1. First predicted by John the Baptist in Matthew 3.11, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,” is it not the authenticating sign attesting to the messiahship of Jesus?
2.
(22.17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
1. Commentators frequently misinterpret this Scripture verse as a four-fold invitation to sinners to come to Christ. However, closer scrutiny suggests what we have in this verse are two two-fold invitations. The first two-fold invitation is directed to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the second is to sinners.
2. The venerable John Gill provides skillful guidance for correctly understanding John’s words in this verse. He observes that hearing Christ say that He should come quickly, in Revelation 22.7 and 12, the Spirit and the bride of Christ express a most affectionate desire for the Savior’s coming.
3. It may be that the reference to “the Spirit” concerns the Spirit of God in the hearts of His people and that the indwelling Spirit not only convinces Christians of and acquaints Christians with the coming of Christ to judgment and gives them reason to expect it, but fills our souls with the love of His appearance, so that we eagerly anticipate it.
4. Galatians 4.6 provides ample justification for this claim, where Paul writes, “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” Thus, just as the Spirit of God cries out to God the Father in those He indwells, so the Spirit of God would cry out for the return of Christ in those He indwells.
5. As well, look to Romans 8.26-27, where the indwelling Holy Spirit is shown to intercede in the believer’s life in yet another way:
26 Likewise
the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray
for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
6. Thus, when we read “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come,” we are not looking at an invitation to the lost to come to Christ, specifically. Still, an invitation is uttered by the Spirit of God through the bride of Christ through those saved individuals He indwells, for the Savior to come quickly to reclaim what is rightfully His, to judge the lost, and to deliver His Own.
7. The phrase, “And let him that heareth say, Come,” expands the first invitation to Christ to come. However, whereas the first invitation is uttered by the Spirit and the bride of Christ, this second phrase should be likened to encouraging all who agree to join in. Thus, anyone who hears with understanding, anyone with spiritual insight and illumination, is called upon to join in the cry to the Savior to come again. “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”
8. Who would be included in this expanded group? Old Testament saints, holy angels in heaven, and the beleaguered saints on Earth during the Great Tribulation who are being pursued and martyred by the antichrist.
9. Thus, all the redeemed of all ages, both on Earth and in heaven, cry out for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Joining with us in yearning for our Lord and Savior are all the holy angels of heaven. In addition, all of this is prompted by the executor of God’s plan and purpose for the ages, the Holy Spirit of God.
10. Only those who oppose the plan and purpose of God are not so eager for Christ to stand from His throne, to mount the white steed, and to open heaven so that He might gloriously and majestically return. Who might that be? The devil and his allies, the antichrist, the demons, and the Christ-rejecters of this world. They recognize that the worst possible scenario for them is the triumphant return of Christ.
11. Those two invitations to Christ to return are followed by two more invitations directed to an entirely different audience. However, refrain from being too hasty in concluding whom the invitations are directed toward since careful consideration of what is said might surprise you.
12. The phrase that now commands our attention reads, “And let him that is athirst come.” Consider very carefully before answering my question: Is this an invitation extended to all who are lost and in need of Christ? If words have meaning, the answer is “No.”
13. These words seem to invite those
who thirst after Christ, long for His grace and righteousness, yearn for knowledge
of Him and communion with Him, to come unto Him by faith. The words echo John
7.37, where the Lord Jesus in the
14. Of course, it is also possible that this is an invitation to those who thirst after His Second Coming, and the glories and delights of the New Jerusalem state to come into it eat of the tree of life, and drink of the river of water of life in it. I think this is an invitation not to all lost but to those lost souls who truly thirst after Christ.
15. This aligns with our Lord’s invitation in Matthew 11.28: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” There, too, the invitation is most definitely not extended to all sinners but to those sinners who are contrite, to those sinners who are weighed down by their load of guilt and sin, by those sinners who are brought to conviction by the Holy Spirit of God.
16. The last phrase parallels the one before it: “And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” The water of life has to do with God's free favor and love and the communication and display of that love in the New Jerusalem, including the comfort and glories to be enjoyed there.
