17 - What Is "Cleansing From All Sin"?
What Is "Cleansing From All Sin"?
"Antagonisms arise not because one side is entirely right, and the other entirely wrong, but because there is right on both sides for which it is worthwhile to contend, and wrong on both sides by which our vision of the other side is obscured. Our problem is not to destroy antagonisms but to transcend and transform them. It is possible to get below, rise above, or pass through them into a higher, nobler unity."
R. C. Brooks
One of the best-loved texts in the New Testament is 1 John 1:7, "But if we walk in the light, as He [God] is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." The unwaning wonder and preciousness of such an assurance can scarcely be exaggerated. It is the kind of text one delights to ponder devotionally but shrinks from handling contentiously. I regret, therefore, that in this present study it must be treated somewhat polemically. The fact is, that in the competition of holiness theories, 1 John 1:7 is a major pivot. The three battle-centres have been: (1) What is the meaning of Romans 6:6? (2) What does Paul mean by "the flesh"? (3) What is the cleansing from "all sin" in 1 John 1:7? The Usual Teaching The usual teaching is that the clause, "cleanseth from all sin", means inward cleansing. Such is the teaching of all eradicationists, and of most counteractionists. The former exult in the "all", claiming that it means utter ablution from inhering pollution. The counteractionists find the "all" awkward—though not confessedly so, and become self-contradictory (as it seems to me) in their circumflexions around it.
Everywhere, we find this idea generally accepted, that 1 John 1:7 refers to an inward cleansing. John Wesley deliberates:
"Now it is evident, the apostle here speaks of a deliverance wrought in this world: for he saith not, The blood of Christ will cleanse (at the hour of death, or in the day of judgment) but it ’cleanseth’, at the present time, us living Christians ’from all sin’. And it is equally evident, that if any sin remain we are not cleansed from all sin. If any unrighteousness remain in the soul, it is not cleansed from all unrighteousness" (Plain Account, p. 24).
William Booth, the famous founder-general of the Salvation Army, gloried in being "of the household and lineage" of Wesley as to holiness doctrine. In his clear-cut way he asks, "What is the faith that sanctifies?" and answers: "It is that act of simple trust which, on the authority of Christ’s word, says, "The blood of Jesus Christ does NOW cleanse me from all inward sin, and makes me pure in heart before Him.’ " (Holy Living, p. 22.)
We need not multiply quotations. A couple from "Counteraction" voices will suffice to show that even where the cleansing is not taught in the eradicationist sense, it is likewise assumed to be inward. I quote from a printed address: "There are regions in our being, far beyond the ken of conscience, which constitute us sinners, still needing the blood which goes on cleansing." A dignified further pronouncement occurs in the same volume from a beloved leader who is now no longer with us. He speaks out of an evidently deep and thoughtful conviction.
"This cleansing cannot mean only pardon: it must refer to purity also. ... A purity of heart beyond what our natural thoughts could conceive is open to those who are willing to claim it, through the blood of Christ alone: and we are here to testify to this most blessed power of that blood." The Witness of the Hymnbooks The various hymnbooks, also, plentifully endorse and vivify this prevailing idea, that cleansing by the precious blood of Christ is an inward cleansing of the believer. Miss Frances Ridley Havergal’s well-known lines come readily to mind I am trusting Thee for cleansing In the crimson flood;
Trusting Thee to make me holy By Thy blood.
Or, picking almost at random from the Sankey Hymnbook, 1200 edition, we find number 133 saying, I know Thy precious blood Has power to make me clean.
Oh, take my sinful heart, And wash away its sin.
Going away back to Charles Wesley, we find the same concept again and again:
I cannot wash my heart But by believing Thee, And waiting for Thy blood to impart The spotless purity.
One verse must suffice to represent the vigorous hymnbook of the Salvation Army. It is number 84 in a fairly recent edition from the International Headquarters, London, England.
It is the Blood that washes white, That makes me pure within; That keeps the inward witness right, And cleanses from all sin. A well-known conference hymn book comes to us with Horatio Bonar’s earnest lines:
Purge Thou my sin away, Wash Thou my soul this day Lord, make me clean.
