WITHOUT THE
SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS OF SINS? Hebrews 9:22
Santo Calarco
What does Hebrews 9:22 mean when it says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”? Is God mandating that blood be shed before he can forgive?
I will demonstrate in this paper that this statement has been used out of its context. This verse does not speak to the issue of the forgiveness of personal sins at all. Rather it refers to the role of blood in the inauguration of priestly ministries; earthly and heavenly. In other words, blood and forgiveness are discussed in the setting of Christology, not Soteriology.
Nearly all things are cleansed with blood. For the sake of argument let’s take this verse in the popular way it is understood nowadays. Let’s assume that Hebrews is insisting that blood must be shed for forgiveness to take place. If this is what it is saying then we are presented with theological problems. Why? First of all when we read the whole verse we see that the writer is not presenting a rigid rule. “According to the law we can almost say … that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” NASB. Almost, but not all the time!
The truth is that in the law we read of many cases where sins are forgiven without the shedding of blood!
Blood not always required for forgiveness. Atonement and forgiveness could be granted on the basis of application of oil (Lev 14:29), burning flour (Lev 5:11-13), burning incense (Num 16:41-50), payment of money (Exod 30:11-16), gifts of jewelry (Num 31:48-54), the release of a live animal (Lev 16:10) and simple appeals to God through words (Exod 32:30). In the Psalms, sin is put right largely in the absence of sacrificial or atonement language. Psalm 32; 51; 103.
In the
non-ritual texts of the Old Testament, the proper atonement for moral wrong
doing is repentance. For example:
2 Chronicles 7:14
14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my
face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will
forgive their sin and heal their land.
Sin offerings not always required blood sacrifices. Even in the case of the sin offering we find exceptions to the rule regarding blood! If a person was extremely poor and could not even afford two turtledoves, a grain offering became acceptable! Atonement was still granted and sin was forgiven; without blood. Leviticus 5:11-13. So even under the law bloodshed was not a rigid prerequisite for forgiveness!
So this means that the popular understanding of Hebrews 9:22 is faulty. We assume too much when we read Hebrews 9:22 to mean that blood must accompany forgiveness all the time!
Nonetheless, the particular phrase “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” does seem to connect blood and forgiveness in a powerful way. At this point I want to introduce the crux of my argument.
As we consider the immediate and larger contexts we see that this verse does not speak to forgiveness of individual sins whatsoever! It is found in the setting of the inauguration of the earthly sanctuary and the commencement of the earthly priesthood!
Jesus “appointed” as High Priest of New Covenant in Heavenly Sanctuary. The larger context starts back in chapter 8:1-3 where we are told:
Hebrews 8:1-3 NIV
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. 3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.
Please note the specific emphasis on the fact that every high priest is “appointed” into his office to serve. Jesus followed this pattern. He too was “appointed” as High Priest but of the sanctuary in heaven. This is the specific point addressed in Hebrews 9:22 which I will address later. In fact the larger setting of Hebrews 8-10 compares the old covenant with the new, demonstrating the superiority of Christ over the old covenant in each of its facets.
Earthly blood, priesthood and sanctuary ineffective. After introducing the high priestly ministry of Jesus in chapter 8, the writer moves into chapter 9:1-7 and provides a brief description of the sanctuary precincts and the functions of the priests within it in order to contrast it with the work of Jesus. The writer concludes in verses 9-10 that the earthly building with its priests and sacrifices were unable “to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.”
Better blood: forgiveness of personal sins accomplished. The writer has emphasised the point that the earthly sanctuary, priesthood and blood were limited in their results: the conscience of the worshipper could not be cleansed through the earthly ritual. A new order was required and the time of the “new order” came with Jesus. Verse 11.
The blood of animals only managed to cleanse outwardly; in contrast the blood of Jesus obtained eternal redemption and so cleansed “our consciences from acts that lead to death so that we may serve the living God!” Verses 12-14.
From personal forgiveness to inauguration and cleansing of sanctuaries. Hebrews has just dealt with the cleansing of sin as far as the individual person is concerned. But now in the verses that follow, the writer focuses not on personal removal of sin but its removal from the sanctuary building itself in order to inaugurate the priest in his work in the sanctuary.
Verses 18-22, which the particular verse is a part of, recall the inauguration and authorization [ratification] of the old covenant. Please note these words carefully since they contain the particular verse under consideration!
Hebrew 9:18-22
18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”[e] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
The section starts with a clear reference to the commencement “putting into effect” of the first covenant with blood! The inauguration of the old covenant is clearly and only in view in this section. Personal removal of sin is not in focus here. Hebrews has already told us the results of the blood of Jesus on a personal level in verses 1-14. The blood of Jesus cleansed the conscience and resulted in eternal inheritance! This is a done deal.
The writer shifts from personal cleansing from sin effected by the blood of Jesus [v.11-17] to the inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary and the commencement of the priestly ministry of Jesus. Christology, not Soteriology is now in view. Let me explain.
