죽음없는 피흘림, 피흘림없는 죽음

[하토브]

죽음없는 피흘림, 피흘림없는 죽음

이 글은 최근에  제기된 존 맥아더 (John Macarthur )  목사의 설교에 대한 Bynum 목사의 비판글을 읽고 제기된 문제점들을 살펴보고 균형있는 개념정리를 할 필요가 있다고 판단되어 씁니다.

(1)       존 맥아더의 설교, 주장의 요지

The April 1986 edition of Faith For The Family quotes him as saying in a 1976 article entitled, "Not His Bleeding But His Dying:" "It was His death that was efficacious. . not His blood . . . Christ did not bleed to death. The shedding of blood had nothing to do with bleeding . . . it simply means death. ..Nothing in His human blood saves . . . It is not His blood that I love... it is Him. It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying." It is incredible to me, that a Christian minister would make such statements.

 맥아더 목사가 1976년도에 기고문에서  <그분의 피흘림이 아니라 그분의 죽으심> 이라는 제목으로 그가 말한 것으로 –가족위한 믿음-  잡지가 1986년에 인용하였습니다 그글에서 < 유효한 것은 피가 아니라 그분의 죽으심이다. 그리스도는 죽음에 이르기까지 피흘리신 것이 아니다. 그분의 인간의 피 가운데 어떤 요소도 구원하지 않는다. 내가 사랑하는 것은 그분의 피가 아니라 그분 자신이다. 나를 구원한 것은 그분의 피흘림이 아니라 그분의 죽으심이었다.> 하고 말함으로서 문제가 심각하게 제기되었습니다.

맥아더의 이러한 입장은 굿뉴스 성경 ( Good News Bible)  의 번역자 Robert G. Bratcher의 입장과 흡사한 것으로 분별됩니다. 굿뉴스 성경은 다음의 구절들에서 피를 희생적 죽음, 죽음 등으로 바꾸어버렸습니다.

마 27:4, 24, 25, 행 5:28, 17:26, 20:28, 롬 3:25, 5:9, 골 1:20 엡 2:13, 벧전 1:19, 계 5:9

우리가 거듭난 것은 썩어질 금이나 은으로 된 것이 아니라 보배로운 예수님의 피로 된 것이라는 말도 예수님의 희생적 죽음으로 된 것이라고 바꾸어 놓았습니다. 이것이 바로 굿뉴스 성경인데 그들의 입장과 당시 맥아더의 주장 방식이 흡사합니다.

계 5장 9절도 당신의 희생적 죽음으로 여러 민족을 하나님께 사들였다고 말함으로서 피가 없어졌습니다.

이러한 방식의 피를 도말하고 희생적 죽음으로 바꾸는 번역이나 설교자는 분명히 예수님의 피의 효력을 약화시키고 있다고 믿어집니다.

이러한 비판에 대한 존 맥아더의 변명은 우리를 구원한 것은 예수님의 피가 아니라 그분의 죽음이었으며 그분의 피는 예수님의 죽음을 상징하고 대표하는 것이었다고 해석합니다. 이것은 예수님의 피를 간접효력으로 인정하는 것이며 예수님의 죽음이 언급되는한 그분의 피는 굳이 언급할 필요가 없어지게됩니다. 왜냐하면 예수님의 피의 실체는 죽음이며 그 피는 간접적 대리 증거물 혹은 상징적 대표라는 뜻이 되기 때문입니다. 이러한 해석은 성경이 가르치는 바가 아닙니다!

성경은 분명히 동물의 피에 생명이 있다고 하였으며 (레 17:11) 피와 생명은 하나라고 하나님의 법칙을 설명하고 있기 때문입니다(레 17:14)

또한 성경 곳곳에서 예수님의 피를 언급하고 있는 구절들을 그대로 번역하고 그대로 해석함이 옳은 것입니다!~ 자기의 해석이나 이론으로 성경을 변개하는 것은 옳지 않습니다.

