Saturday, February 23, 2013

Are You Stupid If You Believe the Blood of Christ Isn't Merely Human?

Make sure to keep up with Thomas Ross's series on saving faith.


Over twenty-five years ago, while I was in seminary, I wrote a paper on the blood of Christ which was something very close to John MacArthur's view.  I got the paper back and a "B+" was on the front.  As I read the grading, it looked like I got the grade because the teacher didn't agree with the position, so I went in, argued a little, and got an "A-".  I say all that to say that I haven't had a bias in this.  I just want to believe and represent the truth.

Fast forward a few years, when I'm pastoring and preaching, and I am rethinking the whole issue, not because of anything that I heard in fundamentalism.  I was disconnected from fundamentalism by then.  Because of preaching and teaching through books of the Bible, I tweaked my view to what I'll talk about later in this post.

I write, however, mainly because of something I read by Mike Harding in a discussion about fundamentalism.  I don't enter into reading those discussions looking for something wrong.  I actually think I'm going to agree with people and then certain statements are made.  Harding writes:

The Divine Blood theory is heterodoxy because it denies the true humanity of Christ which by implication nullifies the true nature of the substitutionary, various sacrifice of Christ.

Wow.  Heterodoxy.  I've been studying the Bible for years and it is such a curious, odd statement to me.  I don't see how believing in "divine blood" denies the true humanity of Christ.  I believe in the true humanity of Christ.  I believe he was 100% human.  And then it "nullifies the true nature of the substitutionary, various (sic, he meant "vicarious," I'm sure) sacrifice of Christ."  Wow again.  I don't see that being able to be proven.  I believe Jesus had human blood, but there was something to His blood, as part of the hypostatic union, that was also divine, so His blood was both human and divine, like His Person.  Among other things, Acts 20:28 convinced me of this.  Then Harding writes this:

For the most part the same people who misunderstood the blood issue are the people who misunderstand the translation issue.  It's hard to fix stupid. [Since this post was written, this last sentence has been erased.  Harding writes:  "I have asked Aaron Blumer to remove my sarcastic note on this issue in my previous post.  It was unnecessarily pejorative and a poor attempt at humor."]

It's hard to fix stupid.  Wow.  Wow. Wow.  Someone who takes the same view of the text and the blood as I do is John Owen.  Identical.  So John Owen was heterodox and stupid.  This is how you win over the other side, is by calling the people who take the position "heterodox and stupid."  Personally, I believe that my position is the historic position on both counts.  John Owen wouldn't be the only person though that is "stupid," however, on the blood of Christ.

Louis Sperry Chafer, who would have a little different soteriology, was also stupid.  He believed in divine blood.  So did  John Flavel.  Samuel Rutherford.  Robert Traill.  Samuel Eyles Pierce. A. W. PinkJohn Bunyan (and here).  Thomas Brooks.  James Ussher.  John Newton.  Thomas Watson.  John Owen (and here).

It's hard to fix stupid.  There we go fundamentalists.

Try to find "human blood" in the history of Christian theology, as if there were some rich history to this doctrine, the orthodox and smart, brainy, doctrine.  Genius.  You won't find it.  You find John Flavel write:

The Satisfaction of Christ is the procuring Cause of our Remission. . . . No other price could purchase this Privilege, Micah vi. 6, 7.  not Rivers of Oil, or of human blood.

Do you think that John Flavel denied the humanity of Jesus?  The first I saw of "human blood" being an emphasis was John Gill, and only one reference, one reference in hundreds of years that I ever saw.   And when I read the one mention of Gill, I don't believe he was making a point about human versus divine, but human versus animal.  In other words, the blood of animals couldn't save.  And you still don't get "human blood" mentioned, that I know of, except that once, until the late 20th century.   As far as I read, you don't get this human blood idea or at least emphasis until around the time of John MacArthur.  This isn't historical doctrine.  You don't hear "human blood."  After MacArthur, you start hearing, "human blood," "human blood," and "human blood," and now suddenly you're even stupid if you believe in "divine blood."

