Where Is Christ's Blood in the Gospel?

The other day I received from a reader an interesting question about Christ’s blood, which I will paraphrase as follows: 

Does a person have to hear that Jesus shed His blood for our sins along with hearing that He died for our sins, or is it enough to hear that He died for our sins?

That is a good question. The Bible verse that immediately comes to mind is Romans 3:25. My understanding is that Christ’s blood is another way of saying His death (cf. Rom. 5:9-10); in other words, those two things cannot be separated. For example, after Adam and Eve sinned, the Bible says that God made garments of animal skin, and clothed them (Gen. 3:21). This would require the death of an animal—perhaps a lamb. Yet the text does not specifically mention blood, per se. But of course this would be involved in the slaying of the animal, for the Bible says that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11), “and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness [of sin]” (Heb. 9:22). Pertaining to this, Charles Ryrie states that “it is not the life of Christ which redeems but His death (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14—blood stands for death, cf. Rom. 5:9-10).”[1] Ryrie goes on to say: “The death of Christ took away sin. The blood stands for violent death; therefore, to speak of the blood of Christ taking away sins means the death of Christ takes away sin, […] The blood, that is His death, is the basis for eternal life (John 6:53-56)”.[2] And under the heading “The appropriation of salvation”[3], Ryrie elaborates by saying:

“The very first statement in the Gospel [of John] concerning the new birth makes it dependent upon faith (John 1:12). The verse also mentions the object of faith, Christ. Thus it is throughout the Gospel—the Son as the bearer of salvation must be the object of faith (3:15-16, 18, 36; 4:29, 39; 8:24; 20:29, 31; I John 3:23; 5:1, 12). Faith involves the most thorough kind of appropriation of the person and work of Christ as the basis for the believer’s confident persuasion for salvation. The figure of eating His flesh and drinking His blood attests to that thoroughness (6:53-56). Faith in His person involves belief in His deity (John 3:13; 8:24; 9:22; 12:42; I John 2:23; 4:15), and faith in His work involves belief in the efficacy of His death to effect deliverance from sin (John 1:29; 3:14-17; 13:19). In John’s thought faith that saves is joined directly to the person and work of Jesus Christ.”[4]

Commenting on Romans 3:25, Dr. Constable affirms: “The translation ‘through faith in His blood’ (NIV) correctly represents the word order in the Greek text. Paul elsewhere urged faith in the person of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22; Romans 3:26). Probably Paul mentioned His blood as representing His life poured out as a sacrifice of atonement instead of the person of Christ here to draw attention to what made His sacrifice atoning (cf. Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:13; Colossians 1:20). This then is a metonymy [a figure of speech that Paul is using], in which the name of one thing [i.e. ‘His blood’] appears in the place of another [i.e. His atoning sacrifice, or in other words, His death on the cross for our sins, cf. 1 Cor. 15:3] associated with it.”[5]

I actually agree with Tom Stegall’s interpretation of Romans 3:25, which I think he explains quite well in the following words. Stegall writes: “Practically speaking, this means that to have ‘faith in His blood’ as stated in Romans 3:25 is another way of expressing faith in Christ’s vicarious death. If a man placed his faith in Christ’s all-sufficient death for his sins but for some strange reason never heard that Christ shed His blood while dying, such a man would still have saving faith. The Lord has seen fit to use a multiplicity of metaphors, images, and diverse terminology to depict the one truth of the Savior’s death for our sins. These terms include ‘cross,’ ‘tree,’ ‘blood,’ ‘gave,’ ‘offered,’ ‘sacrificed,’ ‘redeemed,’ ‘suffered,’ ‘slain,’ etc. Yet, despite such rich diversity of expression, there is still a unity of content, as each of these terms point to the same substitutionary, atoning death of the Savior.”[6]

In the book Simple Studies in Romans, William L. Pettingill quotes Dr. Scofield as affirming: “The sinner’s faith in Christ includes ‘faith in His blood’ (Rom. 3:25); that is, faith in Christ as ‘the Lamb of God’ voluntarily offering Himself on the sinner’s behalf in vindication of God’s holy law.”[7]

References:

[1] Charles Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), p. 185.

[2] Ibid., p. 338.

[3] Ibid., p. 340.

[4] Ibid., p. 340.

[5] Thomas L. Constable, Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes, 2012 Edition, StudyLight.org website (www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/dcc/romans-3.html). Commenting on the same text, D. Stuart Briscoe affirms: “When the Bible uses expressions related to ‘the blood’ it is employing readily understandable figures of speech for ‘a life being laid down.’ The price of human redemption is nothing less than the voluntary surrender by Christ [not myself] of His life on the Cross.” (Briscoe, The Communicator’s Commentary: Romans, p. 93.)