Lord, let the cleansing blood, Blood of the Lamb of God, Pass o’er my soul.
I will not be so unkind as to pass any criticism on the literary quality of the verses which we are here requisitioning. They are quoted for one purpose only, i.e. to represent a common concept. I confess to some inward recoil, however, from such histrionicisms as "plunging" in relation to our Saviour’s precious blood: The cleansing Blood I see, I see!
I plunge, and oh, it cleanseth me!
Eradication by Ablution
Some of the hymns which sing of this inward cleansing through the Blood unhesitatingly proclaim an utter expurgation of sin: In new creation now I rise;
I hear the speaking blood!
It speaks! polluted nature dies!
Sinks ’neath the cleansing flood!
It is of peculiar interest to notice how unthinkingly (or with what willing blindness) counteractionists slip into singing outright eradicationist hymns about cleansing of the believer’s inmost nature from all sin! Demarcations between eradication and non-eradication theory, although strongly marked in platform expositions, somehow become baptismally submerged in the devotional flow of the hymnbook. For instance, how strange to find anti-eradicationists singing, Lord Jesus, let nothing unholy remain, Apply Thine own blood and extract ev’ry stain. By faith for my cleansing I see Thy blood flow;
Now wash me and I shall be whiter than snow. Or what about another number? So wash me, Thou, without, within Or purge with fire, if that must be; No matter how, if only sin Die out in me; die out in me.
There is no getting away from it: such hymns envisage, not only an inward cleansing by the blood of Christ, but an utter cleansing. To my own mind, let me say it frankly but cordially, such teaching is plainly as self-contradictory in its gyrations around 1 John 1:7 as in its treatment of Romans 6:6. It says that through co-crucifixion with Christ I become "dead indeed" unto sin, yet I must never delude myself into thinking that in actual experience my (so-called) "old nature" can ever be dead! As for 1 John 1:7, I may be "cleansed from all sin", yet I am never actually all clean; for though my "new nature" (it is said) never needs cleansing, my "old nature" can never be cleansed. My own names for these two "explanations" are: (1) the "dead-yet-alive" theory, and (2) the "cleansed-yet-never-clean" theory. Is it Scriptural? But is this idea of inward cleansing by the blood of Christ truly Scriptural? I do not think so. Does 1 John 1:7 really teach that our Saviour’s blood cleanses us from sin inwardly! My answer is, No. I believe that the cleansing isjudicial,not internal, and that by "sin" the text means sin asguilt,not sin as an innate corruptness. Let me not be misunderstood: I believe in the innate corruptness of our fallen human nature; I believe also that through Christ, by the Holy Spirit, God has provided for our inward cleansing and renewing. What I am here maintaining is that the inward cleansing is not effected either by a literal or a figurative application of our Saviour’s blood; and that 1 John 1:7 does not teach so. In thus frankly declaring myself on this matter, I do not feel so much of a "lone wolf" as I did in my repudiating the usual teaching on Romans 6:1-23. I am in good company, with outstanding Evangelicals like R. A. Torrey and Bishop Handley Moule sharing the same view. The decisive test is, "What saith the Scripture?" That shall be our enquiry just here.
Old Testament Data
So, we turn first to the Old Testament, and our question is: Do we find anywhere in its pages that cleansing is ever effected by blood? The word, "blood", in our Old Testament represents a Hebrew word which occurs 341 times (including adjectival and compound forms). It refers 100 times to Israel’s religious sacrifices; 30 times to dietary, hygienic, or social regulations; 23 times to the law of the goel, or "avenger of blood"; while the remainder are miscellaneously incidental to historical and prophetical passages. Never once is it used of either outwardly or inwardly cleansing a person.
Always, in the actual cleansing of a person or object, the cleansing element is not blood, but water; and the cleansing act is not sprinkling, but bathing. Blood is not a cleansing liquid for purposes of ablution, nor is mere sprinkling an adequate cleansing measure. I freely grant, of course, that although blood-sprinkling in itself cannot cleanse, it may represent cleansing in a judicial sense; yet even then it never represents internal cleansing.