17. But notice that the invitation is extended, not to all who are lost, but to “whosoever will.” But what do we know from God’s Word about “whosoever will”? In John 5.40, the Lord Jesus Christ declared, “ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” As well, there are the words of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 2.13: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
18. Therefore, the final invitations to come to Christ are not invitations extended to every sinner. Instead, they are invitations extended to sinners mindful of their sinfulness, very aware of their need, sinners who have been convicted of their sins, sinners whose hearts have been pricked.
19. “But pastor, I am a lost sinner and I do not thirst after Christ. Neither has my heart been so affected by the Holy Spirit that I want to become a Christian. I am not one of those who “will” come to Christ. What should I do?” Luke 13.24: “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.”
20. A final word to Christians.
You and I should long for the soon return of our Savior. The Spirit of God
works in the Christian’s life to create that longing and to anticipate His
coming. And what about the lost? Our first priority with the lost seems to get
them lost, for only when they are genuinely lost do the invitations found in
God’s Word apply to them.
EXCURSUS ON CHRIST’S BLOODY VESTURE
(Revelation 19.13)
I was first aware of a controversy in
Christendom concerning the blood of Christ while I was in Bible college. The
school administration informed the student body that possession of any material
produced by Colonel R. B. Thieme, whether written material or cassette tapes, would
be grounds for immediate expulsion. I was given to understand that R. B.
Thieme’s cassette tapes and study materials were widely distributed in the U.
S. armed forces and that the harmful effect of his heretical doctrines was
widespread. Since I had never heard of R. B. Thieme, I let the matter pass
without much thought.
More than a year later, my pastor, Dr. Eli
Harju, called me into his office and asked me if I would like some Christian
books and literature from the library of a deceased Church member. The man’s
widow had decided to give his collection to some ministerial students in the Church,
and the pastor asked me, along with two other much younger men, if we wanted to
go by her house Sunday afternoon after Church to select the books we wanted. Of
course, I accepted the offer.
Upon arriving at the widow’s house, I was
introduced to the other two fellows. The widow had decided that fairness
required allowing us to take turns in her husband’s library, each taking one
minute to select the books we wanted before exiting. Then, after each of us had
our minute, the cycle would start over until the books had all been picked. I
won the draw and was given the first minute in the library.
However, my excitement quickly turned to
consternation when my eyes fell upon a section of books and pamphlets by R. B.
Thieme. Not wanting the heretical material to fall into the hands of the
younger men and not wanting to say anything that would disturb the memory of
her recently deceased husband, I spent my first minute scooping up the Thieme
materials instead of grabbing the excellent commentaries and classics there for
my taking. Once I got home, I stashed the books and never paid attention to the
Thieme material again. However, I do remember noticing about that same time that
there were some books for sale in the nearby
Several years later, having graduated from
Bible college and had a year of graduate school under my belt, I was again made
aware of the controversy related to the blood of Christ shortly after beginning
my first pastorate. Only this time, the dispute was not related to Colonel R.
B. Thieme but to a well-known pastor and radio Bible teacher named John
MacArthur. He seemed to have taught some things concerning the blood of Christ
that challenged accepted conservative Christian thinking. Then his views came
out in print, in his commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews (if my memory
serves me correctly regarding the sequence of events that occurred so long ago).
Read Hebrews 9.18-22, after which I will present some of the statements he wrote in his commentary on Hebrews:
18 Whereupon
neither the first testament was
dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses
had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the
blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and
sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God
hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he
sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Here are two paragraphs and part of a third paragraph from page 237 of The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Hebrews:
It is possible to become morbid about
Christ’s sacrificial death and preoccupied with His suffering and shedding of
blood. It is especially possible to become unbiblically preoccupied with the
physical aspects of His death. It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us,
but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His
physical blood. If we could be saved by blood without death, the animals would
have been bled, not killed, and it would have been the same with Jesus.
The purpose of the blood was to symbolize
sacrifice for sin, which brought cleansing from sin. Therefore, without shedding of blood there is no
forgiveness. (Emphasis in the original.)
