Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Forgiveness of Sins

In light of my recent post about the "unforgivable sin" mentioned in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, my thoughts turned to another text from Hebrews 9.

As I've argued in this space over the years, all "mechanistic" views of atonement are rooted in a pagan imagination. That is to say, God doesn't need to do anything in order to forgive us. There is no switch in the love of God that needs to be flipped. God's mercy faces no obstacles, especially not within his own heart.

This understanding, though, contradicts simplistic and overly mechanical visions of atonement where God "needs" and "requires" a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us. But once again, there are no conflicting impulses within the heart of God that demand reconciliation. And to be clear, this isn't some squishy, liberal modern take of mine. This vision concerning the simplicity and impassivity of God's love is the witness of the entire patristic tradition. This is a very old and ancient idea.

What be behold on the cross, therefore, isn't God working through a psychosacrificial struggle within himself, God figuring out a way to forgive us. As I've argued, what we witness on the cross is how God has always and eternally felt about us. Calvary is a theophany, the Apocalypse of Love. Christ is the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World.

And yet, a single line from Hebrews 9:22 is often quoted here in rebuttal to what I've been sharing:

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

This line seems to set up a mechanical logic. Forgiveness requires the shedding of blood.

Well, let's push on this a bit. Here's a metaphysical thought experiment: Can God forgive you without the shedding of blood? If you say no I'd suggest you're skating on some thin theological ice. You'd be posing some impossibility in God, claiming that there is something God could not do. And I don't think you'd want to do that.

So, we need to step back from a simplistic, literalistic, and mechanistic reading of Hebrews 9.

Given how I think about the atonement, as a theophany, here's how I think about this passage.

According to Leviticus, blood represents life. Borrowing from Jacob Milgrom's work on Leviticus, blood is the most powerful "detergent" in Israel's cultic imagination. Blood, as life, wipes away death. As Hebrews recounts, the blood of animals provided a very poor detergent, and therefore had to be repeated over and over. Christ's blood, however, was given once for all. That is to say, only God's life is powerful enough to overcome both sin and death. God's blood, which is simply God's own life, is the only "detergent" powerful enough to "wipe away" death.

Simply put, the "plan" of salvation is God giving us himself. God is the plan. God gives us his very Self, his very Life. And that's what saves us. God.

What becomes visible to us in the blood of Jesus is God giving his Life for us, not out of mechanistic compulsion or sacrificial necessity, but as a gift freely given. God is love, mercy, and pardon. This becomes visible in the blood of Jesus. The crimson flood of Calvary is the theophany of our forgiveness, mercy become manifest, the pardon that has flowed from the veins of Lamb from the foundation of the world. When Hebrews says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" this straightforwardly means "without God giving us his very Life we would be lost."