Apparently this is all a big mis-understanding. Apparently John MacArthur was deliberately taken out of context and has had to deal with the consequences ever since. Why John MacArthur’s recent study bible says the blood of Jesus is liquid (on important verses) is another question…
He claims that some of his more militant critics have allowed their superstition on this matter to get the best of them. During the World Congress on Fundamentalism, which met on the BJU Campus (Bob Jones University), August 4-8, 1986, they passed a resolution declaring that Christ’s actual blood is eternally preserved in heaven, where it is by some mystical means literally applied to each believer. According to the World Congress, such a rigidly literal view of Christ’s blood is now to be considered a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and they will break fellowship with anyone who denies it. [DTW note - Well I would too, because it's hundred percent true. But the understanding of the blood of Jesus in heaven has been a biblical doctrine long since standing long before the World Congress on Fundamentalism supposedly laid claim to it. You see, after Jesus rose from the grave, not even Mary could touch him as he had to remain a spotless lamb, He had not yet ascended to Heaven.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
When He when to heaven he entered into the holy of holies, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin question, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New testament.
Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
In the Old Testament they had to make a sin offering on an ongoing basis, but Jesus came to make 1 sacrifice for us, 1 offering, and His blood was sprinkled ONCE in the temple on the mercy seat in heaven.
Hebrews 9:24-26 24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
And it's not mystical, it's 100% spiritual.]
John MacArthur says that these people 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. [DTW, clearly John MacArthur is preaching a false gospel.]
John MacArthur says we are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus’ literal blood. He says 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. [DTW: If you read the scriptures you will know there is no bowl of blood in heaven. Jesus blood however WAS sprinkled in heaven.
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
There is a warning in verse 25 that says, "see that ye refuse not him that speaketh" implying that Jesus and the blood are identical, if you deny the blood of Jesus, you deny Jesus Christ.
In the below verse the bible shows us that when we get saved, Jesus' blood that is sprinkled in heaven sprinkles our hearts from an evil conscience.
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
According to John MacArthur he says since this day, they have opted to hound him with unrelenting accusations, innuendo, and false accusations. These misguided brethren are so blindly determined to tie John MacArthur to the heretics’ stake that they haven’t noticed how their own rhetoric has carried them into serious heresy instead, denying the full humanity of Christ’s body, and opening the door to a Romanesque literalism regarding the application of Christ’s blood to sinners. [DTW note: uh no, it's clear John MacArthur is misguided and by denying the blood of Jesus, he denies Jesus Christ.]
John MacArthur says:
“It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.”
The bible says:
Hebrews 10:19 ”Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” (Ephesians 2:13)
Romans 3:25 “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”
Who are we going to believe, John MacArthur or the bible? The bible of course.
You see, in the Old Testament, when the plagues were upon Egypt, God instructed Moses to warn the Israelites to apply the blood of a slain lamb to the door posts of their homes. If they didn’t obey God, then the firstborn of that individual family would die.
Exodus 12:13 ”And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I s ee 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.”
Do you see that? God says, “…. and when I see the blood” … “I will pass over you”
If the people instead just sacrificed the lamb and stopped short of applying the blood blood to the doorposts of their homes, then their first born would have died! The blood had to be applied.
This is what John MacArthur teaches, he stops short of applying the blood.
The same for the tabernacle, the Highpriest was required to apply the slain lamb’s blood to the mercy seat, in the holy of holies.
Leviticus 16:15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
If the Highpriest sacrificed the lamb; but stopped short of applying the blood to the mercy seat, then the people’s sin were not atoned for. It is clear that the blood had to be applied to the mercy seat.
John MacArthur says, “It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.”
John MacArthur however teaches that it’s not Jesus’ blood being applied to the mercy seat in heaven that cleanses us, washes away our sins (because he does not believe Jesus blood was sprinkled in heaven) – he says instead that it’s the sacrifice itself that cleanses you, he stops short of applying the blood. John MacArthur doesn’t believe that the blood of Jesus is holy, it’s just liquid, nothing more. The bible condemns those who trample underfoot the blood covenant.
Hebrews 10:29 “ 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, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
The blood of Jesus is not liquid, the bible says that the blood of Jesus washes away our sins forever.
1 Peter 1:18-19 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;”
Here’s a letter John MacArthur wrote to his constituents in 1988 in response to those who were trying to discredit him over this issue:
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.
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. [Emphasis added]
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. [Emphasis added]
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. [Emphasis added]
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
But the question remains, why does John MacArthur’s recent study bible say the blood of Jesus is liquid on IMPORTANT VERSES that should be spiritualised.
John MacArthur is a Calvinist, who preaches the doctrine of demons; Calvinism. He believes in Predestination, that Jesus only died for the Elect and not the whole world. The fact that John MacArthur denies the blood of Jesus Christ is just a symptom of the doctrine of Calvinism.
See all articles on John MacArthur here