(2)       죽음없는 피흘림

피흘림이 중요하고 피 그 자체에 생명이 있다고 해석한다 하여 죽음없이 피의 희생제사를 드리는 것을 주장하는 것이 아닙니다. 성경은 피흘림과 죽으심을 대별하거나 구별, 분리하여 말씀하고 있지 않기 때문입니다.

구약시대에도 동물들을 죽이지 않고 동물의 피만 뽑아내어, 그 피만 성소에 갖고 들어가 뿌릴 수 있었을 것입니다. 동물들로 1리터씩만 피를 흘리게 하여 그 피를 성소 휘장앞에 뿌리게 하거나 속죄소에 뿌려놓을 수 있었을 것입니다. 그러나 그러한 희생제사는 가르쳐지지 않았습니다.

예수님 또한 자기 피를 뽑아내는 기술은 로마제국 당시에도 얼마든지 있었을 것이며

1리터만 피를 흘려서 그 피를 모은 다음 제자들에게, 가롯 유다는 빼고 오직 순전한 믿음을 가진 자들만 따라오라 하여 갈보리산에 올라가 나무 세우고 그 나무에 피를 발라 제사지낼 수 있었을 것입니다. 그리하면 불신자들, 부정한 자들의 참여없이 정결한 제사를 드릴 수 있었다고 말할 수 있었을지 모릅니다.

뿐만 아니라 예수님은 채찍에 맞으셨으며 그 채찍에는 쇳덩이들과 날카로운 것들이 끼워져 있었던 것이었으므로 예수님의 등허리는 피범벅이 되었을 것입니다. 또 그분은 가시관을 쓰셨으며 그때에 이마와 머리에 있던 정맥들에서 피가 흘렀습니다. 특히 이마 정맥에서는 많은 피가 흘렸으리라고 믿어지며 그것은 그분의 뺨을 타고 흘러내렸습니다. 그리함으로 참 하늘을 향하여 영원한 대제사장으로 하나님 아버지께 제사드렸다고 성경에 기록할 수 있었을지 모릅니다.

그러나 그것(피만 흘리고 죽지는 않는 방식)은 결코 하나님의 방식도 아니었습니다.

피흘림 그것으로 끝나지 않았습니다. 오직 피흘림만 필요하였다면 그것으로 충분했을 것인데 왜 그분은 다시 못박히셔야 했겠습니까?

예수 그리스도의 피흘림과 죽으심이 반드시 필요했으며 그것외에는 아무런 방법이 없었고 그 일 또한 오직 예수 그리스도만이 행할 수 있었기 때문에 예수님은 겟세마네 동산에서 피땀어린 기도를 드렸으며 그 기도는 그것 외에는 다른 방법이 없다는 것을 인생들에게 알려주신 기도였습니다. 그것외에 다른 어떤 방법으로도 죄를 없이 하지 못하였으므로 예수님은 피흘리시고 참혹한 죽음에 이른 것입니다!

따라서 죽음없는 피흘림이란 하나님이 인정하시는 희생제사 방식이 아니었다고 확실하게 결론 지을수 있습니다.

(3)       피흘림 없는 죽음

구약시대에 동물 제사를 드릴 때 돌로 쳐죽이지 않았음은 분명합니다. 또는 그 동물들을 나무위에 매달아 죽이지 않았음도 분명합니다.

고대에 사람을 매달아 굶어죽게 하거나 탈진시켜 죽게하는 형벌은 얼마든지 있었다고 믿어집니다.

 여호수아 8장 29절

그가 또 아이 왕을 저녁 때까지 나무에 달았다가 해 질 때에 명령하여 그의 시체를 나무에서 내려 그 성문 어귀에 던지고 그 위에 돌로 큰 무더기를 쌓았더니 그것이 오늘까지 있더라

