The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum John MacArthur's view on the blood

The individual(s) whose diatribe against MacArthur on the site you linked to are fundamental Baptists; Classic Dispensationalists and therefore in consequence of their "literalist" hermeneutic (method of interpretation) it is understandable that they would object to MacArthur's view. They clearly want to understand "blood" as being the actual blood; that essential fluid that flowed in Christ's veins. However, their view is unsupportable since the word "blood" used in the NT in conjunction with the death of Christ does not mean physical blood. There is no saving efficacy in physical blood, neither as that shed in the sacrificial offerings of the OT which pointed to the death of the coming Messiah nor in the NT which reveals those types and shadows as being fulfilled in the crucification of Christ.

Now, without being to converse with MacArthur personally as to his statements where he is quoted as saying that the "blood" is synonymous with "death", I cannot judge whether he is correct or not. But this I do know, that the death, i.e., the loss of life in itself has no efficacy either. In most of the places; I haven't checked each and every one, where the shedding of Christ's "blood" is found it is referring to the atonement, the sacrifice of Christ. Put more plainly, the shedding of Christ's blood is to be understood as the offering of Himself as a propitiation, ransom, reconciliation, sacrifice in behalf of His people. It is Christ's "passive obedience" to God whereby He made [legal] satisfaction for that which was held against elect sinners. It was His enduring the wrath of God for sin that is efficacious to allow God to justify them.

Again, it is not clear to me if THAT is what MacArthur is saying when he is quoted as saying that the "blood" means "death".

If you consult Hendriksen, e.g., on Romans 5:9 you will see that he also holds to the same understanding as what I just wrote above.