PDA

View Full Version : John MacArthur's view of the blood of Jesus


Originalist
09-27-2013, 10:59 AM
I'm sure we all have our differences with John MacArthur. However, there is one area where I feel he is being unfairly attacked, that being his view on the blood of Christ.

I marvel that there are those who believe that the literal, physical blood of Christ somehow literally makes contact with the sinner's soul and washes away sin. I recently encountered a Church of God pastor who holds to this view. He thinks we will see the literal blood of Jesus when we get to Heaven. I'm in the process of responding to a feature article that appeared in the Pentecostal Herald in 2010 where a former Independent Baptist pastor (now a UPC pastor) testifies as to how he "came to the realization that he had never reached the blood of Jesus because he had not been baptized in Jesus' name". How absurd!! What blasphemy!! This is not a teaching officially endorsed by the UPC, but it may as well be if they allow it prominence in an official publication!! There are many of us in the UPC who, though we feel baptism is "in order that your sins might be forgiven" and a necessity to become a disciple of Christ, we wholly reject this notion that "the blood is in the name" or that "the blood is applied at baptism" as if there is literal blood involved being applied to a sinner's soul. The sad part is, this former independent Baptist minster received the baptism in the Spirit about three years before joining the UPC, which the UPC teaches is the moment in time when regeneration happens (and I agree with this view). Yet this brother thinks that God did not count him as having been "washed in the blood" until his rebaptism, and was thus lost. Regeneration without the blood? Born again of the Spirit yet not saved? Foolishness.

I stand with John MacArthur against these attacks. Here is his response below....

I Believe in the Precious Blood

By John MacArthur

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing.
Hebrews 10:28-29

Dear Beloved Friend,
The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is holy and precious. The shedding of His blood in death was the price of atonement for our sins. As He literally poured out His blood in a sacrificial act, He sealed forever the New Covenant and purchased our redemption.

Those of you familiar with my teaching know that I have always believed and affirmed those things. For the past two or three years, however, I have been under attack by a small but vocal group of men who are eager to discredit my ministry. They have charged me with denying the blood of Christ and have called me a heretic in several nationally distributed publications.

My first response was to write many of those men privately, believing their attack on me grew from a misunderstanding. None of them had spoken to me personally before attacking me in print. Only a handful have yet replied to my letters. Still, I expected the public controversy to die away. My teaching is certainly no secret, and I knew that those who listen regularly to our radio broadcast would know I am a not teaching heresy.

Nevertheless, for nearly three years a small core of zealots have kept the issue swirling around every ministry I'm involved with. One man has literally made a career of going to any church in the country that will pay his way and giving a series of messages on the error of "MacArthurism." Recently, a couple of key radio stations dropped "Grace to You," not because of anything we taught on the broadcast, but because they did not want to continue to deal with the controversy being generated by rumormongers.

Over the past couple of years we have received thousands of letters from all over the country, ranging from those supporting our biblical view, to those who are confused, to some who blindly echo the accusation that we are trampling underfoot the blood of Christ. For the sake of all of them, and so that you can better understand what I have taught about the blood of Christ, let's look at three truths that I and all other genuine believers affirm about the blood of Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus' Blood Is the Basis of Redemption

Peter wrote, "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver and gold . . .but with the precious blood of Christ" (1 Pet. 1:18-19, KJV). Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ nearly three times as often as it mentions the cross, and five times more often than it refers to the death of Christ. The word blood, therefore, is the chief term the New Testament uses to refer to the atonement.

Peter wrote that election is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:2). The "sprinkling of the blood" was what sealed the New Covenant (cf. Heb. 9:1-18). "Without shedding of blood is no remission" (v. 22). If Christ had not literally shed His blood in sacrifice for our sins, we could not have been saved.

This is one reason crucifixion was the means God ordained by which Christ should die: it was the most vivid, visible display of life being poured out as the price for sins.

Bloodshed was likewise God's design for nearly all Old Testament sacrifices. They were bled to death rather than clubbed, strangled, suffocated, or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss, because "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11).