Use of the Word, "Cleansed".
What, then, about those passages where the word, "cleanse" is used in connection with blood-sprinkling? There are nine such instances: Exodus 29:36, Leviticus 12:7 and Leviticus 14:7, Leviticus 14:14, Leviticus 14:25, Leviticus 14:52, and Leviticus 16:10 (with Leviticus 16:30), and Ezekiel 43:18, Ezekiel 43:20.
Take Exodus 29:36. It prescribes the ritual for the consecration of Aaron and his sons. They and their priestly garments, and the altar itself, were to be sprinkled by the sacrificial blood. Yet Aaron and his sons must be already "washed" with water (Exodus 29:4). So, the blood-sprinkling was not for their personal cleansing. It was a symbolic removing of something between them and Jehovah, i.e. their guilt as sinners. The blood was that of "atonement" (Exodus 29:36). So is it with the five references in Leviticus 12:1-8 and Leviticus 14:1-57, to the cleansing rites for childbirth and leprosy. The actual cleansing of the person precedes the symbolic cleansing by the blood-sprinkling (see Leviticus 1:8). Moreover, eight times that word, "covering" (kaphar) [Translated as "atonement" in our King James Version.] occurs; and nine times "trespass", or "guilt" (see E.R.V.), indicating again that the blood-sprinkling symbolized cleansing from guilt, not from sin inwardly. But the most decisive witness is Leviticus 16:1-34, which specifies the rituals for Israel’s annual "Day of Atonement". Fifteen times kaphar ("covering up") [Translated as "atonement" in our King James Version.] occurs. Here, too, note the plural, "sins" (Leviticus 16:16, Leviticus 16:21, Leviticus 16:30, Leviticus 16:34). That solemn ceremony had to do with the "covering" of "transgressions". The blood-sprinkling symbolized cleansing from guilt, not from an innate sin-condition. Key verses are Leviticus 16:21, Leviticus 16:30, Leviticus 16:34,
"And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the INIQUITIES of the children of Israel, and all their TRANSGRESSIONS, even all their SINS" (Leviticus 16:21).
"For on this day shall atonement [a covering] be made for you, to CLEANSE you from all your SINS; and ye shall be clean BEFORE JEHOVAH" (Leviticus 16:30).
So, beyond a fleck of doubt, the blood-sprinkling had to do, not with innate sin, but with "iniquities" and "transgressions". The cleansing, or covering up and putting away, was judicial. It "removed" [2See Leviticus 16:8, Leviticus 16:10, in A.S.V. It almost goes without saying that no mere sprinkling, whether of blood or any other liquid could have cleansed (or have been meant to cleanse) either the altar or any other object. It is not sprinkling, but ablution, which cleanses anything. The fact that the sprinkling was seven times indicates that it was symbolical. The altar itself was neither cleaner nor otherwise after the sprinkling; but it was symbolically cleansed from "the unclean-nesses of the children of Israel" (Leviticus 16:19).] guilt—not sin within man, but guilt "before Jehovah". So far as personal ablution was concerned, it is noticeable that those who took part in the ritual had to be cleansed in water (Leviticus 16:4, Leviticus 16:24, Leviticus 16:26, Leviticus 16:18). Is further proof needed? Here is a remarkable fact: from the inception of the Israel theocracy (Exodus 19:1-25) to the end of the Pentateuch, the word "sin" (translating variant forms of the Hebrew chata) occurs 63 times, and in every instance it means sin as an act or as acts; never once as an inward condition. The compound, "sin-offering", occurs 98 times, and without exception it concerns sins committed, not inward depravity. Thus, throughout Israel’s sacrificial system, "cleansing" by blood-sprinkling is solely judicial; it is the "covering" or "removing" of guilt. About 45 times in the Old Testament we read of cleansing by water; but never once of washing in blood.