Again, however, we need to keep in mind that the blood was a symbol. If Christ’s own physical blood, in itself, does not cleanse from sin, how much less did the physical blood of animals?[1]
I find it
incredible that John MacArthur offers no examples of morbidity about Christ’s
sacrificial death. He also cites no illustrations of anyone being preoccupied
with Christ’s suffering and shedding of blood. Moreover, where are we warned in
the Bible to avoid becoming preoccupied with the physical aspects of Jesus
Christ’s death? As for blood symbolizing sacrifice for sin and blood is a
symbol, on what basis does Mac Arthur make such statements?
I became so
alarmed by what I perceived to be his departure from Christian orthodoxy that I
called John MacArthur’s office and arranged an appointment to meet with him to
make sure I clearly understood his position and to verify that he was not
misquoted and that the words of his commentary accurately reflected his
position. However, when Larry Arnold (a long-time and trusted Church member) and
I drove to his office, several of the elders of the
Needless to
say, I was a bit put off by what sounded like a weak excuse. However, we sat
down and discussed the issue of the blood of Christ, the two elders all the
while assuring us that John was completely orthodox and was not breaking any
new ground or asserting what Christians had not always believed. So, has there
been a retraction of MacArthur’s written comments on the blood of Christ? Has
he taken steps to clarify his position and show that some of his statements had
been poorly worded or misstated what he meant to convey? Not that I am aware of.
It has now
been almost forty years since I was first made aware that some men do not
believe what the Bible teaches concerning the blood of Jesus Christ. It has
been nearly thirty years since I attempted to allow John MacArthur to clear
himself in this matter. Further study of this important topic has not changed
my views. I believe I have an orthodox understanding of what the Word of God
declares concerning the blood of Jesus Christ.
Overall, I
am persuaded that differences between men concerning the blood of Christ relate
more to anti-supernaturalism than to differences arising from the meanings of
different Bible texts. I cannot prove this accurate; I believe this to be true.
There have always been men, infidels, who denied that the Lord Jesus Christ
rose from the dead on the third day in a glorified physical body. Of course,
such men would also have blasphemous views about Christ’s blood. There have
always been men, believers, who accept as an article of their faith that Jesus
Christ rose from the dead in a glorified physical body after three days and
three nights in the rich man’s tomb. Once they study the issue, their views on
the blood of Jesus Christ predictably fall in line with established Christian
orthodoxy. Those who have no clear understanding concerning this matter of
Christ’s blood need to come down on one side or the other because this is vital.
Allow me to
state the issue as clearly as possible: Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of the
living God, suffered, bled, and died for sins. From the time of His agony in
the garden of Gethsemane, where “his
sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground”
(Luke 22.44), until He gave up the ghost as He hung from the cross, at which
time “one of the soldiers with a
spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water”
(John 19.34), His blood was being shed. The question is about His blood. What
happened to His blood?
Why is the
blood of Christ so important? Keep in mind what Hebrews 9.22 declares: “... without shedding of blood is no
remission.” There is also the promise of Psalm 16.10, clearly a
Messianic psalm: “For thou wilt
not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see
corruption.” The Lord Jesus Christ knew the Father would not suffer His
Son’s body to corrupt and decay following His death on the cross.
First, the blood of Christ is crucial because it is God’s means of remitting sin. Indeed, apart from Christ’s shed blood, the sinner has no hope of standing before God on Judgment Day. Read Romans 3.23-28 with me:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his
righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth
in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By
what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
You can see from this passage
that we have just read that the blood of Christ figures very prominently in
God’s economy for dealing with sins. But this “faith
in his blood,” is it faith in blood that no longer exists? Is it faith
in something that ceased to exist 2,000 years ago? This matter is an
understandable concern.