2. Jesus Shed His Literal Blood When He Died

The literal blood of Christ was violently shed at the crucifixion. Those who deny this truth or try to spiritualize the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel message. Jesus Christ bled and died in the fullest literal sense, and when He rose from the dead, he was literally resurrected. To deny the absolute reality of those truths is to nullify them (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14-17).

The meaning of the crucifixion, however, is not fully expressed in the bleeding alone. There was nothing supernatural in Jesus' blood that sanctified those it touched. Those who flogged Him might have been spattered with blood. Yet that literal application of Jesus' blood did nothing to purge their sins.
Had our Lord bled without dying, redemption would not have been accomplished. If the atonement had been stopped before the full wages of sin had been satisfied, Jesus' bloodshed would have been to no avail.

It is important to note also that though Christ shed His blood, Scripture does not say He bled to death; it teaches rather that He voluntarily yielded up His spirit (John 10:18). Yet even that physical death could not have bought redemption apart from His spiritual death, whereby He was separated from the Father (cf. Mat. 27:46).

3. Not Every Reference to Jesus' Blood Is Literal

Clearly, though Christ shed His literal blood, many references to the blood are not intended to be taken in the literal sense. A strictly literal interpretation cannot, for example, explain such passages as John 6:53-54: "Truly, 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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

It would be equally hard to explain how physical blood is meant in Matthew 27:25 ("His blood be on us, and on our children"); Acts 5:28 ("[You] intend to bring this man's blood upon us"); 18:6 ("Your blood be upon your own heads"); 20:26 ("I am innocent of the blood of all men"); and 1 Corinthians 10:16 ("The cup of blessing . . .is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?," KJV).

Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid. Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means much more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement.
Trying to make literal every reference to Christ's blood can lead to serious error. The Catholic doctrine known as transubstantiation, for example, teaches that communion wine is miraculously changed into the actual blood of Christ, and that those who partake of the elements in the mass literally fulfill the words of Jesus in John 6:54: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Those who have attacked me seem to be espousing the same kind of mystical view of the blood that led the Catholic Church to embrace transubstantiation. They claim that the blood of Christ was never truly human. They insist on literalizing every New Testament reference to Jesus' blood. They teach that the physical blood of Christ was somehow preserved after the crucifixion and carried to heaven, where it is now literally applied to the soul of each Christian at salvation.

We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death.
In the same way, when Paul said he gloried in the cross (Gal. 6:14), he did not mean the literal wooden beams; he was speaking of all the elements of redeeming truth. Just as the cross is an expression that includes all of Christ's atoning work, so is the blood. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.

That is not heresy; it is basic biblical truth.

If you've been troubled by these issues and you'd like to study them more in depth, please write to us. We'll send you free of charge a cassette tape containing virtually everything I've ever said about the blood of Christ. We've compiled this tape from nearly twenty years of messages given at Grace Community Church. We also have some written material that explains our position, which we will send you again at no charge.

I hope you'll be like the noble Bereans and study God's Word for yourself to see if these things are true. Please don't be influenced by careless charges of heresy.

Also, please pray for me. These attacks have been relentless, and I confess that at times it is discouraging. Yet I know one cannot be on the front lines without constant battles, and it is a privilege to suffer wrong for the Lord's sake (cf. 1 Pet. 4:19).

Thank you for your prayers and support. Please pray that God will protect us as we seek to minister His truth with boldness.
Yours in His Service,


John MacArthur Pastor-Teacher

Esaias
09-27-2013, 11:38 AM
I'm sure we all have our differences with John MacArthur. However, there is one area where I feel he is being unfairly attacked, that being his view on the blood of Christ.

