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

Yes, 'haima' is the Greek word for 'blood'. CONTEXT always determines the meaning of words. It was the KILLING of bulls and goats which was required, i.e., the death of an animal; the taking of its life that symbolized atonement and not the blood in and of itself. The blood shed was the way in which the death was accomplished. There was more than the simple killing of bulls and goats in the ritual of atonement.

As I wrote above, it was the SACRIFICE of Himself in the place of [Grk: huper] those whom the Father gave Him and He being the object of God's eternal wrath 'being made sin' (the sinner's substitute) that atoned for sin, not the fluid of blood itself, which was part of his physical death. When God warned Adam that the day he ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil he would surely die, Adam did die when he took of the fruit. He died spiritually instantly, he would die physically in the future and he would die eternally, i.e., suffer the eternal wrath of God [lest God determined to show him mercy in Christ, which He did]. All of these 'deaths' Christ experienced on the cross, of which the shedding of His blood, the physical death was a part.

So again, I am not sure what MacArthur means when he equates 'blood' with 'death', thus I cannot comment on his view further. Did you read what Hendriksen wrote in Romans 5:9? I know you bought the complete set....