The Narrow Path Ministries

What is the signifigance of blood in the OT? It seems to me that this answer is very clear it contains life.

Genesis 9:4
"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Leviticus 17:11
'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'
Leviticus 17:14
" For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'
Deuteronomy 12:23
"Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

If, as we know, the sacrafice system was a pointer to the true blood and true life of our Lord then is it possible that the blood in the OT was forbidden because it was not truly pure because it was an unwilling animal that died? How would this look in the NT when Paul speaks of communion? Is the blood of Jesus significant because of the incarnation, the joining of the divine with flesh and blood? Does the proabition to drinking blood change due to the divine nature of Christ and his offering freely His blood to give us life?

What do you see as the signficance of the blood and its relation to life?

For me I have come to really doubt the substituion and penal subsitution theories as missing the target.

.

Jill wrote:I can only agree. As for the teaching that Christ died for my sins in order that I may now run around freely and innocent as a little child if only I were to believe this teaching, I do not find in the text. This teaching seems more along the lines of a "scape-goat" teaching than one of a full blooded atonement.

There is DNA and other parental identifiers within the blood itself that makes Jesus Christ specific, and that I can become a disciple of Jesus Christ unto salvation, even in this life, by discovering his word, faith in his word, and adhering to it, is a deal sealed by his blood shed on earth, and as witness in the more angelic realms in heaven. That he was raised post mortem, is what sets Jesus apart from the rest also, not just his unusual parentage or lineage. The animals sacrificed did not return as a greater witness of the power and reality of God later on, though spotless, as Christ is witnessed to have done. The blood spilled in the OT was to be of great worth to its owner and no light matter. Similarly was the children/child sacrifice required of Abraham of his son Isaac.

I know I maybe way out of line as I contemplate the mystery of the signifigance of blood, but here I go again... If blood is life, and the incarnate christ is the head, we are his living body etc, etc. Is it possible that one aspect of the body is to actually truly receive the incarnate blood of christ as a body has blood pumping through it, so does his body? Does that make since? If Christ is truly 100% human and 100% Divine making his human blood divine and true life what does it say of the ordinances or sacraments? How does the body live without the blood? I been having many questions as you can see as I contemplate various images put forth in scripture. Have we neglected the spiritual in many respects of the signifigance of the blood of the incarnate Lord for material realism? Have we defined his blood purely as a covering of sins and neglected that blood is life? Any thoughts on this?