A second concern has to do with Christ’s resurrection. Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ an essential doctrine? I think we all recognize that the resurrection of Christ in physical form is one of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. Let me read portions of ancient Christian creeds so you will see how important the resurrection of Jesus Christ has always been to our Christian faith:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord, Who was
conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontias
Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell and on the third
day, He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the
right hand of the Father Almighty, From whence He shall come to judge the
living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic Church, the
communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and
the life everlasting. Amen.[2]
I believe in one
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible
and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of
one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and
for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit
of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again,
according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the living
and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in
the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father and
the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;
who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one
holy catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission
of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world
to come. Amen[3]
(1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; (2) Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (3) And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; (4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. (5) For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. (7) Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. (8) The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. (9) The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. (10) The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. (11) And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. (12) As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. (13) So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; (14) And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. (15) So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (16) And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. (17) So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; (18) And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord. (19) For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; (20) so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords. (21) The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. (22) The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. (23) The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. (24) So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. (25) And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another. (26) But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal. (27) So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. (28) He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. (29) Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (30) For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. (31) God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world. (32) Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. (33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. (34) Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. (35) One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. (36) One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person. (37) For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; (38) Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; (39) He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; (40) From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. (41) At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; (42) And shall give account of their own works. (43) And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. (44) This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.[4]
So, it is clear that the
resurrection of Jesus Christ is not only a cardinal doctrine of the Christian
faith but that it was so recognized in ancient times by those who, down through
history, have been identified as orthodox.
A third
concern, connecting the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the blood of Jesus
Christ, has to do with whether or not the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead on the third day was complete, a full resurrection. Is blood part of a
person’s physical body? Yes, it is. Indeed, the blood is so much a part of
physical life that “the LORD spake unto Moses,” in Leviticus
17.11, saying, “For the life of
the flesh is in the blood.”
So, no one can argue that a person’s blood is not a vital organ of the human
body or that the blood is not essential to physical life. That leads to the
question, If Christ’s body was raised from the dead so that it would not see
corruption, was Christ’s blood not also raised, since His blood is part of His
body?
I think the answer is obvious, quite simple, and straightforward to those not predisposed against supernaturalism. Yes, Christ’s blood was also raised up when He was raised from the dead and glorified. And if that be true, where is Christ’s blood now? Before I address that question, let me first list some of the towering figures and authorities in Christian history who were unequivocal in their conviction that the Bible shows Christ’s blood to be in heaven:
John Chrysostom (AD 347-407)
(The early
church preacher known as “golden mouth”)
John Calvin (1509-1564)
(The Great
Reformer)
Matthew Poole (1624-1679)
(The great
Puritan Bible commentator)
Stephen Charnock (1628-1680)
(The great
Puritan writer and theologian)
Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
(The most
widely read commentator of all time)
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
(The great
hymn writer and preacher)
John Bengel (1687-1752)
(The great
German commentator)
Nicholas von Zinzendorf (1700-1760)
(The hymn
writer and leader of the Moravians)
John Wesley (1703-1791)
(The evangelist
and founder of Methodism)
Charles Wesley (1707-1788)
(The great
hymn writer and preacher of the First Great Awakening)
James A. Haldane (1768-1851)
(The
Scottish Baptist evangelist, pastor and Bible commentator)
Patrick Fairbairn (1805-1874)
(The author
of The Typology of Scripture)
Andrew Murray (1828-1917)
(The
beloved author and teacher)
C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)
(Pastor of
R. A. Torrey (1856-1928)
(The Dean
of the Moody Bible Institute and Biola, renowned evangelist)
The Pulpit Commentary (19th century)
The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (19th
century)
The Expositor’s Bible (1909)
The Scofield Study Bible (1917)
(The most
widely used study Bible of all time)
Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952)
(The
founder and longtime president of Dallas Theological Seminary)
M. R. DeHaan (1891-1965)
(The
beloved Bible teacher and author)
J.
(The most
widely heard Bible teacher of all time)
W. A. Criswell (1909-2002)
(The pastor
of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas;
twice
president of the Southern Baptist Convention)
Bob Jones, Jr. (1911-1997)
(The
courageous president of
Oliver B. Greene (1915-1976)
(The great
evangelist)
Rt. Hon. Ian R. K. Paisley (1926 - )
(The fearless champion of Protestant Christianity and member of the British parliament).[5]
Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ’s blood was raised along with the rest of His body on resurrection’s morn is not a strange belief. Neither is it an unscriptural belief. It is the most natural and normal conclusion a Bible-believing person could arrive at from studying Scripture. Therefore, at this time, we will examine every New Testament verse that sheds light on the blood of Christ, with what I hope are pertinent questions and comments:
Luke 22.44: “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”
The blood of
the Lord Jesus Christ fell to the ground in the
John 19.34: “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.”
