Why didn't Jesus preach "the blood" in his ministr

[Elijah John]

If the doctrine of Jesus' martyrdom as a blood atonement has it's roots in the teachings of Jesus himself, why doesn't Jesus mention "the blood" during his ministry in any of his sermons? Instead, Jesus preaches repentance and proclaims Father's mercy with no mention of blood sacrifice in his sermons or parables.

Why is that?

[2timothy316]

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.�..."So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him." John 6: 51, 53-56

The whole sacrificial law was to prepare the Jewish nation for what was to come. (Lev chapters 1-3)

[tam]

Peace to you,

And He also said:

Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Luke 22:20




Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tcg]

Peace to you,

And He also said:

Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Luke 22:20




Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And we find in 1 Corinthians 11, that Jesus expected this practice to be repeated by his followers:

• 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.â€� 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.â€� 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Jesus not only taught the concept of blood sacrifice, but he taught his followers to remember his blood sacrifice by regularly reenacting what is known as "The Lord's Supper" or "Communion." Not surprisingly, Christians around the world continue this practice and thus are regularly reminded of Jesus' blood sacrifice.



Tcg

[Elijah John]

Peace to you,

And He also said:

Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Luke 22:20




Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And we find in 1 Corinthians 11, that Jesus expected this practice to be repeated by his followers:

• 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.â€� 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.â€� 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Jesus not only taught the concept of blood sacrifice, but he taught his followers to remember his blood sacrifice by regularly reenacting what is known as "The Lord's Supper" or "Communion." Not surprisingly, Christians around the world continue this practice and thus are regularly reminded of Jesus' blood sacrifice.



Tcg

It is my understanding that convenants in the ancient world were sealed in blood. Not to appease the Deity, but rather to drive home the solemn nature of the agreement. It seems that Jesus was either reaching for a meaningful metaphor to commemorate his impending death, or alluding to that ancient practice.

And again, why only there, at the last supper? Jesus did not preach "the blood" during his ministry. Or if I missed it, where? No, as 1213 rightly points out, Jesus proclaimed the Father's mercy, the forgiveness of sins. And asserted his authority as the Father's agent on earth. He did this in life, in his teachings, and in his healings. He proclaimed the Father's mercy well before the Last Supper without tying that mercy to "the blood'.

[Checkpoint]

Peace to you,

And He also said:

Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Luke 22:20




Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And we find in 1 Corinthians 11, that Jesus expected this practice to be repeated by his followers:

• 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.â€� 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.â€� 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Jesus not only taught the concept of blood sacrifice, but he taught his followers to remember his blood sacrifice by regularly reenacting what is known as "The Lord's Supper" or "Communion." Not surprisingly, Christians around the world continue this practice and thus are regularly reminded of Jesus' blood sacrifice.



Tcg

It is my understanding that convenants in the ancient world were sealed in blood. Not to appease the Deity, but rather to drive home the solemn nature of the agreement. It seems that Jesus was either reaching for a meaningful metaphor to commemorate his impending death, or alluding to that ancient practice.

And again, why only there, at the last supper? Jesus did not preach "the blood" during his ministry. Or if I missed it, where? No, as 1213 rightly points out, Jesus proclaimed the Father's mercy, the forgiveness of sins. And asserted his authority as the Father's agent on earth. He did this in life, in his teachings, and in his healings. He proclaimed the Father's mercy well before the Last Supper without tying that mercy to "the blood'.

"Why only there?"

Because his ministry was an interim period, between the Old and the New Covenant.

The Last Supper was the direct connection, as it was the old Passover becoming the new Passover God had always had in mind.

The shadow becoming the reality.

God's mercy and forgiveness was and is legally based on sacrifice as the means of atonement.

Highlighted by the Passover and the Day of Atonement.

[Elijah John]

Because his ministry was an interim period, between the Old and the New Covenant...…...


God's mercy and forgiveness was and is legally based on sacrifice as the means of atonemen.

Was this not important for the masses who actually heard Jesus teachings to know this? They must have been under the "false" impression that it was only necessary to repent, ask forgiveness of God and be willing to forgive others.

Why didn't Jesus tell them about the tying forgiveness to blood on some legal basis? Instead, he preached forgiveness with no mention of "the blood" during his ministry.

You seem to be relegating Jesus own teachings to secondary importance..at best. And doing so in favor of Paul's blood theology, which was really only his theological meanderings and speculation. His way of making sense of Jesus martyrdom by tying it to bloody, primitive and priestly traditions of his heritage. Basically ignoring Jesus own advancements in understanding of the mercy of the Father. And instead Paul regressed to a version of human sacrifice, which represents real regression.

