I’ve let the dust settle some on the conversation
that I note further down before bringing up this question, what about the blood
of Christ? This is a question in regards to John MacArthur that will not go
away regardless of how many times some at SharperIron will trot out links to
MacArthur’s statement. Sure, John MacArthur believes in the blood of Christ and
only the most inane would say anything to the contrary, but what does he
believe about the blood of Christ?
Over at Sharper Iron, some have brought it back to
people’s attention. Some men are expecting some level of apology for past
statements by fundamentalists, and fundamental fellowships (in this case the
FBFI). While everyone trots out the words of condemnation by various men
against MacArthur, no one is actually bringing up what John MacArthur has said.
I find this quite odd. Some are quick to jump on the FBFI for their past
denunciation of MacArthur yet no one is looking at what John MacArthur has said
to see if it is worth denouncing. Any denunciation is simply and quickly
dismissed seemingly just because it is against MacArthur. Here are links to the
comments referred to above (see here
and here and here
and here). By using excerpts from Rolland McCune’s Systematic
Theology as a support of John MacArthur, a commentor gives the reader the idea
that what MacArthur believes is the same as what McCune articulates (see
here). Again, this is done without one quote from MacArthur.
This does beg us to respond to the proverbial
elephant in the room, that being, what does MacArthur say about the blood of Christ?
It is not enough to say, yes, John MacArthur believes in the blood of Christ.
This statement means nothing. It says nothing as to what MacArthur actually
believes about that blood.
So, let’s let John MacArthur speak for himself. Here
are some quotes from MacArthur himself about the blood of Christ. The first two
are transcribed from this audio of Phil Johnson and John MacArthur talking
about this very thing (found here).
“I have tried to make that distinction—that when the New
Testament refers to salvation by His blood that it is not talking about
salvation by His fluid. It uses blood as a metaphor or a synonym for death because
it conveys the violence of it.” (emphasis mine)
“When the New Testament is talking about the blood of Christ it is talking
about the death of Christ, but it uses blood because that is a metaphor
that speaks of the violence of his death.” (emphasis mine)
In the audio you’ll notice that several times MacArthur
will build strawmen arguments about his beliefs. These strawmen have nothing to
do with the controversy surrounding him about his belief about the blood.
Let’s also look into MacArthur’s commentary writing to
find what else he says about the blood. In his commentary on Hebrews, The New
Covenant—part 3 (9:15-28) he writes,
“The second reason for the death of Christ was that forgiveness demands blood. This truth is directly in line
with the previous point, but with a different shade of meaning. Blood is a symbol
(emphasis mine) of death, and therefore follows closely the idea of a
testator’s having to die in order for a will to become effective.” (p. 236)
“It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our
behalf, which is symbolized (emphasis mine) by the shedding of His physical
blood.” (p. 237)
“The purpose of the blood was to symbolize
(emphasis mine) sacrifice for sin, which brought cleansing from sin.” (p.237)
“Since the penalty for sin is
death, nothing but death, symbolized (emphasis mine) by the
shedding of blood, can atone for sin.” (p. 237. 238)
Now,
when the Scriptures speak of the blood of Christ is this what we are supposed
to think? That it is simply a symbol for His death? Now granted MacArthur says
many good things in this commentary about the blood of Christ but as we see
with the above excerpts those good statements are interspersed with these.
Those
at SI noted about how this issue of MacArthur and the blood hasn’t gone away.
Well, of course it hasn’t and it’s not going to go away. Every new copy of
MacArthur’s Hebrews commentary placed into the hands of each new preacher or
lay person will raise this question again and again.
Now
before, some go to the extremes, no, I am not of a Romanish bent that the blood
of Christ is eternally being offered, okay. I am asking this question though.
Is Christ’s blood merely, simply a symbol for His death? I don’t think so.
MacArthur leads us to think that Christ’s blood and His death are one in the
same thing with his use of the words synonym, metaphor, and symbol/symbolize.
More
important than what a man thinks about a subject, what does the Scriptures say?
Let’s look at several passages beginning in Genesis.