I marvel that there are those who believe that the literal, physical blood of Christ somehow literally makes contact with the sinner's soul and washes away sin. I recently encountered a Church of God pastor who holds to this view. He thinks we will see the literal blood of Jesus when we get to Heaven. I'm in the process of responding to a feature article that appeared in the Pentecostal Herald in 2010 where a former Independent Baptist pastor (now a UPC pastor) testifies as to how he "came to the realization that he had never reached the blood of Jesus because he had not been baptized in Jesus' name". How absurd!! What blasphemy!! This is not a teaching officially endorsed by the UPC, but it may as well be if they allow it prominence in an official publication!! There are many of us in the UPC who, though we feel baptism is "in order that your sins might be forgiven" and a necessity to become a disciple of Christ, we wholly reject this notion that "the blood is in the name" or that "the blood is applied at baptism" as if there is literal blood involved being applied to a sinner's soul. The sad part is, this former independent Baptist minster received the baptism in the Spirit about three years before joining the UPC, which the UPC teaches is the moment in time when regeneration happens (and I agree with this view). Yet this brother thinks that God did not count him as having been "washed in the blood" until his rebaptism, and was thus lost. Regeneration without the blood? Born again of the Spirit yet not saved? Foolishness.

I stand with John MacArthur against these attacks.

I'm not going to address MacArthur as I'm not particularly interested in his teaching. I would however like to address a few things you said.

" I marvel that there are those who believe that the literal, physical blood of Christ somehow literally makes contact with the sinner's soul and washes away sin."

I have never met anyone who believes this. No blood is visible, there is no actual, LITERAL, application of anyone's blood to anyone in conversion. Where would it be applied? Physical blood must be applied to a physical body, and nobody I know of has testified that when they were 'saved' they were LITERALLY drenched in somebody else's LITERAL blood, physically.


"...a former Independent Baptist pastor (now a UPC pastor) testifies as to how he "came to the realization that he had never reached the blood of Jesus because he had not been baptized in Jesus' name". How absurd!! What blasphemy!! This is not a teaching officially endorsed by the UPC, but it may as well be if they allow it prominence in an official publication!!

Seems the preacher is saying that he had not received the full benefits of the blood in the remission of his sins until he had been baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. I fully believe that. Most people in the UPC I have known, and most people in independent apostolic churches I know believe that. With the exception of the issue of the 'baptismal formula' ALL the Campbellites believe that. It is also the doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches. It is also held by some 'non-Reformed' baptist churches, and also by others. It is the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, Anglican church, the old original Methodists, and many others.

"There are many of us in the UPC who... wholly reject this notion that "the blood is in the name" or that "the blood is applied at baptism" "

The blood most certainly is 'applied in baptism' for the remission of sins. 'What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus,' correct? Well then, as Paul was told, 'Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptised, and wash away they sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' Therefore, the blood washes away sins in baptism.

It is not the water that washes away sins. Nor are sins LITERALLY 'washed away' by either blood or water. Rather, sins are graciously remitted through faith in Jesus Christ in the act of baptism. Thus, Peter says 'baptism saves us', explaining it is not the mere water, or even the mere act of being baptised, but the 'answer of a good conscience towards God.'

"...the baptism in the Spirit ..., which the UPC teaches is the moment in time when regeneration happens (and I agree with this view)."

If that is what they teach, then they teach error. Regeneration is 're- generation', ie being born again. Jesus clearly identified being 'born again' with both water and spirit. Thus, water baptism and Spirit baptism are both elements of regeneration.

Scripture speaks of salvation in various ways, including regeneration, born again, begotten again, begotten, born of God, born of the Spirit, justification, sanctification, etc. There are distinctions between all these things, but they are not SEPARATE, nor are they SEPARABLE.

Christ is our Atonement. He is also our Passover. They are distinct things, but not separable, not separate. They are instead the same thing looked at from different perspectives, or in consideration of different aspects.

Just so with 'regeneration'. Is Spirit baptism 'regeneration'? Sure, but so is water baptism.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5).

There is the 'washing' (water baptism) of 'regeneration', and the 'renewing of the Holy Ghost' (Spirit baptism). It by these that he saved us, according to his mercy.

When we try to separate the various aspects of salvation into 'distinct and separable parts' we get into trouble, and run afoul of Scripture.

Like this : "Regeneration without the blood? Born again of the Spirit yet not saved?" Such concepts are only possible if we separate, cut asunder, what God in His word does not.