Is it proper to say that Jesus’ blood was spilled?
Question:
In response to a question on your website, I ask that you please give thoughtful consideration when using spilled in reference to the blood of Christ. Genesis 3 and Isaiah 53 foretells the event that will take place in 33 A.D. and is predetermined, deliberate, and not accidental.
Answer:
If we are to be precise, it must be noted that neither Genesis 3 nor Isaiah 53 state a date for the death of the Savior.
"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28).
The Greek word ekchuno may be translated as pour out, shed, or spill [The Complete Biblical Library]. In other words, the Greek word does not indicate whether the action was intentional or not. The English word "spill" is defined as "cause or allow (liquid) to flow over the edge of its container, especially unintentionally." It is typically used for unintentional situations, but it is not necessarily restricted to that meaning. But the second definition of "spill" is "to cause (blood) to be lost by wounding" according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Jesus' side was pierced and so blood spilled from his wound. This sense of the word is consistent because the bloodshed was secondary to the intention of the person causing the wound.
You are correct that Jesus' death was deliberately allowed by God in order to redeem mankind and to establish a new covenant ( Hebrews 10:4-10). "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 17:11). However, it is not incorrect to say that Jesus' blood spilled from his wounds.