The same question arises. Was this blood of Jesus Christ that spilled onto Golgotha's rocks eaten by flies and bacteria?
Acts 20.28: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and
to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to
feed the
These are Paul’s final words to the Ephesian elders. He is speaking to
them about their duties as pastors. But notice the last phrase, “which he hath purchased with his own
blood.” To whom does the word “he”
refer? Against MacArthur, let me read the comments of R. C. Sproul and A. T.
Robertson. First, Sproul: “The phrasing is remarkable in the way it
acknowledges that the blood of Christ is the blood of God.”[6]
Robertson wrote, “... Jesus is here called ‘God’ who shed his own blood for the
flock.”[7]
So, the antecedent of the pronoun “he”
in this verse, the noun to which the pronoun refers is God.
Why is it essential to ascertain whose blood Paul is speaking of? It is more difficult for those who deny that Christ’s blood is in heaven if they can persuade readers and listeners that Christ’s blood is not God’s. Who would acknowledge that God’s blood was corrupted after it fell to the ground? To be sure, we must be careful to distinguish between the persons of the Trinity since failure to distinguish between the Persons of the godhead is an increasing problem in Christendom these days, but the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is the reason why Paul chose to identify Christ’s blood as God’s blood when he spoke to the Ephesian elders.
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.”
The antecedent of the pronoun “his” in the phrase “his blood” in this verse is found in Romans 3.24. It is Jesus Christ. Romans 3.25 refers to faith in Christ’s blood. However, consider that faith is one’s present trust in the object of one’s faith. Is it reasonable to suppose that if a person trusts in Christ’s blood to remit his past sins, he would be presently trusting in blood that exists and not blood that was eaten by bugs 2000 years ago? To put it another way, keeping in mind that the word “propitiation” has to do with Christ’s sacrifice for sins satisfying God’s righteous demands for the punishment of sins, does it not seem reasonable that a sinner’s faith would be in atoning blood that exists, rather than faith in atoning blood that no longer exists?
Romans 5.9: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”
In Romans 8.29-30,
we see God’s grand purpose from eternity past to eternity future:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the
image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Consideration
of this passage reveals that God’s foreknowledge and predestination occurred in
eternity past, while glorification will occur in our future. But God’s
effectual call and the sinner’s justification occur during our lifetimes. I was
called and justified through faith in Christ (I was “justified by his blood”
according to Romans 5.9) on or about
Ephesians 1.7: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.”
Redemption means “‘deliverance by payment of a ransom.’ A thing is redeemed by the payment of a stipulated price.”[8] The question is, what was the ransom payment? What was the stipulated price? Our text indicates that it is the blood of Christ.
Ephesians 2.13: “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”
Consider, if
you will, this idea of someone “far
off” being made close by the blood of Christ. Psalm 147.20: “He hath not dealt so with any nation:
and as for his judgments, they have
not known them. Praise ye the LORD.” God’s dealings with
But Ephesians
2.13 declares that Gentiles, those who used to be far off, are now made nigh by
the blood of Christ. That is, the application of the blood of Christ results in
the saved Gentile being now near instead of far. The question, of course, is
when this was accomplished. When Christ shed His blood on
I do not think that all unsaved Gentiles are now close to God in the way His chosen people are close to God. I believe that proximity to God is the direct result of conversion and cleansing in the blood of Christ. Thus, I am convinced that the blood of Christ is necessary each time an individual Gentile sinner is reconciled to God through faith in Christ, effecting that sinner’s redemption through blood that still exists, through blood that did not corrupt and rot 2,000 years ago, through blood that is glorified and presently in heaven.
