less than perfect" - then why did God design the female body to do it???

Christian

You make the same error in both of your comments.

Symbol.
Reality.

Those are two distinct concepts.

I'm not saying that life literally is in the blood. I'm saying that was a fairly universal symbol at that time in history, which God chose to use to make his point.

I'm not saying that menstruation IS "unclean" or "less than perfect." I'm saying that is the imagery or symbol that God used to make a specific point to a specific culture at a specific point in redemptive history.

The vast majority of the Mosaic Law was like that. In the words of the author of Hebrews - "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves."

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

To clarify:

Blood is the symbol
Life is the reality

The menstruation law makes a specific use of the symbol.
Blood covenants make specific use of the symbol.
Remission of sins makes a specific use of the reality.

Respectfully,

Christian

spurly

I have been assigned to preach a sermon entitled "The Bloody Covenant" on March 30th. If you have any good ideas, they would be appreciated.

Kevin

ohwilleke

Interestingly, Judaism gave up animal sacrifice at about the same time that its offshoot, Christianity, developed.

The current "official" reason that Judaism gave up animal sacrifice was that the Temple in Jersusalem had fallen, and that without a temple you couldn't offer proper animal sacrifices. This coincided with the shift in Judaism from the Priest being the important figures in the religion to the Rabbis (i.e. teachers) being important.

The current "official" reason that Christians did not continue the Jewish tradition of animal sacrifice is that the sacrifice of Jesus eliminated the need for future sacrifices.

I think the basic notion behind a blood covenant is that it demands more from you than a simple signature or oral promise. To give up your blood is to show commitment.

Another similar idea which used to be part of English law (pre-Romanic) was the covenant of seizen to transfer land. What this meant was that in the olden days, when you sold land, the seller actually picked up some dirt and handed it to the buyer, so that people knew that this was really for real, and not just words.