 여호수아 10장 26-27

그 후에 여호수아가 그 왕들을 쳐죽여 다섯 나무에 매달고 저녁까지 나무에 달린 채로 두었다가

해 질 때에 여호수아가 명령하매 그들의 시체를 나무에서 내려 그들이 숨었던 굴 안에 던지고 굴 어귀를 큰돌로 막았더니 오늘까지 그대로 있더라

에스더 5장 14절

그의 아내 세레스와 모든 친구들이 이르되 높이가 오십 규빗 되는 나무를 세우고 내일 왕에게 모르드개를 그 나무에 매달기를 구하고 왕과 함께 즐거이 잔치에 가소서 하니 하만이 그 말을 좋게 여기고 명령하여 나무를 세우니라

에스더 7장10절

모르드개를 매달려고 한 나무에 하만을 다니 왕의 노가 그치니라

여기서 매달다는 단어는 탈라의 번역인데 이 단어에는 그냥 매다는 것과 목매달어 죽이는 것도 포함됩니다. 따라서 여호수아 당시에 어떻게 죽였는지는 확실치않습니다만 대체로 먼저 죽인 다음에 매달아 놓았거나 목매달아 죽게 했었으리라고 짐작됩니다. 피를 흘리지 않고 죽이는 사형방식은 얼마든지 있었습니다.

그러나 예수님 당시의 십자가 형벌 방식은 7세기경 페르시아에서 시작된 것으로 그것은 고통형과 사형을 동시에 집행하는 방식이었습니다. 그것이 에스더 당시, 모르드개에게 적용될 혹은 하만에게 적용된 방식이었는지는 확실하지 않습니다.

이런 인간들의 악함과 여러 관행들을 하나님은 미리 아시고 신명기 21장 22-23절에서 사람이 악행을 하여 매달 때에는 해질때까지 두지 말고 그 시체를 내리라고 말씀하신 것으로 분별됩니다.

이제 예수님께로 돌아가서, 예수님은 그냥 피흘리지 않고 죽으신 것이 아니라 명백히 피흘리고 죽으셨다고 믿어집니다. 그분은 갈보리산 골고다 언덕에까지 가시는 도중에 탈진하여 죽었을 수도 있습니다. 그러나 그분은 명백한 피흘림을 참 하늘앞에 보이시고자 골고다 언덕까지 가셔야 하였습니다. 그분은 도중에 죽을 수 없었습니다!

그분은 잠못자고 조롱당하였을때에도 죽을 수 없었습니다! 그분은 유대인들이 돌을 들어 치려 하였을 때도 (요 8:59) 죽을 수 없었습니다. 그분은 시편 22편 16절의 예언대로 손들과 발들에 사자처럼 물어 뜯기는 죽음을 당하셔야 했으며 더 나아가서는 피흘림이 명백한 죽음을 당하셔야 하였습니다. 그리하여 그분은 나무에 매달려 피흘리고 죽으신 것이었습니다. 그분은 진홍벌레가 잉태하여 새끼들을 낳을 때 나무 위로 올라가서 배가 터져 많은 피를 흘리고 나무를 붉게 물들인 후에 죽듯이 죽으셔야 했으며 (시 22:6) 한알의 밀알이 떨어져 죽지 않으면 많은 열매를 맺을 수 없기에 죽으셔야만 하였습니다(요 12:24)

(4)       피흘림과 죽음의 결합

존 맥아더가 예수님의 피흘림과 죽으심을 대립적으로 해석한 것은 잘못된 길에 들어선 것입니다. 존맥아더는 계시록 1장 5절의 번역을 놓고 씻음이라는 (λουω) 동사를 택하지 않고 ( Λοω) 동사를 택하여 건져냈다로 바꾸었습니다. 즉 그는 이 구절에서 카톨릭 계열의 사본들이 번역하는 바대로 번역하여 해석하고 있습니다. 존 맥아더가 예수님의 피의 능력을 모르는 사람이라거나 구원을 못얻은 사람이라고는 생각되지 않으며 그는 하나님이 여러면에서 귀히 쓰시는 일꾼이라고 믿어집니다만 그는 이런 언급에서 틀렸으며 또한 최근의 변명에서도 틀린 것이 그의 설명으로는 예수님의 피의 능력이 약화되기 때문입니다. 그는 피의 능력을 부정한 것이 아니라 약하게 말하고 있습니다.실제로 다음의 사이트는 존 맥아더가 예수님의 피가 죄를 대속하는데 필요하다는 것을 강조한 다음 그것에 대한 설명에서 죽음이 중요함을 말하였는데 밥 존스 대학 매거진이 거두절미하고 한 측면만 부각시켰다고 불평하였으며 이에 대해 사과글도 있었다고 말합니다.그렇지만 존 맥아더는 그런 논란에 왜 휩싸이게 되었는지 생각해보아야 할 것입니다.