Therefore, if we pay due regard to the evidence supplied by the Old Testament in this connection, we surely must come to the New Testament predisposed to find similar teaching in relation to the shed blood of our dear Lord.
New Testament Data In the New Testament the blood of Christ is mentioned 39 times (omitting Colossians 1:14, as doubtful). Of these, six are simply incidental historical references having no bearing on our present enquiry. The remaining 33 classify as follows. By the blood:
1. "Remission"—Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10:19 (Hebrews 10:18).
2. "Propitiation"—Romans 3:25.
3. "Redemption"—Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 9:12, 1 Peter 1:19.
4. "Reconciliation"—Ephesians 2:13 (cp. Ephesians 2:16), Colossians 1:20.
5. "Justification"—Romans 5:9.
6. "Purchase"—Acts 20:28, Revelation 5:9.
7. "Sanctification"—Hebrews 10:29, Hebrews 13:12.
8. "New covenant"—Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 11:27, Hebrews 13:20.
9. "Sprinkling" seal—Hebrews 12:24, 1 Peter 1:2 (cp. Hebrews 10:22).
10. "Witness" to God—1 John 5:6, 1 John 5:8 (with 11), Revelation 12:11.
11. Communion symbol—John 6:53-56, 1 Corinthians 10:16.
12. "Cleansing" from sin—Hebrews 9:14, 1 John 1:7, Revelation 1:5, Revelation 7:14. The first 10 classes of these texts ("remission", "propitiation", etc.) all pertain either to the judicial or to some other equally objective aspect of our Lord’s shed blood. That is true even of number 7 ("Sanctification"), for it is not sanctification in the inward sense, but from guilt, being linked back to the covenant blood and sin-offering of Exodus 24:8, Exodus 29:12. And so it is with number 9 ("Sprinkling"), for its two texts are allusions to the Mosaic blood-sprinkling as an objective token of covenant and removal of guilt. [There is indeed, one text which does speak of inward "sprinkling". See Hebrews 10:22. But again it is judicial, i.e. sprinkling "from [condemnation by] an evil CONSCIENCE", which at once refers to guilt. See wording also, and context.] The Blood as a Symbol
Only in groups 11 and 12 do we find texts which might seem to imply an effect of our Lord’s blood within us. These we must examine carefully. Four of them occur in John 6:1-71, in our Lord’s great discourse on the Living Bread.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves" (John 6:53).
"He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54).
"For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
"He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in Him" (John 6:56).
What did our Lord mean by this drinking of His blood? He could not have meant it literally; for if there was one thing more than another gravely and repeatedly forbidden to the Jews, it was to imbibe blood (Leviticus 17:10-16, Leviticus 3:17, Leviticus 7:26, etc.). Our Lord meant it spiritually. The two participle clauses in John 6:56 lead to this:
"The one eating My flesh and drinking My blood [is he who] abideth in Me, and I in Him." That such was His meaning is confirmed by the next verse (John 6:57) which is an impletion of it:
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father [i.e. His living in Me], so the one eating Me, he also shall live because of Me." In other words, as our Lord lived by appropriative communion with, and communicated life from, the indwelling Father, so should the believer live in new spiritual life by appropriative communion with, and communicated life from, Christ Himself. Then, as if to clinch the meaning once for all, our Lord finalized His discourse with these emphatic words:
"It is the spirit that giveth life: THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING. The words that I speak unto you are spirit and are life." In that first line, I would fain spell the word, "spirit" with a capital S; but the context does not warrant it, and the second occurrence of "spirit" in the verse forbids it. What our Lord is finally impressing on us is, that it is the spiritual eating His flesh and drinking His blood which is vital; the physical is merely a useful symbol. I wish those words could burn in letters of flame, over every Roman Catholic altar—
"The Flesh Profiteth Nothing" With physiological literalism the Roman Catholic Mass supposedly implements our Lord’s words about His flesh and blood, especially in the consecration and elevation of Host and Chalice. But the Spirit-illumined eyes of the born-again see through its sacerdotal draperies to the pathetic misconceit which in reality it is. If the bread and wine indeed become transubstantiated into the very flesh and blood of Jesus, and are necessary to salvation, then why is the wine now reserved for the priests, and denied to the laity? Why do the people receive only the bread—nay, the thinnest wafer? A special doctrine has had to be invented for twentieth-century convenience; that the benefits of the wine are now included in the wafer!