Verses 18-22 immediately follow verses 12-17 for good reason. They explain the death of Jesus in terms of a covenant ratifier in order to become a priestly mediator. He is not explaining the blood of Jesus in terms of personal remission of sins; he has done this already in verses 12-15! The blood of Jesus cleansed personal sin on an inner level and resulted in an eternal inheritance! The focus is now on death and blood leading to the inauguration and commencement of priestly mediation and ministry. The new role of Jesus as High Priest [Christology] is now the concern of this particular segment of Hebrews! The writer shifts from Soteriology to Christology!
The writer speaks of the blood of calves and how it was sprinkled on the tabernacle, everything within the tabernacle used in its ceremonies to put “the first covenant into effect”! The context is very specific and clear. The removal of personal sin is not under consideration in this specific section: the inauguration of the high priestly ministry of Jesus is the only focus!
Verse 22 relates directly to the verses immediately preceding it! When we read verse 22 within its immediate setting we can see that it does not speak to the necessity of bloodshed for forgiveness to take place! To paraphrase: “People under the old covenant remained with the stain of sin; it only cleansed on an external level. The blood of Jesus under the new covenant cleansed their consciences and resulted in eternal inheritance. Not only so but the whole old covenant priestly ministry was inaugurated with blood as well. They took the blood and applied the blood and so cleansed all defilement from the sanctuary building in order to initiate the old covenant and inaugurate the priestly ministry! In fact in the period of the law nearly everything was cleansed with blood and without the application of blood there is no remission.”
Applying, not shedding of blood. The
word translated “shedding of blood” is misleading! The context is referring to the cleansing of
the sanctuary precincts through the application of blood throughout. The original Greek word is haimatexchusias
is made up of two words: haima [where
we get our English word haemaglobin etc] and texchusias which means to apply.
This word actually means the "application of
blood" rather than the act of "shedding of blood". The
implications are vastly different! The context specifically describes the
application of blood throughout the sanctuary precincts in the inauguration of
the Old Covenant and earthly priestly ministry.
Where the writer says “there is no remission”, he is referring specifically to the removal of the stain of sin and thus it’s cleansing from the sanctuary precincts through the application of blood in order to inaugurate covenant and appoint priests. The writer in context is not discussing the removal or forgiveness of sins from the individual. The context is clear. Even when Hebrews says that the blood was sprinkled on the people, it was done as part of the inauguration/dedication/cleansing of the sanctuary, the covenant the priestly ministry as a whole. Verse 22 is part of this direct context. It does not refer to the way a person was granted forgiveness for individual sins committed. Individual forgiveness was already addressed in verses 1-14.
The statement concerning blood and forgiveness is set in the specific context of cleansing of the earthly sanctuary during the time of the inauguration of the earthly, priestly services. The building was cleansed with blood for “remission” to take place; that is for the removal of the defilement of sin from the sanctuary precincts so that the earthly priestly ministry could commence!
This point is further emphasised in the very next verse.
Hebrews 9:21-23
21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
How much clearer can it be? It is not the personal forgiveness of sins that is under discussion in verse 22! This verse is sandwiched in statements that refer to the cleansing and inauguration of sanctuary buildings!
Please note that v.21 and 23 describe the cleansing and inauguration of both earthly and heavenly sanctuaries. The verse in question is bookended by these statements. It would be very strange indeed for this verse not to fit within the flow of the unfolding logic! The truth is that verse 22 relates to and connects to verses either side of it. Both the heavenly and earthly sanctuaries are inaugurated/cleansed by blood. The blood cleanses to inaugurate a priestly ministry: that’s all verse 22 is saying!
Many read into verse 22 something which is not there. They often refer to the verse and say “without the shedding of the blood there is NO FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” The last part “of sins” is not actually in the text at all. Note the NKJV,
Hebrews 9:22 NKJV
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
My question is this: remission of what from where? The specific context addresses the remission [removal] of defilement from the sanctuary precincts in order to cleanse it and so inaugurate it for service. Yes it did include the people but as I have already pointed out this was not the way an individual person appropriated forgiveness for specific sins committed! They were sprinkled with blood together with everything else within the sanctuary as an act of dedication. The remission spoke of is from the defilement from sin and dedication to God! That’s all!
In this paper I have demonstrated that Hebrews 9:22 has been used out of its context in a horrendous way! The writer is not referring to a rigid law that demands that blood must be shed before God can forgive the personal sins of people! God forbid! The specific verse is set in a specific context.
Hebrews is discussing the inauguration/cleansing/dedication of old and new covenants with their respective priesthoods and sacrifices. That’s all! The purpose of blood in these specific settings is to initiate two contrasting ministries and covenants; nothing more, nothing less!
It is not referring to some rigid law that insists that blood be shed before God can forgive personal sins.
Comments