Check out the new Convergence Church Network! 

Visit and join the mailing list.

Enjoying God Blog


Hear Charles Spurgeon on the blood of Christ Continue reading . . .

Hear Charles Spurgeon on the blood of Christ:

“Beloved, it is a thought which ought to make our hearts leap within us, that through Jesus’ blood there is not a spot left upon any believer, not a wrinkle nor any such thing. Oh precious blood, removing the hell-stains of abundant iniquity, and permitting me to stand accepted in the beloved, notwithstanding all the many ways in which I have rebelled against my God” (“The Precious Blood of Christ,” 37).


Dwayne, thanks for that man.

"Now watch, the term "the blood of Christ" is a metonym that is substitute for another term "death." It is the blood of Christ that simply is a metonym for the death of Christ. But it is used because the Hebrews used such a metonym to speak of violent death. Whenever you talk about the blood of somebody being poured out, to the Hebrew that meant violent death. And when you commune with the blood of Christ, it doesn't mean the literal blood of Christ, that is a metonym for His death, you commune with His death.

Now let me say something that might shake some of you up, but I'll try to qualify it. There is nothing in the actual blood that is efficacious for sin. Did you get that? The Bible does not teach that blood of Christ itself has any efficacy for taking away sin. Not at all. The actual blood of Christ isn't the issue. The issue is that His poured out blood was symbolic of His violent death, the death was the thing that paid the price, right? The wages of sin is what? Death. He died for us. It is His death that is the issue. The Hebrews spoke of it as His outpoured blood because that was something that expressed violent death, and they believed, for example, in the Old Testament it said, "The life of the flesh is in the blood." And so the pouring out of blood was the significance of death. And so when it says here we are communing with the blood of Christ, it does not mean the literal blood of Christ is efficacious, it does not mean the literal blood of Christ is involved, it means we enter into a genuine vital participation in His death. But it is not the blood, the blood is only the symbol of the poured-out life." - John MacArthur

Mark- I don't think John's focusing too much on one over the other- he's addressing a heresy that minimizes the focus on Christ's death and enlarges the focus on blood. That is, a heresy that divorces the significance of Christ's blood from the significance of Christ's atoning death. They're both important, but the blood is important insofar as it magnifies the preciousness of Christ's purity and acceptability as a sufficient sacrifice to cover all the sins/sinners it was intended to cover. is a pretty good synopsis of what John MacArthur believes about the blood of Christ. Where in scripture is it recorded that Jesus' blood was not the same as the blood of anyone else born of a woman? As a carpenter, I'm sure he hit his thumb with a hammer and bled. Was that blood not human blood? What say you, Sam?

So refreshing to hear these words of yours and Surgeons on the preciousness of the blood of Christ. What does macarthur believe? Doesn't he believe that because Jesus was 100 percent human ( and divine), that Jesus blood was human? Dr. Macarthur focuses MORE on the death of Christ, rather than the blood. I disagree with him here and wonder about MacArthur's salvation since he says the blood has no saving power. What do you think, Sam?

Write a Comment

Comments for this post have been disabled.