Colossians 1.14: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins”
This verse says much the same thing that Ephesians 1.7 says. The question that can always be asked is when does someone have redemption through Christ’s blood? Does the convert have redemption now, through the blood that was shed 2,000 years ago and no longer exists? Or did the convert have redemption 2,000 years ago, long before he was born? Or is there a third way in which this verse can be understood? Can it be that Christ’s blood was shed 2,000 years ago, but that His glorified and still existing blood is ever efficacious to save sinners in time when they come to Christ? It seems to me that the third alternative is the preferable one to those who are not anti-supernaturalists.
Colossians 1.20: “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”
This verse clearly shows that peace with God is impossible apart from the peace that can only be made through the blood of Christ’s cross. Only by Christ’s blood on the cross is reconciliation to God made. But you were born 2,000 years after the cross. So, there are three possibilities for you: First, reconciliation is impossible for you since Christ’s blood was shed and then corrupted long ago. Second, reconciliation was effected when Christ’s blood was shed, long before you were born and came to faith in Christ. Of course, this would mean that you were saved before you were ever born. Or, third, though Christ’s blood was shed long ago, you were actually and really reconciled to God through the blood of Christ’s cross because the blood of Christ’s cross remains and is ever efficacious to save.
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.”
This is a compelling verse for those who believe Christ took His blood into heaven. Consider what John MacArthur wrote on this verse in his commentary on Hebrews:
How does Christ minister in His heavenly sanctuary? What does He do as our eternal High Priest? He does three things, primarily. First, His service is in His own blood, not that of sacrificial animals. The Sacrificer was the Sacrifice. Second, He made His sacrifice only once, and that once was sufficient for all people of all time. Third, He obtained permanent, eternal redemption. He cleansed past, present, and future sins all in one act of redemption. (Emphasis in the original).[9]
I suggest you reread it. That is all MacArthur says about this verse. In the face of the express statement by the writer of Hebrews that the Lord Jesus Christ entered into the holy place by His Own blood, MacArthur quickly scoots past this verse with a short, seven-sentence paragraph that avoids facing what annihilates his erroneous assertion that Christ’s blood ran into the dirt and decayed.
Hebrews 9.14: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
In this verse, we see that the blood of Christ purges the sinner’s conscience from dead works to serve the living God. However, Christ shed His blood 2,000 years before your conversion, before your sins were forgiven, before your sins were cleansed. Are we to suppose the blood of Christ has a saving efficacy after it no longer exists?
Hebrews 9.22: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”
This verse, quite obviously, shows that the blood of Christ and the death of Christ are not the same, as John MacArthur, Jr. and R. B. Thieme, Jr. would have their followers believe. The Jews knew the difference between death and blood. Moses knew the difference between death and blood. The writer of Hebrews understood the difference between death and blood. As well you and I know the difference between death and blood. It is the blood that is used to make atonement.
Hebrews 10.19: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.”
Reflect on the great Matthew Henry’s comments about this verse:
The apostle tells us the way and means by which Christians enjoy such privileges, and, in general, declares it to be by the blood of Jesus, by the merit of that blood which he offered up to God as an atoning sacrifice: he has purchased for all who believe in him free access to God in the ordinances of his grace here and in the kingdom of his glory. This blood, being sprinkled on the conscience, chases away slavish fear, and gives the believer assurance both of his safety and his welcome into the divine presence. Now the apostle, having given this general account of the way by which we have access to God, enters further into the particulars of it, Heb 10:20. As,
1. It is the only way; there is no way left but this. The first way to the tree of life is, and has been, long shut up.
2. It is a new way, both in opposition to the covenant of works and to the antiquated dispensation of the Old Testament; it is via novissima--the last way that will ever be opened to men. Those who will not enter in this way exclude themselves for ever. It is a way that will always be effectual.
3. It is a living way. It would be death to attempt to come to God in the way of the covenant of works; but this way we may come to God, and live. It is by a living Saviour, who, though he was dead, is alive; and it is a way that gives life and lively hope to those who enter into it.
