Although the Old Testament sacrificial system was rendered obsolete by the New Testament’s call to worship God in spirit and truth, the blood of the sacrificial lamb continues to hold profound significance for believers today. As Christians, we believe that Jesus is the lamb of God who took away our sins, and his blood has the power to forgive. This belief is based on Jesus’s description of his blood: “the blood of the covenant…that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28, cf. Mk 14:24, Lk 22:20).
How does the blood of Jesus achieve atonement—a comprehensive term referring to our reconciliation with God through the forgiveness of our sins? Hebrews 9:22 provides a one-word answer: “Without αἱματεκχυσία there is no forgiveness.” As a unique composite word consisting of two common words αἷμα (blood) and ἐκχέω (pour out), it translates as shedding or pouring out of blood.
The term blood-outpouring in Hebrews 9:22 represents a critical piece in the complex exegetical puzzle concerning the timing and location of atonement. Many scholars have traditionally interpreted this word as Jesus’ shedding of his blood at his death on the cross. However, others have argued that the word signifies Jesus’s offering of his “life-blood” after his resurrection and ascension in the heavenly temple. Both the “atonement-at-death” and the “atonement-after-resurrection” views bring strong exegetical evidence to the table, and consequently, the debate appears to be at an impasse. This paper advocates for a third perspective reconciling the two opposing views within a unified “sacrificial script” based on a cognitive linguistic approach.
While the sacrificial script view has been criticized for conflating two distinct events—death on the cross and the offering in heaven—which are often seen as conceptually discontinuous, this paper argues that the conceptual framework of atonement points to the resurrection of Christ as the pivotal focal point between his death on the cross and his entrance into the heavenly temple. In this framework, the resurrection serves to unify the preceding death and the subsequent heavenly offering into a single, coherent act of atonement.
The paper achieves this aim in three stages. First, it examines how the term blood-outpouring relates to the contrasting interpretations of the timing and location of atonement, identifying gaps in the conventional approach. Second, it introduces cognitive linguistic theories that help address this gap, specifically, the Cognitive Grammar of prepositions and Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Finally, building on these insights and incorporating visual aids, the paper illuminates how Hebrews’ author and original audience may have conceptualized Jesus’ atoning work as a single, unified process encompassing his death, resurrection, and ongoing life in heaven. The cognitive linguistic methods clarify how this theological reality can be meaningfully conceptualized by those who believe in the power of Jesus’ blood—both in the first century and today.