In the late 20th century, strawmen begin appearing about the blood of Jesus.  They sound like they are mimicing each other.  "Jesus' blood did not possess a mystical, magical quality."  What?  What false doctrine is that combating?  Mystical and magical?  How could anyone agree with His blood being mystical and magical?  Before you would read, "Jesus' blood," or "His blood."  But now you read "Jesus' human blood," language that never appeared in the entire history of theology.  Who started this?

You do get identical language from R. B. Thieme as that which MacArthur uses.  I'm not saying that's where MacArthur got it, but he didn't get it from church history.  I'd be happy to see where.  The only place, besides Gill, that I could see the idea that Jesus' blood was human, that idea, and perhaps we're saying "merely human" was in a booklet called "The Kingdom Is at Hand," published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the Jehovah's Witnesses) in 1944.  They are comfortable with that teaching.   No evangelical was saying that.  No fundamentalist was saying that before 1980.

I believe that the accurate position is that Jesus' blood was both human and divine by means of the hypostatic union.  I don't know how it is divine, but it has some quality that makes it divine in addition to being fully human.  I go into great detail in a previous post at another location (pt. 1, pt. 2).

Isaac Watts wrote this verse of one of his hymns, stupid as he may be:

No more let human blood be spilt---
Vain sacrifice for human guilt!
But to each conscience be applied
The blood that flow'd from Jesus' side.

But Mike Harding says you are too stupid to fix if you believe that Jesus' blood isn't merely human.  What do you think?


Jon Gleason said...

Hi, Kent. You know, I've had a lot of appreciation for a lot of things Mike Harding has said over the years, but this was unfortunate.

Jesus was fully human, therefore His shed blood was fully human. No doubt about it. But Acts 20:28 (I was preaching in Acts 20 today) does grab the attention, doesn't it?

Why can't we say we don't fully understand the hypostatic union, that there seems to be something special here which we know doesn't in any way diminish His full humanity, and leave it at that?

Anyone who thinks they really fully understand the Incarnation is speculating, and it's probably not a good idea to call other people stupid when they are wrestling with it, too.

Lance Ketchum said...

I would in fact completely disagree with Brother Harding. The incarnation of the Son of God through immaculate conception by the Holy Spirit would have created a perfect Theanthropic union between the Divinity and humanity of Jesus. Every aspect of His humanity was filled with His divinity. We do not know what difference there was between the Blood of Jesus and other humans, but we know it was different. How would the DNA of Jesus differ from any other human DNA? All we can do is speculate. Would God be satisfied with the blood of any human for remission of sins? If human blood from a sinless human was all that was needed, why not just create a sinless human? Why was the incarnation the only way? It might be significant to look at the four different uses of His "own blood" for the distinction.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Jon and Lance,

I agree with both of you, and in this instance, it has nothing to do with my view of the King James either, which would be only a separate stupidity ( :-D ).


When you look at all the references to blood in the New Testament, you can understand why that throughout history, you had the "divine blood" position prominent and preeminent, if not exclusive.


I preached 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 this morning in a series through 2 Corinthians, and Paul mentions God's creation of light as a basis for Divine redemption, bringing together physical light with spiritual light. God is light. Is he Physical Light? I'm not going to say no when I consider the Shekinah glory and Jesus' transfiguration. The light was coming from within Jesus. The point I'm making is that there is some mystery here on the physical blood and a spiritual aspect to the blood. If the life of the flesh is in the blood, is the life in the flesh only physical? We can glorify God in our body and our spirit. This is obviously not stupid to be thinking about these things.

KJB1611 said...

Let me post the statement of the creed of the council of Chalcedon (with the Theotokos removed):

We unanimously teach one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, complete as to his Godhead, and complete as to his manhood; truly God, and truly man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as to his Godhead, and consubstantial also with us as to his manhood; like unto us in all things, yet without sin; as to his Godhead begotten of the Father before all worlds, but as to his manhood, in these last days born, for us men and for our salvation, of the virgin Mary, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without conversion, without severance, and without division; the distinction of the natures being in no wise abolished by their union, but the peculiarity of each nature being maintained, and both concurring in one person and hupostasis. We confess not a Son divided and sundered into two persons, but one and the same Son, and Only-begotten, and God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, even as the prophets had before proclaimed concerning him, and he himself hath taught us.