[6] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 312, emphasis his.

[7] William L. Pettingill, Simple Studies in Romans (Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1915), p. 40. Commenting on Romans 3:25, Frederic Godet furthermore explains: “We therefore find the notion of propitiation [i.e. "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," Jn. 1:29; cf. Rev. 13:8b] qualified by two parallel and mutually completing clauses: the first, by faith, indicating the subjective condition; and the second, by His blood, setting forth the historical and objective condition of the efficacy of the means. Propitiation does not take place except through faith on the part of the saved, and through blood on the part of the Saviour. […] The apostolic utterance may consequently be paraphrased thus: ‘Jesus Christ, whom God settled beforehand as the means of propitiation on the condition of faith, through the shedding of His blood.’” (Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1883], p. 153, italics his, brackets added.)

Debunking Calvinism: Death Means Separation, Not Inability

CALVINIST VIEW

What is the meaning of spiritual “death” in the Bible? Does it mean the inability of man to believe the Gospel as Calvinists teach? Commenting on the judgment of Adam and Eve after the Fall, Dr. J. Vernon McGee explains the biblical meaning of death in the following words: “Death now comes to man. What is death? Physical death is a separation of the person, the spirit, the soul, from the body. Ecclesiastes says: ‘Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it’ (Eccl. 12:7). Man ultimately must answer to God. Whether he is saved or lost, he is going to have to answer to God. But Adam did not die physically the day that he ate [from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Gen. 2:17]. He did not die until more than nine hundred years later. The whole point is simply this: he died spiritually the moment he disobeyed; he was separated from God. Death is separation. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians that they were ‘dead in trespasses and sins,’ he did not mean that they were dead physically but that they were dead spiritually, separated from God. In that wonderful parable of the prodigal son, our Lord told about this boy who ran away from his father. When he returned, the father said to the elder son, ‘For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. . .’ (Luke 15:24). Dead? Yes, he was dead, not physically, but he was separated from the father. To be separated from the Father means simply that—it means death. The Lord Jesus said to Martha, ‘. . . I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live’ (John 11:25). [Editor's note: Also see John 5:24, 5:40, 6:40, 6:57-58.] Again, ‘dead’ means death spiritually, that is, separation from God. Man died spiritually the moment he ate [from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil]. That is the reason he ran away from God.”[1]