If our Lord’s phraseology about His flesh and blood is to be taken literally, then why not take literally His words, "The water that I shall give him, shall become within him a fountain of water" (John 4:14)? Or why not take literally our Lord’s other metaphors, "I am the door", and "I am the vine" (John 10:9, John 15:1)?
How can our Lord’s words about His flesh and blood be taken literally, when in fact He now has neither flesh nor blood? When He rose from the dead it was not because a new supply of blood was poured through those drained arteries and veins! He now had a supernalized physique, which, although it had real corporality, was a body without blood. It was tangible; yet now, instead of earthiness, there was an ethereality which superseded all cosmic laws of gravitation and solid objects. His body was the same, yet not the same as before. Though similar in structure, it was different in texture. The Adamic flesh-and-blood body in which He suffered crucifixion was gone. That "flesh" was discarded; and the only blood He ever had was now poured out once for all. To think of that body and blood as being re-eaten and re-drunk by millions, week after week, from then until now, is the absurdest vulgarity ever conceived. Such transubstantiation would involve the preposterously impossible re-creation of that already often consumed body and blood in an endless repetition, also in millionfold size and quantity, so that it simply could not be our Lord’s long-ago body and blood at all! Even God cannot do the absolutely impossiblel Is final proof required that our Lord’s words are not to be taken literally? Then surely we have it in what He said about the bread and wine at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-29), and in Paul’s later comment (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) "This is My body", "This is My blood". Our Lord Jesus could not have meant that the bread and the wine on yonder table became His own flesh and blood; for His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood was still in His veins. Nor could He possibly have eaten His own flesh and drunk His own blood from that loaf and cup. The very fact that He spoke the mystic words then and not after His resurrection, confirms the obvious, i.e. that the bread and wine were purely symbols. The accompanying fact, also, of His connecting that Supper with the Passover and the old Covenant, confirms it. And especially so does His explanation: "This is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many, for . . ." Well, for what?— for the liquid imparting of His life to those who drink? No; but "for THE REMISSION OF SINS"!
Lastly, see Paul’s interpretative verdict, in 1 Corinthians 11:26, "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do . . ." Well, what?—eat His body and drink His blood? No; but, "Ye PROCLAIM THE LORD’S DEATH TILL HE COME". That is the last word of Scripture on the matter: a feast of REMEMBRANCE (24, 25) and of ANTICIPATION (26). The bread is only bread. The wine is only wine. Both are symbols only, though, as such, infinitely meaningful.
Thus, nowhere, either in Gospels or Epistles, is there any teaching that the blood of our Lord is communicable. Any such idea is physiologically unthinkable as well as Scripturally disqualified. John 6:53-56 is to be interpreted spiritually.
"Cleansing" by the Blood This brings us to those last remaining verses, which speak of cleansing through our Saviour’s blood. Outside of 1 John 1:7 there are three: Hebrews 9:14, Revelation 1:5 and Revelation 7:14.
Hebrews 9:14 reads: "How much more shall the blood of Christ . . . cleanse your conscience from dead works?" So this is a judicial cleansing of the "conscience" from "dead works", not an inward cleansing of the nature. The blood of Christ answers for me, wiping out condemnation, and relieving conscience by making me judicially clean. That the cleansing here meant is indeed judicial, not internal, is settled by the verses immediately preceding and following. Hebrews 9:13 parallels it with the Old Testament "sprinkling" of blood and ashes (Numbers 19:1-22) which, as we saw, was solely judicial. Verse 15 refers it to "redemption from under transgressions"—again the legal aspect.