KJB1611 said...

Let me also post something from my work on the Trinity in the Theological Compositions section at, which includes a good quote by Charnock:

Since the Lord Jesus is one Person with two complete natures, a fully human nature and a fully Divine nature, what is true of either nature can be predicated of His Person. This doctrine, known as the communicatio idiomatum (in English, “The Communication of Properties,” in Greek, the aÓnti¿dosiß or aÓntimeta¿stasiß) explains that “by reason of the Unity of [Christ’s] Person, that which is proper to one nature, is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the Person denominated by the other nature” (The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, 8:7). For example, John 3:13 speaks of the “the Son of man which is in heaven.” The human nature of Christ was not in heaven at that time, but on the earth in the land of Israel, where the Lord was speaking to a man named Nicodemus (John 3:1-2). Nevertheless, because the Person who is the fully human “Son of man” is also fully God, and thus omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:24; Matthew 18:20), and “in heaven,” on earth, and everywhere else in the universe at the same time, Scripture can connect the humanity of the Savior with omnipresence. Acts 20:28 states that “God . . . hath purchased [the church] with his own blood,” although blood pertains to the human nature of Christ, not to His immaterial, incorporeal, spiritual Divine nature (John 4:24; Luke 24:39), for only one Person possesses both those two natures. Compare 1 Corinthians 2:8, where men “crucified [human nature] the Lord of glory [Divine nature].” In this manner of Scriptural speech, the properties of one nature are not applied to the other nature as such, but to the Subject, the Son of God, who possesses both natures. Christ’s divine nature does not possess the properties of humanity (such as being created or localized in space), nor does His human nature possess the properties of Divinity (such as being uncreated or omnipresent), but since the Lord is one Person, whether He is named by reason of both natures together, or only of one of them, He is properly assigned the properties of either nature. It should also be noted that in a manner similar to the coinherence of the three Persons of the Trinity (see footnote #13), the two natures of Christ, while eternally and unchangeably distinct, share one common life and interpenetrate each other.

KJB1611 said...

Here's Charnock:

Concerning the unity of the two natures in Christ’s one Person, Stephen Charnock (The Existence and Attributes of God. Grand Rapids, MI: 2000; orig. pub. Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God, Robert Carter & Brothers, 1853, vol. 2, pgs. 62-64) wrote:
There is in this redeeming person a union of two natures. He is God and man in one person. (Heb. i. 8, 9) “Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever. God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness,” &c. The Son is called God, having a throne for ever and ever, and the unction speaks him man; the Godhead cannot be anointed, nor hath any fellows. Humanity and Divinity are ascribed to him, (Rom. i. 3, 4). He was “of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.” The Divinity and humanity are both prophetically joined : Zech. xii. 10, “I will pour out my Spirit;” the pouring forth the Spirit is an act only of divine grace and power. “And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced;” the same person pours forth the Spirit as God, and is pierced as man. “The Word was made flesh,” (John i. 14). Word from eternity was made flesh in time; Word and flesh in one person; a great God, and a little infant. . . . [This] is not such a union as is between a man and his house he dwells in, whence he goes out and to which he returns, without any alteration of himself or his house; nor such a union as is between a man and his garment, which both communicate and receive warmth from one another; nor such as is between an artificer and his instrument wherewith he works; nor such a union as one friend hath with another. All these are distant things, not one in nature, but have distinct substances. Two friends, though united by love, are distinct persons; a man and his clothes, an artificer and his instruments, have distinct substances ; but the humanity of Christ hath no substance but in the person of Christ.

KJB1611 said...