The Christian apologist Dr. Norman Geisler similarly understands spiritual death as separation, not the inability to believe God’s truth. In a sermon titled “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist,” Geisler explains what the Bible means when it says that the unsaved are “dead”. Geisler says: “Let’s begin with a Scripture in Ephesians chapter 2 and verse 1. And [with] this we will be talking about the ‘T’ [in the acronym TULIP] or ‘Total Depravity’ [aka ‘Total Inability’]. What is meant by ‘Total Depravity’ by a five-point Calvinist? Ephesians chapter 2, they appeal to this verse in support of their belief that man is so totally depraved, so totally sinful, so totally apart from God, that he cannot even understand the Gospel, or receive the Gospel: he is ‘dead’. Ephesians 2:1 [and following] says, ‘And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and in sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience.’ And then he goes on to say in verse 3, who ‘were by nature the children of wrath.’ And these God made alive, verse 5, He ‘made us alive’. So there we were, dead in sin—[Calvinists say it’s] like a dead corpse floating on the water: that could not hear, could not see, could not understand, and could not believe. But God in His grace, according to a five-point Calvinist, reached down and gave life to that corpse. Now that giving life is called regeneration: giving life to the soul, imparting to a dead person life. And according to five-point Calvinism, we are so dead in our sins that we can’t even understand the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 2:14, ‘The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ So Ephesians 2:1, 1 Corinthians 2:14, become part of the basis for this belief that we’re so totally depraved that the only way we could possibly get saved is if God made us alive first, and then after we are made alive, then we are capable of believing. And [five-point Calvinists also say] that faith follows salvation; faith is not the condition by which we get salvation, salvation is the means by which we get faith. Now having thus explained what the five-point Calvinist means by the ‘T’ in TULIP, I would like to tell you why I do not believe in the ‘T’ of TULIP, as defined by the extreme Calvinist. I do not believe it, because if you look at the context of this verse in Ephesians 2, you will notice in verse 8 that it says that this [salvation] is received through faith: ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith’. Now if you’re saved through faith, then what comes first logically? The salvation or the faith? If you’re saved by faith [cf. Rom. 5:1], faith comes before the salvation right? Whereas the five-point Calvinist believes that salvation (regeneration) comes before faith. Romans 5:1 says, we are ‘justified by faith’. So faith is the means by which we get justification. Justification is not the means by which we get faith. One of the things I teach is philosophy, and one of the main modern philosophers was called René Descartes [pronounced “Day-cart”], and he said, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ Well actually, he got ‘de cart’ before ‘de horse’ because you have to exist before you can think: I exist, therefore I can think. I don’t exist because I can think, I think because I exist. So I think the five-point Calvinist has the cart before the horse. You have to believe in order to be saved. [The Bible says,] ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’ [Acts 16:31.] He [The Apostle Paul] didn’t say, ‘wait to get zapped by God,’ you’re just dead—a corpse, ‘wait to get zapped by God, and once you’re saved then you will be able to believe.’ I find that nowhere in the New Testament. Everywhere I find the opposite: that we believe in order to receive salvation. We do not receive salvation in order to believe. You say, ‘Well how do you explain the fact that they’re dead? The Bible says [in Ephesians 2:1] that we’re dead in trespasses and sins.’ Dead can be understood two ways: annihilation or separation. Now we know in the Bible, death is not understood as annihilation: that you are totally taken right out of existence, as it were. Death in the Bible means separation. The prophet [Isaiah] said, ‘Your sins have separated you from your God.’ [Isaiah 59:2.] Death brings a wall of separation. When we die, what happens? The soul separates from the body: [The apostle Paul says,] ‘absent from the body, present with the Lord,’ 2 Corinthians 5. [And] ‘It’s far better to depart and be with Christ,’ Philippians 1:23. Or in the book of Genesis [35:18] it says, ‘her soul was in the process of departing’ before she died. So death is understood in the Bible as separation, not annihilation. But for all practical purposes, the five-point Calvinist understands it as spiritual annihilation: that we are not spiritually there in any sense of the term; we can’t even understand the message or receive the message. And so, God has to give life where we were totally, as it were, departed from Him [in the sense of being so spiritually ‘dead’ that we were unable to even believe]. No, the Bible says that death is separation from God, and that we are separated as being still in His image and likeness. In Genesis 9:6 it says, that even unsaved people are still in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 says God created man in His own image. Yes, man fell. Yes, he sinned. Yes, he’s separated from God. But [although] he’s separated from God, he still has God’s image. Because after the flood, Noah was told, ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made He him.’ [Genesis 9:6.] In other words, don’t kill an unsaved person because they’re still in the image of God. James 3:9 says it’s wrong to curse another human being because they’re made in the image of God. So the image of God is effaced in fallen man, but it’s not erased. For all practical purposes, the five-point Calvinist says the image of God is erased. It’s not there. You’re so dead that there’s no capacity left there to understand or receive the message of God’s grace. To get the illustration even more clearly, let’s look at Genesis chapter 3. In Genesis chapter 3 in the Old Testament, Adam and Eve sinned. And, according to the Bible, therefore they became ‘dead in trespasses and sins’. [It] seems to me that the best way to understand the Bible is by the Bible. Now if the moment Adam took the forbidden fruit—someone said it wasn’t the apple on the tree, it was the pair on the ground that got us in trouble! Well the pair on the ground, Adam and Eve, both partook of the forbidden fruit. In chapter 2 [of Genesis] it said, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat thereof, for in day you eat thereof you shall surely die.’ Now when Adam took the forbidden fruit, and Eve took it, they died. They were spiritually dead. Now here’s what a spiritually dead person can do: Genesis chapter 3, verse 9. They had already taken it [i.e. the forbidden fruit], and “the Lord God called Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ So he said, ‘I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked. And I hid myself.’” Notice several important things about that: even though Adam was spiritually dead, he could still hear God! Notice he could still understand; he understood what God was saying. So even in our fallen state, the image of God is still in us; our ability to hear God is still there, our ability to respond to God is still there: both positively and negatively (respond in rejecting it or respond in accepting it). In fact, in Romans chapter 1, verse 19, it tells us that unsaved people can understand and perceive the truth of God. Take a look at that in Romans chapter 1, beginning with verse 18, ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth,’ they know it but they’re holding it down. Now notice verse 19, ‘because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them, since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are—,’ what are the next two words? ‘clearly seen’! Unsaved people who are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ can ‘clearly see’ the truth of God revealed in general revelation. So clear is it that they are, quote ‘without excuse,’ verse 20, ‘without excuse’. So whatever the Bible means by ‘dead in sin,’ it does not mean that they do not perceive the truth. It does not mean that they can’t understand what God is saying to them. Adam understood it, even though he was dead [i.e. spiritually dead]. Death doesn’t mean annihilation, it means separation. Death doesn’t mean that the image of God is erased, it means the image of God is effaced. Death doesn’t mean—and this is a very important distinction—that they cannot perceive the truth, it means they are unwilling to receive the truth. 1 Corinthians 2:14 [says] ‘The natural man does not receive’: it’s the Greek word dechomai, which means [to receive, accept, or] welcome. Of course there is no welcome in an unsaved heart for the truth of God, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t perceive it; he perceives it very clearly. And he is eternally condemned for rejecting it. What he needs to do is to receive it. While he understands it in his mind, he is not willing to believe it in his heart. So that’s the first reason why I am not a five-point Calvinist, because: 1) they get the cart before the horse: you don’t get saved in order to believe, you believe in order to get saved. And 2) we’re not so dead that we can’t perceive the truth, we’re just so separated from God that we’re unwilling to receive the truth.”[2] 