Genesis
9:3, 4
Every
moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I
given you all things. But flesh with the
life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
God
gave commandment to Noah and his sons that they could eat animals now but not
the blood because the life of the flesh is the blood. God sets apart blood here
giving it a special emphasis.
Ex
12:7, 13, 22, 23
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on
the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall
eat it.
And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the
houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the
plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in
the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts
with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of
his house until the morning.
For
the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood
upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door,
and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
Notice
that in the initiation of the Passover, God says nothing about the animal
sacrifice that was consumed that night as being efficacious, but He does
mention that the blood must be applied to the doorposts and lintels of their
homes. The death of the animal was not sufficient, the blood must be applied.
Exodus
24:4-8
And
Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and
builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve
tribes of Israel.
And
he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and
sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
And
Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he
sprinkled on the altar.
And
he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and
they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
And
Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the
blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these
words.
Again,
we notice that animals are sacrificed but then specifically the blood is
reserved for a special purpose, being sprinkled on the altar and upon the
people. Keil & Delitzsch, in their commentary make this statement;
The
division of the blood had reference to the two parties to the covenant, who
were to be brought by the covenant into a living unity…For this was not a
mixture of different kinds of blood, but it was a division of one blood, and
that sacrificial blood, in which animal life was offered instead of human life,
making expiation as a pure life for sinful man, and by virtue of this expiation
restoring the fellowship between God and man which had been destroyed by sin.
But the sacrificial blood itself only acquired this signification through the
sprinkling or swinging upon the altar, by virtue of which the human soul was
received, in the soul of the animal sacrificed for man, into the fellowship of
the divine grace manifested upon the altar, in order that, through the power of
this sin-forgiving and sin-destroying grace, it might be sanctified to a new
and holy life. In this way the sacrificial blood acquired the signification of
a vital principle endued with the power of divine grace; and this was
communicated to the people by means of the sprinkling of the blood. As the only
reason for dividing the sacrificial blood into two parts was, that the blood
sprinkled upon the altar could not be taken off again and sprinkled upon the
people; the two halves of the blood are to be regarded as one blood, which was
first of all sprinkled upon the altar, and then upon the people. In the blood
sprinkled upon the altar, the natural life of the people was given up to God,
as a life that had passed through death, to be pervaded by His grace; and then
through the sprinkling upon the people it was restored to them again, as a life
renewed by the grace of God. In this way the blood not only became a bond of
union between Jehovah and His people, but as the blood of the covenant, it
became a vital power, holy and divine, uniting Israel and its God; and the sprinkling
of the people with this blood was an actual renewal of life, a transposition of
Israel into the kingdom of God, in which it was filled with the powers of God’s
spirit of grace, and sanctified into a kingdom of priests, a holy nation of
Jehovah (Ex. 19:6). And this covenant was made ‘upon all the words’ which
Jehovah had spoken, and the people had promised to observe. Consequently it had
for its foundation the divine law and right, as the rule of life for Israel.
In
the opening chapters of Leviticus, God lays out His instructions for how
service was to be rendered in the Tabernacle. In the first 8 chapters of
Leviticus, “blood” is used some 39 times (88 times in the whole book). Since
the use of this word is in conjunction with the actual sacrificing (i.e. the
death of an animal) and it’s use is differentiated from the animal itself, then
it seems most reasonable to understand that “blood” is not synonymous with, a
metaphor for, or symbolizes the “death” of the animal as John MacArthur leads
us to believe by his statements. The reason is obvious, animals were sacrificed
on the altar AND their blood was sprinkled on or applied to certain objects or
persons. BOTH the sacrifice of the animal was necessary AND the applying of the
blood was necessary. Two acts were accomplished to satisfy God’s commands to
His people, not one or the other, BOTH must be done. God also makes it very
clear in Lev. 17:11, “For the life of the
flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an
atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the
soul” that it is the blood that is in view here, not just the animal
sacrifice on the altar. This is BOTH/AND not either/or, a synonym, a metaphor,
or symbolizes.