The straitness of this union is expressed, and may be somewhat conceived by the union of fire with iron. Fire pierceth through all the parts of iron, it unites itself with every particle, bestows a light, heat, purity upon all of it; you cannot distinguish the iron from the fire, or the fire from the iron; yet they are distinct natures. So the Deity is united to the whole humanity, seasons it, and bestows an excellency upon it, yet the natures still remain distinct. And as, during that union of fire with iron, the iron is incapable of rust or blackness, so is the humanity incapable of sin. And as the operation of fire is attributed to the red hot iron (as the iron may be said to heat, burn, and the fire may be said to cut and pierce), yet the imperfections of the iron do not affect the fire; so in this mystery, those things which belong to the Divinity are ascribed to the humanity, and those things which belong to the humanity are ascribed to the Divinity, in regard of the person in whom those natures are united; yet the imperfections of the humanity do not hurt the Divinity. The Divinity of Christ is as really united with the humanity as the soul with the body. The person was one, though the natures were two; so united, that the sufferings of the human nature were the sufferings of that person, and the dignity of the Divine was imputed to the human by reason of that unity of both in one person. Hence the blood of the human nature is said to be the blood of God, Acts xx. 28. All things ascribed to the Son of God may be ascribed to this man, and the things ascribed to this man may be ascribed to the Son of God, as this man is the Son of God eternal, Almighty; and it may be said, “God suffered, was crucified,” &c., for the person of Christ is but one, most simple; the person suffered, that was God and man united, making one person. . . .
And though the union be so strait, yet without confusion of the natures, or change of them into one another. The two natures of Christ are not mixed, as liquors that incorporate with one another when they are poured into a vessel; the Divine nature is not turned into the human, nor the human into the Divine; one nature doth not swallow up another and make a third nature distinct from each of them. The Deity is not turned into the humanity, as air (which is next to a spirit) may be thickened and turned into water, and water may be rarefied into air by the power of heat boiling it. The Deity cannot be changed, because the nature of it is to be unchangeable. It would not be Deity if it were mortal and capable of suffering. The humanity is not changed into the Deity, for then Christ could not have been a sufferer. If the humanity had been swallowed up into the Deity, it had lost its own distinct nature, and put on the nature of the Deity, and consequently been incapable of suffering. Finite can never by any mixture be changed into infinite, nor infinite into finite.
This union in this regard may be resembled to the union of light and air, which are strictly joined; for the light passes through all parts of the air, but they are not confounded, but remain in their distinct essences as before the union, without the least confusion with one another. The Divine nature remains as it was before the union, entire in itself, only the Divine person assumes another nature to himself. The human nature remains as it would have done had it existed separately from the lo/goß, except that then it would have had a proper subsistence by itself, which now it borrows from its union with the lo/goß, or Word, but that doth not belong to the constitution of its nature.

KJB1611 said...

That was a lot of preface, but I believe it was necessary.

I think that the brethren who have commented here would agree with classical Chacedonian Christology, as would Owen, etc. However, I believe Pastor Harding would actually agree with it also.

Scripture is clear that Christ's blood is very special; it is incorruptible, it washes us, etc. These things are what make His blood special and essential to salvation. However, it is true that His blood is truly human blood. His blood is the blood of God because Christ is one Person, but His blood pertains only to His human nature, not His Divine nature, since Chalcedonian Christology is Scriptural.

MacArthur's error is to make "blood" simply a metonym for "death." The fact is that Scripture never uses "shed/pour out" blood for a death that does not involve blood being literally poured out. Here MacArthur is wrong. Furthermore, we KJV-only people do have a text that is stronger on Christ's blood-in Revelation 1:5 Christ's blood washes us if you have a KJV, but in the critical text it "looses" you instead of washing you--very, very bad.

On the other hand, there are people who have gone over the top. I am much more sympathetic to Dr. D. A. Waite than John MacArthur, and I think that Dr. Waite may just not have thought through what he was saying, but he said in a pamphlet attacking MacArthur that Christ's blood is not human blood, but only Divine blood. That is indeed heresy, but I don't think Dr. Waite actually meant it.

Then again, anyone who believes in preservation must simply be too ignorant to understand anything.

We discuss the communicatio idiomatum in the college-level Trinitarianism class that we are recording and putting online here:

Kent Brandenburg said...

