The Blood of Christ — Does the Blood Itself Save?

Today I received a comment regarding a long ago posted article or comment string, which I am not going to try to find.  This comment is pretty much the same one as posted by this person previously (I’m not going to give his blog “handle” because I’m not sending people to false teaching KJVOs). (And it violated comment rules by being on an article which had nothing to do with the comment — 8/21/19!)

I’m going to divide the comment into the four paragraphs he wrote, and then comment on each one  separately.  The purpose of this exercise is to educate people on the weird theologies out there.

I am not going to take the time to look up the specific thread in which you falsely accused me of slandering John MacArthur, falsely claiming he does NOT agree with Mary Baker Eddy concerning the blood of Christ, so I will leave this comment here. 

The point was not that MacArthur agreed with Eddy, because he didn’t!!! There is a subtle difference in what they said, and it is an important difference.  The slander was the commenter putting MacArthur on the same level as Eddy as a teacher!

I have never even BEEN charismatic, but I was nevertheless amazed that there was actually a BAPTIST who is faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ, and I highly recommend Dr. (Rev.) D. A. Waite's "John MacArthur's Heresy on the Blood of Christ," to enlighten you concerning this serious matter. 

Charismatics often teach that the blood of Christ had some mystical properties in and of itself, so whether or not this individual is charismatic, his theology about the blood is similar.  D.A. Waite was a rabid KJV Onlyer and called anyone who disagreed with the KJVO stance a heretic. Talk about false teachers!!!!  And it is very apparent that, if he also said MacArthur agreed with Eddy, then Waite really didn’t notice the difference either!

So here is what John MacArthur says concerning the blood of Christ (which DOES indeed save us, cleanse us and justify us, according to SCRIPTURE): "We don't want to get caught in the BIZARRE NOTION that there's any saving efficacy in the FLUID that ran from his body" (And what does GOD SAY? "For the life of the flesh is in the BLOOD, and I have given it to you on the altar FOR THE ATONEMENT OF YOUR SOULS. For it is THE BLOOD that makes atonement by the life" Lev. 17:11). And here is what Eddy says "The material blood of Christ was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed on 'the accursed tree,' than when it was flowing in his veins as he went about his Father's business." 

Note there is a difference between what MacArthur said and what Eddy said. MacArthur said there was no “saving efficacy” while Eddy said it was not “efficacious to cleanse from sin.”

Here’s the point. If Jesus had cut himself while working as a carpenter, and spilled his blood on the ground or smeared it on lumber, that blood had no saving power, nor did it cleanse from sin. Jesus’ blood in and of itself was not miraculous, nor special in any other way.  And that is the point MacArthur was making.

In the Old Testament animals were sacrificed to pay for sin; not that the blood was efficacious in and of itself, but was symbolic as a covering — it covered over the sin of the people. In the same way, when Jesus was offered as a sacrifice, his blood symbolically covered over sin — which is where Eddy went wrong in denying this aspect.  But the blood itself had no saving power — just as MacArthur stated.  The saving power was in the actual sacrifice, death, and resurrection of Christ; if Christ had not raised from the dead there would be no salvation!

You defended JMac, agreeing it wouldn't have done any good if He'd bled and lived, yet SCRIPTURE says "Without the shedding of BLOOD there IS no remission of sin" (Hebrews 9:22). And here's a warning from God as well: "How much severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated the BLOOD OF THE COVENANT that SANCTIFIED them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:29). This is a serious enough issue to break fellowship over. 

The point is that if Jesus had lived, then he wouldn’t have died for our sin, so if all his wounds left trails of blood and yet didn’t kill him, then a sacrifice would not have been made! And yet this commenter thinks it is wrong to say this!

I’m sorry, fella, but Jesus’ blood alone, in and of itself, was no different than that of any other man.  What made it different was that only HIS blood, during HIS sacrifice, atoned for — covered over — our sins. But if he had not died and risen from the dead, that blood would not save anyone.  And that is the Biblical truth!

This is what KJVO legalism, and KJVO twisting of Scripture, and KJOV cultic beliefs lead to — a total misunderstanding of the Gospel. 

I may have the exact details of the theology not quite precise, but it is a FACT that Jesus’ blood had no miraculous qualities, and in and of itself did not save us. What saved us was the sacrifice of Christ with the blood atonement covering sin, his actual death as a sacrifice, and his resurrection proving the sacrifice was acceptable to God for the salvation of those who place their faith in Christ and his death and resurrection.

UPDATE 9/10/19:

The following links were sent to me by James Kieferdorf, proving that James MacArthur has never taught heretically regarding the blood of Jesus, nor has he taught anything near what Mary Baker Eddy taught.

The Blood of Christ. By John MacArthur

What's All the Controversy About John MacArthur and the Blood of Christ? By Phillip R. Johnson.