(실제 밥 존스 대학에서는 처음에는 이단적이라고 비판하다가 5년이 지난 후에 이 문제는 더 이상 거론하지 말고 끝내자고 말하였습니다)

맨 아래 글에서는 맥아더가 예수님의 귀중한 피를 나는 믿는다는 제목으로 설교한 내용이 실려있습니다.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm

예수님의 피는 우리의 모든 죄를 씻어줄 수 있는 유일한 세척제입니다!

그분의 피흘리심은 죽으심에 이르는 것이었습니다. 그분은 죄를 지으신 분이 아니므로 평소에 피를 흘리실 이유가 없었습니다. 그분이 피를 흘리신 것은 자기 죄를 위함이 아니라 인류의 죄를 위함이었습니다. 그분은 자신의 죄를 위해 피를 흘려야 할 죄를 지은 적이 없습니다.

또한 예수님은 단순히 피를 흘리기만 하신 것이 아니라 인류를 대신하여 죽으셨습니다. 우리가 죽어야 하였는데 그분이 대신 죽으신 것입니다. 우리가 그분의 죽음을 우리를 위한 죽음으로, 우리를 대신 죽으신 것으로 믿고 여기며 그 진리를 마음속에 새긴다면, 우리는 거듭난 새 생명으로 살아갈 것이며 그 진리가 우리의 것이 될 것입니다. 우리가 만일 그 진리를 배척하고 차내버린다면, 그것은 우리의 것이 되지 못하고, 우리는 안믿는 죄를 크게 범하는 것이 될 것이며 그로 말미암아 영원한 형벌을 받게 될 것입니다.

그러므로 이제 우리가 이 주제에 관하여 결론 내릴 수 있는 것은 예수님의 피흘리심과 죽으심은 분리하여 생각할 것이 아니라 동일한 실체의 일체 양면으로 보아야 할 것입니다. 마치 동전의 양면과 같을 것입니다.

누가 예수님의 피흘리심은 죽으심을 대표하고 상징하므로 죽으심으로 바꾸어 말하면 된다거나 피흘리심은 중요하지 않다고 말한다면 그는 성경이 말하는 진리와 다르게 말하고 있는 것입니다.

예수님은 피흘리시고 죽으셨습니다. 피흘림이 없었으면 죄사함도 없었을 것입니다(히브리 9:22) 또한 그분의 피는 아담과 하와가 범죄하기 이전의 흠없던 피와 동일하게 순전한 것으로 인류에게 죄가 들어와 많은 유전자가 파괴되거나 변형된 육체의 피와 달랐으리라고 짐작됩니다.

그분은 죄없고 흠없으신 분으로 아담의 족속들 모두를 구원하시고자 하나님의 특명을 받고 이땅에 오셨으며 그 임무를 완벽하게 성취하시고. « 그것이 이루어졌다! « 고 외치시고 승리하셨습니다.

이로 말미암아 모든 인생들에게 영원한 생명으로 나아가는 길이 열렸습니다.

그분은 살아계실 때 인생들을 사랑하셨으며 죽으실 때 인생들을 살리셨습니다!

예수 그리스도의 피 안에 있는생명의 능력이 인생들의 모든 죄를 대신 속죄하였고, 영원한 생명을 나누어 준 것입니다!

예수님의 피를 무시하거나 피해가는 것은 합당하지 않을 것입니다.

예수 그리스도의 보혈의 능력을 찬양합니다!