Stephen Charnock uses the terminology "divine blood."

d4v34x said...

Bro. B.,

I think you're misreading both Owens and Watts. Didn't look at the other examples yet. They aren't talking about the physical properties of the substance. They're talking about its efficacy over against the sacrificial system.

I will say I recoiled a bit at Harding's casual insult. Inappropriate, in my opinion.

I'm also quote surprised the Dr. Ketchum believes Mary didn't inherit a sin nature from Adam!

Kent Brandenburg said...


How is the actual blood applied to the conscience of a person? Watts is saying it isn't just human blood that is necessary to do that. These guys are saying it is only human blood.

Regarding Owen, there is far more there than just what you are asserting, enough to differentiate what he is saying from the metonym for death position. He makes a point of "God's own blood," as well.

The other quotes are a pile on.

I didn't catch Lance's teaching about Mary. You're going to have to help me with that. I reread his comment and didn't see anything there.

Do you take the merely human blood position?

Anonymous said...


Back in the eighties when the Mac thing was in full throat, I picked up a book by George Smeaton on the atonement and read it through twice.

Here are two gems on the blood from Smeaton's work, "The Apostle's Doctrine of the Atonement."

Commenting on Acts 20:28:

"The price or ransom was His own blood. Whichever noun is the antecedent to which the pronoun refers, the allusion is plainly to the personal dignity of Him by whom the price was paid. Text critics are more favourably inclined than they have been for a century to the common reading, 'The church of God, which He has purchased with His won blood,' which, of course, would give an express and formal testimony to the value of the atonement, considered in the light of Christ's deity. But the other reading, if due weight is given to the words, proves the influence of the person upon the work of expiation; and we are plainly taught that we cannot make Christ mediator in one nature to the exclusion of the other, nor ignore the action and influence of the divine mature in His work of atonement. We see that Christ, in His redeeming work, was not regarded as mere man, but as God-man; for the blood here mentioned is called God's own, or the Lord's own, showing that the humanity to which the blood belonged was personally united to Deity--not mere humanity, but God assuming humanity; that is, a God-man paid the necessary price, and brought us to be His. So great a work could have been accomplished only in the flesh of Him in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and He so possessed humanity, that He could give it for others. In every mediatorial act, accordingly, we trace the concurrent action of two natures in one person; and hence it is the act of the God-man. This is easily perceived in the phrase, His own blood."

Commenting of 1 Pet. 1:1,8,19:

"Thus His blood was sacrificially shed; and it is further designated PRECIOUS, or of infinite value, from the fact that it was the sacrifice of a sinless person. To go back to the type, the Lamb must needs be without blemish and without spot (Ex. 12:5; Lev. 9:3): for the perfection of the animal was not a mere prerequisite or condition of the sacrifice; rather it was an element of it, offered in and with the blood. And the sinless perfection of Jesus was not a mere indispensable prerequisite to the atonement, but an integral part of it. His blood, viewed as sacrificial, possessed infinite value, because it was the blood not merely of the best men, but of the eternal Son of God, and adequate to meet the wants of countless millions of mankind. The apostle connects the high value of the sacrifice with the absolutely sinless purity of Christ. But the subjoined words, referring to the eternal fore-appointment of Christ and the federal transactions of the Trinity, recall the dignity of the Lord as lending a divine value to the whole. Not one element then, but several, enter into the infinite value of this precious blood."


Anonymous said...


Here's yet another gem from Smeaton. I have a number of them. Maybe I'll post them later.

Commenting on 1 Jo. 1:7, Smeaton says:

"The apostle describes this cleansing blood as the blood of GOD'S SON--an addition having peculiar emphasis, as it is intended to exhibit the infinite value and efficacy of that blood. The title SON occurs in the higher sense than can be ascribed to any other being. It assigns a divine nature to Him, and, in such connections as the present, exhibits His redemption-work not merely as planned and approved by God, but wrought out so far as atoning action is concerned, by the only-begotten and beloved Son. This imparts to Christ's atonement its infinite sufficiency and value, making it adequate to procure for men the remission of sins, how great and numerous soever, whether we think of individuals or of countless millions. On account of the personal union of the two natures, the blood is spoken of as the blood of the Son of God. Though the blood belongs to Him as Son of Mary, yet in virtue of the hypostatic union it is the blood of God's Son, and therefore possessed of all the value that the divine nature lends to it, and adequate to the expiation of human sin laid in the scales against it."


d4v34x said...