Turning next to Revelation 1:5, we find: "Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood. . . ." Both E.R.V. and A.S.V. alter "washed" to "loosed", as more truly representing manuscript evidence. But in either case the cleansing or loosing is from "sins" (plural); not from sin inwardly. The only other text is Revelation 7:14, "These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." This cannot refer to a present inward cleansing, for the following reasons:
(1) It refers to what happens in heaven, not on earth.
(2) It refers to something yet future, not now occurring.
(3) It is apocalyptic symbol, not definitive statement.
(4) "Robes" symbolize the outward rather than the inward; dignity, priesthood, sonship (see O.T. references to robes of kings and priests: also Luke 15:22).
(5) In Revelation 6:11, the "white robes" are "given" to the disembodied martyrs in heaven.
(6) In Revelation 19:8, the robes of "fine linen, bright and pure" are the "righteous acts of the saints."
(7) The verb "washed" is aorist, indicating, not a continuous cleansing (as in 1 John 1:7) but a completed past act.
(8) The washing white of those robes was in "the blood of the LAMB", the blood poured out in propitiation, not for cleansing of the heart, but for cleansing from guilt—as was so with every sacrificed lamb of Old Testament typology.
What then of1 John 1:7?
What, then; of 1 John 1:7, "the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, deanseth us from all sin"? Have we not shown that neither the Old Testament nor the New gives any warrant for interpreting it as an inward cleansing? According to the whole force of Scripture evidence, 1 John 1:7 means a cleansing from sin in the sense of guilt and defilement before God. Moreover, if we look at the wording and the context, we find still further confirmation of that.
Take that verb, "cleanseth". It has an augmented preciousness by reason of its being in the present tense, which indicates a continuous cleansing. Yet the very provision of continuous cleansing presupposes a continuing need of it, that is, of continuing sin.
Now we are not just argumentatively hair-splitting, we are carefully distinguishing between things which really differ, when we remark that being cleansed is not the same as being clean. That which is really clean cannot be cleansed, for there is nothing in it to cleanse. Also, conversely, that which needs continuously cleansing cannot in itself be really clean. So, then, if the word, "sin", in 1 John 1:7 means (as most teach, but which I deny) our inward condition of sinfulness as members of Adam’s fallen race, then this very text which is supposed to promise purity of heart teaches the opposite; for it teaches our need of continual cleansing from continual sin. But then that immediately raises the point: does that word, "sin", in 1 John 1:7, mean an inward condition? I claim that it does not. This is one of those instances where, according to strict grammatical interpretation, either of two translations may accurately transmit the Greek original. We can read it either as "all sin", or as "every sin". If we translate it as "all sin", then it may well seem to mean an inward condition of sin; whereas if we translate it as "every sin", it plainly refers only to a committing of sin. The big difference is between sin-condition and sin-commission. Practically all the controversy on 1 John 1:7 has arisen from that translation, "all", which, to my own judgment, is unfortunate and misleading.
Over and over again, in our New Testament, that Greek word (pas) rendered as "all", in 1 John 1:7, is translated as "every". There are some places, also, with exactly the same grammatical construction as in 1 John 1:7 (preposition apo and genitive case), where it must be translated as "every". For instance:
Acts 2:5, "Devout men from every nation under heaven"
2 Timothy 4:18, "The Lord will deliver me from every evil work"
Once we change the word, "all", to "every", in 1 John 1:7, not only is the precious text rescued from mishandling by eradicationist theorizers, but it at once harmonizes with the whole teaching of Scripture concerning the sacrificial blood of our Lord and its varied efficacies on our behalf. But if, contrariwise, we insist on the translation "all sin", so as to teach thereby an inward ablution from sin utterly, we are in head-on collision with the very next verse, which reads, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves."