주 하나님께 감사,

2013. 1. 20 하토브

MacArthur And The Blood Of Christ

by Pastor E.L. Bynum | August 1995

The following article is being reprinted from the Plains Baptist Challenger of August, 1986. After all these years, this information about John MacArthur's teaching, is still needed today. His teaching on the blood of Christ is dangerous, and people are still being led astray by it. There will be a follow up article on this same subject, and if there is enough demand, we shall consider putting this information in a tract or booklet. --E. L. Bynum

In recent weeks, we have received material from two different sources concerning John MacArthur's teaching on the blood of Christ. After reading it over, I find his doctrine to be very disturbing.

MacArthur Minimizes The Blood

The April 1986 edition of Faith For The Family quotes him as saying in a 1976 article entitled, "Not His Bleeding But His Dying:" "It was His death that was efficacious. . not His blood . . . Christ did not bleed to death. The shedding of blood had nothing to do with bleeding . . . it simply means death. ..Nothing in His human blood saves . . . It is not His blood that I love... it is Him. It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying." It is incredible to me, that a Christian minister would make such statements.

He Does Not Like Rev. 1:5 In The KJV

In "Not His Bleeding But His Dying," MacArthur had this to say: "I may add a note on Revelation 1:5, a passage which is confusing in the King James Version. The word `washed' is not correct. The Greek work is `delivered.' " With that statement, I would like to take issue. "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" (Rev. 1:5). What could possibly be confusing about that? He says that "washed" is incorrect and that it should be "delivered." Like most "great" scholars today, MacArthur suffers from the Westcott and Hort syndrome. "Washed" is in the Textus Receptus, and is so rendered by George Ricker Berry in his Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. In his invaluable footnotes, Berry reveals those responsible for trying to change the reading of this verse. The word was changed by Lachmann, 1842-1850, Tischendorf, Eighth Edition. 1865-1872, and Tregelles, 1857-1872. These are three of the men that laid the groundwork for Westcott and Hort, so that they could make the alarming changes in their Revised Version. The American Standard Version, 1901, of course went along with the change, but they did put in a significant footnote. While rendering the word as "loosed," their footnote says, "Many authorities, some ancient, read washed."

I do not agree with the change as found in the ASV, when it reads "Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood." Nor do I agree with the NIV as it reads, "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood." However, whether it is rendered "washed," "loosed," "freed," or "delivered," it is still "by" or "in" His blood that this is done. While the ASV, the NASV, and the NIV definitely weaken the verse, neither one of them will really let MacArthur off the hook. Whether washed from our sins, or delivered from our sins, it is still only by the blood.

MacArthur Sounds Like Bratcher On The Blood

In his commentary on Hebrews, pages 236 to 237, I find further alarming statements as he deals with Hebrews 9:16-22. While he does say some good things, he clearly is talking in circles. When he says that "blood is a symbol of death," he sounds very much like the apostate Dr. Robert G. Bratcher, who translated the "Good News For Modern Man." This is what Bratcher believed, so he felt free to change "blood" to "death" in Eph.1:7, Heb.10:19, and Rev.1:5. He changed "blood" to "sacrifice" in I Pet. 1:19. He also managed to leave out "blood," or substitute another word in Matt. 27:4,24,25; Acts 5:28; 17:26; 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Col. 1:20; Eph. 2:13, and Rev. 5:9. Of course Bratcher's "Good News Bible" is one of the most corrupt translations of the 20th Century. It would appear that in regard to the blood at least, that MacArthur and Bratcher are on the same wave length.

Why Pit His Blood Against His Death?

MacArthur states that "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." I have never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus only needed to bleed a little to save us, and not to die. Numerous passages of Scripture tell us that Christ died for our sins. This is found in I Cor. 15:3, as well as many other places. If anyone denied this, I would object very strenuously to their denial, but my question is, why does it have to be His "death" or His "blood"? It is both His "death" and His "blood" that are important according to the Bible.
How can MacArthur truthfully make the following statement? "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." Many passages of Scripture reveal that he is dead wrong in his approach.

What Do The Scriptures Say?