4. It is a way that Christ has consecrated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh. The veil in the tabernacle and temple signified the body of Christ; when he died, the veil of the temple was rent in sunder, and this was at the time of the evening sacrifice, and gave the people a surprising view into the holy of holies, which they never had before. Our way to heaven is by a crucified Saviour; his death is to us the way of life. To those who believe this he will be precious.[10]
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?”
1. Notice how the writer of Hebrews essentially shows three things to be the same in this verse. To tread underfoot the Son of God and to count the blood of the covenant (Christ’s blood) as an unholy thing, and what means essentially to insult the Spirit of grace, are three offenses equal in their seriousness.
2. To tread the Son of God underfoot is to treat Him like a conquered foe, show Him the bottom of your shoe’s sole, and display your disgust for Him.[11] Moreover, doing despite unto the Spirit of grace is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
3. These two things considered how serious it is to count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. In addition, do you not count the blood of Christ an unholy thing when you insist that it ran to the ground and was corrupted when the Savior was crucified?
Hebrews 13.12: “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.”
This shows that Jesus suffered outside the gate, outside the walls of Jerusalem, to sanctify the people with His Own blood. He suffered without the gate once. Did He also sanctify the people with His Own blood at that time? That is, did Jesus sanctify me with His blood 2,000 years ago? On the other hand, did He shed His blood 2,000 years ago but sanctify me with His blood when I was born again? If the latter be true, then His blood must exist in heaven.
Hebrews 13.20: “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”
1. “The meaning is, that he was made or constituted the great Shepherd of the sheep--the great Lord and Ruler of his people, by that blood. That which makes him so eminently distinguished; that by which he was made superior to all others who ever ruled over the people of God, was the fact that he offered the blood by which the eternal covenant was ratified.”[12]
2. When God brought Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, back from the dead, did He resurrect part of Him or all of Him?
First Peter 1.2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”
Peter here
refers to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. But where would the blood be that
was offered for sins sprinkled under the Mosaic system? Would the blood not be
sprinkled on the mercy seat in the holy of holies? What corresponded to the
mercy seat in
First Peter 1.19: “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”
The word “precious” means valuable.[13] What do you do with something precious, that is valuable? Do you not take care of it? Christ’s blood is valuable for at least two reasons: First because it is His blood. He owns it. He possesses it. Anything that Christ owns is precious because of its owner. Second, His blood is valuable because of what it accomplishes: the expiation of sin.
First John 1.7: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
Note the word “cleanseth.” Consider A. T. Robertson’s comment on this verse, remembering that the word “cleanseth” is a present active indicative verb, meaning that the action of the verb is ongoing in the current time. That is, Christ’s blood is cleansing us from all sin. Robertson writes:
If we walk (ean peripatômen). Condition of third class also with ean and present active subjunctive (keep
on walking in the light with God). As he (hôs
autos). As God is light (verse 1Jo 1:5) and dwells in light unapproachable
(1Ti
First John 5.8: “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
1. This verse does not bear directly on the issue before us, which concerns the resurrection and the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. This verse is a statement by John that three witnesses on earth of the saving work of Jesus Christ are the Spirit, the water, and the blood. This is likely a reference to the Spirit descending upon the Lord Jesus Christ at the time of His baptism at the hand of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus itself, and the shedding of His blood on the cross and everything related to that event as it was predicted in the Scriptures.
3. Those three, the Spirit coming upon Him, the baptism of Him, and the shedding of His blood, are the three reliable witnesses of Who He is and what He did. However, this verse does not bear on the matter before us.
Revelation 1.5: “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”
1. If you
consider Revelation 1.4, you will see that the “us”
who were loved and washed by the Lord Jesus Christ includes the Apostle John
and the seven Churches in
2. But John wrote this Revelation some fifty or sixty years following the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ, meaning that the apostle’s target audience, for the most part, were not washed from their sins in the blood of Christ for a half-century following the shedding of His precious blood.
3. How, then, could their sins be cleansed by the blood of Christ before they were converted? Moreover, how could their sins be cleansed by blood that was shed, dried, and then corrupted by oxidation and eaten by microbes and insects decades earlier?