Why are Paul's disciples so wed to notions of blood atonement, when the Bible itself and Jesus himself offer more enlightened alternatives? Namely simple repentance. The Father desires contrite and devoted hearts, not blood. (Hosea 14.2, Psalm 69.30-31 etc.)

You know, something occurred to me, and correct me if I'm wrong. In answer to this question, Paul's notion of "by grace you are saved though faith" certainly does have appeal. But why would that grace, and Paul's teaching here necessitate blood atonement? Why not repentance and faith in God's merciful nature? That too is salvation by grace, though faith. But faith in God's merciful nature, not faith in the merits of "the blood" or His need for "legal" appeasement.

The whole "grace/faith/blood vs works/perfection thing is a false dichotomy.

One can have faith in the Father's merciful nature, and readiness to forgive. That too frees us from the need to achieve perfection through "works" of the law. And without buying into primitive notions of blood appeasement.

[Checkpoint]

Because his ministry was an interim period, between the Old and the New Covenant...…...


God's mercy and forgiveness was and is legally based on sacrifice as the means of atonemen.

Was this not important for the masses who actually heard Jesus teachings to know this? They must have been under the "false" impression that it was only necessary to repent, ask forgiveness of God and be willing to forgive others.

Why didn't Jesus tell them about the tying forgiveness to blood on some legal basis? Instead, he preached forgiveness with no mention of "the blood" during his ministry.

You seem to be relegating Jesus own teachings to secondary importance..at best. And doing so in favor of Paul's blood theology, which was really only his theological meanderings and speculation. His way of making sense of Jesus martyrdom by tying it to bloody, primitive and priestly traditions of his heritage. Basically ignoring Jesus own advancements in understanding of the mercy of the Father. And instead Paul regressed to a version of human sacrifice, which represents real regression.

Why are Paul's disciples so wed to notions of blood atonement, when the Bible itself and Jesus himself offer more enlightened alternatives? Namely simple repentance. The Father desires contrite and devoted hearts, not blood. (Hosea 14.2, Psalm 69.30-31 etc.)

You know, something occurred to me, and correct me if I'm wrong. In answer to this question, Paul's notion of "by grace you are saved though faith" certainly does have appeal. But why would that grace, and Paul's teaching here necessitate blood atonement? Why not repentance and faith in God's merciful nature? That too is salvation by grace, though faith. But faith in God's merciful nature, not faith in the merits of "the blood" or His need for "legal" appeasement.

The whole "grace/faith/blood vs works/perfection thing is a false dichotomy.

One can have faith in the Father's merciful nature, and readiness to forgive. That too frees us from the need to achieve perfection through "works" of the law. And without buying into primitive notions of blood appeasement.

That was quick!

All is not always what it seems.

Relegating Jesus to second importance?

No, presenting the real Jesus as far more than a martyr, because he is a ransom for many, which is what he himself taught.

Primitive notions of blood appeasement?

No, God's notions of blood appeasement.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 8 by Checkpoint]

That Jesus was martyred is an historical likelihood. That his martyrdom was for the purpose of "ransoming" anyone, is a statement of faith.

I didn't say you were relegating Jesus to secondary importance. Only his teachings. For Paul's disciples the more important thing was his death and resurrection. (Paul preaches "Christ and him crucified") As Paul would have it, what Jesus said in life didn't seem to matter much when compared to the blood theology of his martyrdom.

I take the opposite view. It's Jesus, teachings which are most important, not Paul's theological opinions regarding his martyrdom.

And Jesus didn't teach, nor did he preach "the blood" during his ministry. Yet he surely taught repentance and forgiveness.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 8 by Checkpoint]

That Jesus was martyred is an historical likelihood. That his martyrdom was for the purpose of "ransoming" anyone, is a statement of faith.

That Jesus was martyred is an inescapable fact of history.

That he gave his life as a ransom for many is a statement of faith supported by Jesus, who said those words during his teaching ministry.

I didn't say you were relegating Jesus to secondary importance. Only his teachings. For Paul's disciples the more important thing was his death and resurrection. (Paul preaches "Christ and him crucified") As Paul would have it, what Jesus said in life didn't seem to matter much when compared to the blood theology of his martyrdom.

I take the opposite view. It's Jesus, teachings which are most important, not Paul's theological opinions regarding his martyrdom.

And Jesus didn't teach, nor did he preach "the blood" during his ministry. Yet he surely taught repentance and forgiveness.

The teachings and ministry of Jesus, and his death and resurrection, are all very important.

All glorify God, and that is what matters, and is what we all should be doing.