The elders were admonished "to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). Redemption and remission of sins cannot be apart from "faith in his blood" (Rom. 3:24,25). We are "justified by his blood" (Rom. 5:9). "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins . . . " (Eph. 1:7). We "are made nigh by the blood of Christ" (Eph. 2:13). "We have redemption through his blood" (Col. 1:14), and he "made peace through the blood of his cross" (Col. 1:20).

In Hebrews we are told that "by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12). We are told, "without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). We have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19). Jesus suffered with out the camp, "that he might sanctify the people with his own blood" (Heb. 13:12).

John tells us clearly that "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7). "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5). They will sing of Christ, "thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood" (Rev. 5:9).
Even though MacArthur believes that he has dispensed with Rev. 1:5, as we previously discussed, he still must face Rev. 7:14. I think he shall find little comfort there. "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Even the revised texts, and their new version offspring, such as the NIV, and the ASV, give MacArthur not one whit of aid and comfort. If the blood itself has no significance, then why do we have all of these Scriptures?

What Christ Said About The Blood

MacArthur's belief cannot be reconciled with the words of my Saviour, when He said, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). "This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20). These words were spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ as He instituted the Lord's Supper for His Church. In all honesty, it would seem to me, that MacArthur should eliminate the drink, "the fruit of the vine," from the Lord's Supper. He only needs the unleavened bread. Of course if he were to do so, he would be in direct disobedience to the Word of God.

The children of Israel were told to slay the passover lamb. They were to take the blood of the lamb, and strike it upon the door posts of their houses. "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you..." (Ex. 12:13). God did not tell them to hang the body of the lamb on the door post.

MacArthur's doctrine is in conflict with Lev. 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

It is perfectly clear that MacArthur minimizes the blood of Christ. To me, this is a terrible thing for anyone to do. While he may not go as far as R.B. Thieme, Jr., he certainly is headed in the same direction. Bible-believers need to mark such men, and avoid them, according to the Scriptures. The teaching of MacArthur, on this subject, is very dangerous, and he should be exposed.

The clear and direct statements of the above Scriptures prove that John MacArthur is wrong in his teaching about the blood of Christ. He has departed from the general Biblical teaching on this subject. No matter how popular he may be, we must believe the Bible and not MacArthur.

He Is In Conflict With Writers Of The Past

I have examined a number of the writings of other men on Heb. 9:22, and I find that they are not in agreement with John MacArthur. Of this verse, John Gill says, "And without shedding of blood is no remission; that is, of sin; there was no typical remission without it; and there can be no real remission but by the blood of Christ; no instance can be given of pardon without it; if it could be otherwise, the blood of Christ had not been shed..." (Gill's Commentary, Vol. 6, page 734, Baker Book House).

Matthew Poole says, " . . . without the death of some living creature as a sacrifice, and the blood of it not only shed, but sprinkled, there could be neither legal pardon of guilt, nor purging of ceremonial filth. By this God signified to Israel, that without the blood of Christ his Son, and the Testator of his testament, shed as a sacrifice, to purchase and procure both remission and the Spirit, there could be neither pardon of the guilt of sin, and removal of the punishment, nor purging the filth, or renewing the nature of the sinner, his blood being the inestimable price purchasing both for them." (A Commentary on the Holy Bible, by Matthew Poole, Vol. 3, page 851, MacDonald Publishing Company).

E. Schuyler English says of Heb. 9:22, "And now we come to a dogmatic and absolute statement: `and without shedding of blood is not remission.' All men stand upon one level in respect to the sin question and as to the remission of sins. It cannot be apart from the blood--blood that is shed. This is God's way. This is precious truth. Not one sin can ever be remitted apart from the blood. All generations must look to the blood--the blood of Christ." He further writes, "Sin is a serious matter. It's only antidote is the blood of Christ ...No, dear friend, we ourselves have no merit, nothing in which we can boast, no hope in the world or in eternity, saving in the precious blood of Christ that was shed for us and pledges to bring us into an eternal inheritance that is incorruptible and cannot fade. `Without shedding of blood is no remission.' " (Studies In The Epistle To The Hebrews, by E. Schuyler English, pages 270-271, 1955, Southern Bible Book House). While English may be placed in the new evangelical camp, his teaching on the above verse is Biblical.