4. No, my friends. People such as John MacArthur, R. B. Thieme, and Mary Baker Eddy cannot be right about this. The sheer weight of evidence that is being accumulated is much too great. Only blood that has been shed and preserved by being glorified could possibly continue to exist and efficaciously cleanse away sins after decades, centuries, and even millennia had passed.
Revelation 5.9: “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
1. Who sings this new song? Who do we see singing a song of worship, adoration, and praise to the Son of God for redeeming them by His blood?
2. If you remember from our study of Revelation chapters 4 and 5, the singers in Revelation 5.9 are the four and twenty elders representing the believers of our era, the so-called Church Age, or the Age of Grace.
3. The singers’ identity is so important because they represent blood-bought and blood-washed saints who have been redeemed from their sins for 2,000 years.
4. But redeemed how? Redeemed by the blood of Christ “out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” But how can blood redeem someone from sins without blood? The straightforward truth of the matter is that he cannot. To be redeemed by blood, you have to be redeemed by blood, making it impossible for the blood of Christ to be corrupted and non-existent if redemption occurs.
Revelation 7.14: “And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
1. As you well know, the Tribulation is a seven-year period that follows our present era. It will begin after the Rapture of Church Age believers and conclude at the visible Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in power and great glory.
2. Thus, of all the saints of God that we have considered, these Tribulation saints are those whose conversion and cleansing have been farthest removed in time from the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Therefore, not only was the blood of Christ not corrupted and consumed by critters in the minutes, hours, and days following His crucifixion, and not only is the glorified blood of Christ still precious and preserved, but it will continue to be precious and preserved in its uncorrupted and glorified state even to the time of the future Tribulation.
Revelation 12.11: “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”
1. This refers to Tribulation martyrs who are persecuted unto death but remain faithful to the Savior and the faith even in death.
2. What will sustain them during awful persecution and torturing? I believe it is the knowledge that there is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Immanuel’s veins, and sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilt and stains.
Conclusion:
1. We have considered the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from three perspectives. We have looked at the great Christian confessions and creeds of the past, written by men who, though not perfect, were orthodox Christians. Next, we examined the great saints of God over the centuries to discover their convictions concerning the blood of Christ, recognizing that while they were not perfect, we cannot claim to be the only people throughout history whom the Holy Spirit illuminates. Finally, we have examined every pertinent verse in the New Testament.
2. The conclusion that we draw is that the evidence is incontrovertible. The blood of Christ is precious. The blood of Christ is an organ of the Savior’s body. Therefore, the blood of Christ ought to have been, and is, glorified and preserved from that crucifixion day to our day and will be preserved into the future.
3. So, whose blood is on His vesture dipped in blood? It cannot be the blood of His enemies in heaven since His enemies’ blood will not be permitted in heaven. Neither can it be the blood of His enemies here on earth since He will wear this bloody vesture before His Second Advent to earth. The only possible conclusion one can safely and reasonably draw from thoroughly considering Scripture is that the blood on our Lord Jesus Christ’s garments is His blood.
END OF EXCURSUS ON CHRIST’S BLOODY VESTURE
[1]
John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament
Commentary: Hebrews,
(Chicago, IL: The Moody Bible Institute, 1983), page 237.
[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Apostles-Creed
[3] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nicene-Creed
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Athanasian-Creed
[6]
See footnote for Acts 20.28 from R. C. Sproul, The Reformation Study Bible,
(
[7] A.
T. Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol III,
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1930), page 353.
[8] D.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God’s Ultimate Purpose: An Exposition of Ephesians 1, (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1978), page 153.
[9]
MacArthur, page 229.
[10]
Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible, (
[11]
To expose the underside of one’s shoe or foot is quite offensive in many
Eastern cultures and is not fully appreciated as such by most Westerners. See https://www.ciu.edu/content/soles-our-feet
and https://rudemeter.com/where-is-it-rude-to-show-the-soles-of-your-feet/.
[12] Albert
Barnes, Albert Barnes’ NT Commentary, (
[13]
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol VI,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1930), page 90.
[14]
Ibid., pages 207-208.