I
move on to the New Testament. We know that all those sacrifices, which could
never take away sin, were a foreshadow of the One Perfect sacrifice for sin,
the Lord Jesus Christ. The very fact in our partaking of communion, the Lord’s
Table, shows the significance of the BOTH/AND. In the bread we remember, “This
is my body, which was broken for you,” we also partake of the fruit of the vine
(grape juice), “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins.” We do not partake of one element recognizing
that they are symbolical, a metaphor, or a synonym of the other.
The
Scriptures paint an entirely different picture. For in the Scriptures, both in
the many OT sacrifices and in the NT’s presentation Christ’s sacrifice, we see
a BOTH/AND when it comes to the blood and death. Whether it is the Passover,
where the lamb is given and whose body is to be consumed by the family AND its
blood applied to the doorposts and lintel or the sanctifying of the Tabernacle
with the sacrifice of the animal on the altar AND the sprinkling of all things
associated with the Tabernacle with the blood, to the Day of Atonement where
once again an animal is sacrificed on the altar AND its blood sprinkled on the mercy
seat in the Holy of Holies, we see that BOTH a sacrifice (the death of an
animal) AND its blood sprinkled were to be done. Not one or the other but BOTH
were necessary, thus eliminating the idea of just taking some blood from an
animal and letting it live and also not just killing an animal and sacrificing
its body on the altar. The complete fulfillment of the sacrifices in the Old
Testament is seen in the sacrifice and shed blood of our precious Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ.
So,
does John MacArthur believe in the blood of Jesus Christ? The answer is yes,
but more importantly is what MacArthur believes about His blood. John
MacArthur, in the very least, has portrayed a very poor picture of the blood of
Christ. John MacArthur has done what John MacArthur seems to do best, over
react in the opposite direction to some error of extreme. His Lordship
Salvation as articulated in his book, The
Gospel According to Jesus, is an overreaction to easy believism. His
statements on the blood of Christ are an overreaction to those extremists who
have taken the blood of Christ into the realm of possessing various mystical
powers.
Let’s
let the Scriptures say what It has to say and not twist and pervert them to
mean something It doesn’t.
5 comments:
As I read your analysis of MacArthur, I could not help wondering in what way your view is different from MacArthur. It seems like you are both saying the same thing. MacArthur is focusing on the meaning of the blood of Christ. He understands that the literal shedding of blood was necessary because that shed blood showed that Christ had died and fulfilled the OT typology. It did not kill Him - the piercing of Jesus' side simply revealed that he had died - unlike a bull on the altar. The bull on the altar died as a result of loss of blood. Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin (he gave up his life) and his blood was shed to reveal that he had died in a most unusual manner as the soldier at the cross recognized. Therefore we can say that the blood of Jesus Christ God's Son(which showed us He died as a substitute for sinners) cleanses us from all sin.
One of his concerns in writing is to oppose the Roman Catholic abuse of the literalizing of the blood of Christ, so that they are trying to capture the actual drops that flowed in his veins, which is the basis for the mass.
Please clarify for me if I have misunderstood your position, for I would assume you would agree with my summary. - Arlyn Ubben
Thanks for stopping by Arlyn. Read the article again Arlyn. JMac and I do not agree, for as far as I'm concerned as I note in the article there is a distinction between His (Christ's) death and His blood. JMac equates the two with the words he uses, as I note. I see that it is both/and.
You've articulated JMac's position well, that's not my position.
Ok, I read the article again. Let me see if I have this correct. Are you saying that both the physical death of Christ and the shedding of His blood are different aspects of the same event, yet distinct in what they accomplish?
Arlyn
Arlyn, I guess you should read the article for a third time to get a fuller answer, but in short, no. I speak in terms of both/and. Nice try, though.
To proveallthings,
Thank you for stopping by. I will not post your comment. My article is not a review of JMac's book Slave, so I will not let this thread get sidetracked onto JMac's use of questionable men for source materials for the book. Your link looks to be well documented but I will not let this issue get sidelined with that issue.
Post a Comment