What Spurgeon Said About The Blood

Charles H. Spurgeon preached a sermon entitled, "The Blood Shedding," February 22, 1857, from Hebrews 9:22. He describes the suffering and death of Christ, and says, "mark his brow--they have put about it a crown of thorns, and the crimson drops of gore are rushing down his cheeks! . . . But turn aside that purple robe for a moment. His back is bleeding . . . They lift up the thongs, still dripping clots of gore; they scourge and tear his flesh, and make river of blood to run down his shoulders! This is the shedding of blood without which there is no remission ...They fling him to the ground; they nail his hands and feet to the transverse wood, they hoist it in the air ...Blood from his head, blood from his hands, blood from his feet. . .They pierce his side, and forthwith runneth out blood and water. This is the shedding of blood, sinners and saints; this is the awful shedding of blood, the terrible pouring out of blood, without which for you, and for the whole human race, there is no remission. ...It is not a thing which you may doubt, or which you may believe; it must be believed and received, otherwise you have denied the Scriptures and turned aside from God." He further states, "It cuts off every other hope. Bring your hopes here, and if they are not based in blood, and stamped with blood, they are as useless as castles in the air, and dreams of night. `There is no remission,' says the text, in positive and plain words . . . Except you put confidence in the shedding of our Saviour's blood, and in the blood shedding alone, for without it there is no remission." (The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 3, pages 90-92, Pilgrim Publications).

Spurgeon never changed in his preaching of the blood. On May 30, 1875, he preached again from the same text. In his sermon, he repeated over and over, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." Without resorting to lengthy quotations, we can honestly say that his doctrine never changed. He said, "It is not possible that any sin should ever be forgiven to any man without shedding of blood." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 51, page 426, Pilgrim Publications).
Of course nothing is true simply because Spurgeon, Gill, or someone else said it, but it so happens that what they said on the blood is biblical and sound, while what MacArthur has said is false.

No one can deny that MacArthur is a gifted and talented speaker. He is the Senior Minister of Grace Cathedral, Panorama City, California, and the popular speaker on the widely distributed radio broadcast entitled, "Grace To You." He has built a tremendously large church, and he has a very large radio audience. This is all the more reason why someone should expose his false teaching on the blood. No doubt we shall lose some friends over this exposure of error, but we hold truth dearer than we do friends. The cause of truth must ever be first.

August 1995 | Published by: TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH

---

Tabernacle Baptist Church

E. L. Bynum, Pastor

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/macarthur-blood.htm

Finally, 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.
Hebrews 10:28-29

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.
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.
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.
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

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm

[토기그릇]

한번에 다 읽지못한 장문의 글 잘 읽었습니다.
좋은 자료였다 생각 됩니다.

[KESLL]

아멘 그렇습니다. 또..존 맥아더에 대해서 더 자세한 사실을 알게 되었습니다.

[하토브]

성경에 근거없는 목사 벼슬을 쥐고 그 위치에서 선생노릇하는 사람에게서 완벽한 교리를 기대하는 것은 무리한 기대일 것입니다. 그가 예수님의 피의 능력을 약화시키는 설교나 주장 외에도 예수님의 영원성을 부인하는 교리를 주장하다가 돌아선 것도 놀라운 일이 아닙니다. 예정론 교리를 붙드는 한편 인내의 행위로 구원을 완성해야 한다는 행위구원론도 여러 모순에 봉착하였을 것입니다. 그렇다고 그가 구원얻지 못한 사람이라거나 거짓 선지자라고 단정할 수는 없을 것입니다.

유명해진 사람들에게 뻗치는 배도의 손길이 그에게도 언젠가 내밀어질지는 주목해볼 사안입니다.

[토기그릇]

인기있는 유명 설교자라면 그는 인기있는 할리우드의 유명 배우 보다도 더 큰
위험에 직면해 있임을 알아야할 것입니다. 그점을 알고 자신을 경계하며 주의를 기울이고 살런지...