In a Bibliotheca Sacra article titled “The Gift of God” (Bib Sac, July 1965), Roy Aldrich likewise expounds on the biblical meaning of death, in contrast to the Calvinist’s view of it. Concerning this, Aldrich states: “Most Calvinistic commentators believe that the gift of Ephesians 2:8 is saving faith rather than salvation: ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast’ (Eph 2:8–9). This interpretation leads some to a hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of faith, which in turn leads to an unscriptural plan of salvation. For example, Shedd says: ‘The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration.’ [Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 472.] This results in a strange plan of salvation. Because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1. Read and hear the divine Word. 2. Give serious application of the mind to the truth. 3. Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration. [Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 512-513.] Thus an unscriptural doctrine of total depravity leads to an unscriptural and inconsistent plan of salvation. Doubtless the sinner is ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Eph 2:1b). If this means that regeneration must precede faith, then it must also mean that regeneration must precede all three of the pious duties Shedd outlines for the lost. A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of ‘hearing the word,’ ‘giving serious application to divine truth,’ and ‘praying for the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.’ The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all. If the corpse has enough vitality to read the Word, and heed the message, and pray for conviction, perhaps it can also believe.”[3]

In contrast to what Calvinism teaches, the Bible makes it clear that spiritually “dead” people can believe! “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Have you believed? If not, do so today!

References: 

[1] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1981), Vol. 1, p. 27, commentary on Genesis 3:17-19.

[2] Norman Geisler, “Why I Am Not A Five Point Calvinist,” Richard Kalk YouTube channel (time stamp 7:00 minutes – 19:05 minutes). 

[3] Roy L. Aldrich, “The Gift of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122 (July 1965): p. 248.

Pastor Kelly Sensenig's View of Repentance

I just read the Middletown Bible Church article on Repentance that a friend of mine linked me to and had some questions about.[1] Overall, I would say that the article was mostly good, although I can see how it would raise some questions in a person's mind in regards to forsaking sinful living for salvation. The main statement in the article that I thought was unclear was in the quote by Pastor Kelly Sensenig, when he said:

"When you repent you will think differently and possess a different attitude about God, Jesus Christ, salvation, your own life of sin, and need for salvation. You will reconsider your ways of faulty reasoning and sinful living and realize that these things offend God's truth and holiness and must be released from your life and forsaken. Repentance speaks of a reversal of a person's attitudes and convictions. It speaks of an inward turning from what a person used to believe or think about God, Jesus Christ and themselves. To repent is to alter one's way of looking at life; it is to take God's point of view instead of one's own....Repentance is when a person changes their thinking about whatever is keeping them from expressing faith in Christ. [Pastor Kelly Sensenig, Except Ye Repent, p. 3]."

Personally, I would not explain repentance the way that Sensenig did, particularly when he said that to "repent" involves realizing that your "sinful living...must be released from your life and forsaken." I would say that depending on the context, that could be part of Christian repentance (e.g. see Revelation chapters 2-3), but not part of the Gospel. In other words, that is part of sanctification, not justification. So that's where I think Sensenig is unclear on biblical saving repentance: he makes it sound like an unsaved person has to agree to "forsake" their "sinful living" up-front for salvation. To me, that's the same thing as "Lordship Salvation"! Or to put it in the form of a question: how is that any different from "Lordship Salvation"? It's not! The confusing part about it is that although Sensenig says that he disagrees with "Lordship Salvation," yet his explanation of repentance is sometimes (as in this instance) the same as the Lordship view of it!

 

I would take what Sensenig says about repentance "with a grain of salt" (i.e. to believe only part of something, or to view it with skepticism), or to put it another way: be ready to spit out some seeds! In other words, recognize that, at times, Sensenig is clear on the meaning of repentance, but at other times, not so clear.

 

 

Reference:

 

[1] See the article titled "Repentance" in the Terms of Salvation series on the Middletown Bible Church website (www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/termsrep.htm).