Finally, let me clinch the matter by mentioning the little noticed but powerfully significant circumstance that the words, "cleanseth us from all sin", in 1 John 1:7, are a practically verbatim quotation from Leviticus 16:30 as translated from the Hebrew into Greek by the famous Septuagint Version, in the third century b.c. That pre-Christian Greek version of the Old Testament is still used in some of the Eastern churches, and is often of great importance in determining the sense of an old Testament passage. Well, away back there, in that third century b.c., John’s very words may be seen in the Septuagint’s Greek rendering of Leviticus 16:30—"cleanse you from all your sins"; same word for "cleanse"; same word for "all"; same word for "sins"; and the same grammatical construction. John knew that verse well, and knew he was using its very words. Surely, then, he had that Old Testament "day of Atonement" in mind as he wrote its New Testament counterpart, in 1 John 1:7. And if so, then he most certainly meant cleansing from sin judicially, not internally. Is it not clear, then, that we ought to substitute the word "every", in place of "all", so as to accord with the plural, "sins", in Leviticus 16:30?
Conclusions So, from the gathered data, we draw the following conclusions.
First, those precious words, "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth", do not mean His blood literally—any more than the wood is meant literally when we are said to be saved by His "cross", or the fire is meant literally when we speak of the Holy Spirit as the "refining fire". The "blood" is to be interpreted metonymically, that is, as representing the whole saving sacrifice by which we are cleansed.
Second: in line with the full, clear witness of Biblical teaching as to "sprinkling" and "cleansing" by sacrificial blood, 1 John 1:7 simply cannot mean an inward cleansing of our nature; but it does mean a complete and continuous cleansing from all the guilt of sin; and from all the stain, or defilement, caused by our sinning, as seen by the holy eyes of God.
Third: for these reasons the doctrine of an inward cleansing from our hereditary sin-condition cannot be founded on 1 John 1:7. The Gospel does indeed bring us inward renewal and cleansing, but 1 John 1:7 is not one of those texts which teach it.
Fourth: the eradicationist position, therefore, is unmistakably wrong in making 1 John 1:7 teach an utter expurgation of sin— with all sinward desires and inclinations thereby deterged from our nature. Equally erring is that suggested alternative which teaches from it this inward cleansing, yet reduces the force of the wording so as to gainsay eradicationism. The truth is, that both Romans 6:6 and 1 John 1:7 need lifting right out of further discussion so far as experiential holiness is concerned. In both cases, wording and context alike indicate so, as we have shown. It is the common misinterpretation and misapplication of those two texts which, more than any other factor, hascausedthe long-continuing controversy and division in holiness teaching. That division is the biggest and saddest of all obstacles in the teaching of Christian holiness; and it will never be healed so long as those two texts continue to be misinterpreted in the way which we have discussed in these pages. From wrong interpretation has come wrong theory; and wrong holiness theory has begotten false hope, strange frustration, later disillusionment, and sometimes heart-breaking recoil. The New Testament, like the Old, teaches that the true agent of cleansing is water (John 13:5, Hebrews 10:22, etc.); and this is beautifully spiritualized in Ephesians 5:25, "Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, having CLEANSED it by THE WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD". Similarly, in Titus 3:5, Titus 3:6, we find, "According to His mercy He saved us, through the WASHING OF REGENERATION AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH HE POURED OUT UPON US RICHLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR."
Just as all those Old Testament blood-sprinklings which typified cleansing from guilt are fulfilled in the precious blood of Christ, so all those type-anticipations of personal cleansing, such as the cleansing water of the laver (Exodus 30:18, Hebrews 10:22) are fulfilled by the Holy Spirit and His renewing ministry within us by the Word. The Word Of Two Scholars
"My belief is, that in this case [1 John 1:7] the true meaning of the verse has been missed by learned and pious expositors." "I hold that the words [of 1 John 1:7] refer to the cleansing of the guilty, from the point of view of law. ... I hold that the words do not refer to subjective results within the believer."
Bishop Handley C. G. Moule. Pamphlet, The Cleansing Blood, 1889.
"In Bible usage, cleansing by blood is cleansing from guilt. Through the shed blood of Christ, all who walk in the light are cleansed continuously—every hour and minute—from all the guilt of sin. There is absolutely no sin upon them. There may still be sin in them: it is not the blood, but the living Christ and the Holy Spirit who deal with that."
R. A. Torrey.