Dr. Ketchum said "immaculate conception." Most people don't know what that term actually refers to and use it, wrongly, to mean the virgin birth. :)

Watts is making a statement of metaphysical realities rather than temporal physical realities. I take the other quotes likewise.

I believe Jesus' physical blood was regular human blood other than the fact that there was no sin nature in the flesh/Person of the body from which it came and that its Person never sinned.

Did God have blood before the incarnation?

Lance Ketchum said...

The best we can know from Scripture is that the Blood of Jesus was different from that of other humans. Anything more is mere speculation "and falls in the category of foolish and unlearned questions" that "gender strifes."

I always get weary of answers to these kinds of issues that offer no exegesis of Scripture. This is always a problem when answers go beyond revelation. There may be Scriptures that offer concrete evidence that the the Blood of Jesus is all that the speculations say it is, or is not, but I do not know of any. If people really want to offer honest statements regarding this, they must support their statements with their exegesis of Scripture.

We know that the Divinity of Jesus was perfect (always has been and always will be). The issue of the uniqueness of Blood of Jesus would seem to relate to His perfect humanity (no sin and no sin nature; i.e. impeccability).

Kent Brandenburg said...


So Smeaton is another 19th century example of what we read in the history of Christian doctrine and laid out in a very involved way. Was he Eutychian? Because Harding seems to imply that if you take a divine blood position, you're Eutychian. Eutychianism said that Jesus had one nature. I believe He was one person with both a divine and human nature. The Council of Chalcedron, which was dealing with Eutychianism (quoted by Thomas Ross here), said that the two natures were inseparable. In other words, he had two distinct natures, but you couldn't divide them up like it seems they're attempting to do.

Kent Brandenburg said...


But Ketchum was referring to Jesus' birth when he said "immaculate conception." I think we know he was using a play on words. He's not stupid.

I don't get your Watts' statement. It seems like gobbledygook to me. It's easy to see that the modern dealing with Jesus' blood is a revision of the historical stance, is in fact a new doctrine about the blood of Jesus that diminishes what believers once espoused. You can't dismiss all those quotes and my two posts with a two sentence paragraph.

I believe you are giving a lesser understanding of the significance of the blood than Scripture and history. Your position does sound like that of MacArthur though, which is a departure from historic belief on the blood of Christ.

I will answer your question, but I'll answer it first with a question. Was God light before creation? He created light in Gen 1:3. And yet 1 John 1:5 says, "God is Light." Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world" in John 8.

To answer your question, "I'm not sure." However, we've got Zechariah 13:1. What's the fountain there? Was it existent before the incarnation? There was a heavenly tabernacle that was the model for the earthly one. Was there a heavenly fountain? I don't know. The fact that it says that the fountain was opened, does that say that it was existent before. That makes sense.

Gill writes about this: "Christ himself, the fountain of gardens, and of living waters, from whose pierced side, of whom mention is made as pierced in the preceding chapter Zec 12:10, sprung blood and water; blood for justification, remission, and cleansing, and water for sanctification: and best of all of his blood particularly, called a “fountain”, not so much for the quantity of blood shed, as for its full virtue and efficacy to answer the purposes for which it was shed; it being the blood not only of man, and of an innocent man, but of the Son of God; and may be said to be “opened”, because of its continued virtue to cleanse from sin; it is not sealed, but opened, and always stands open; there is no hinderance or obstruction in coming to it; not the meanness or poverty of persons, they that have no money may come to these waters; nor their sinfulness, even though they are the chief of sinners; nor their being of this and the other nation, it is exposed to all."

Colossians says the in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. How do you explain that?

What do you think of the following statement by John Owen from His works?

"The blood of Christ in his sacrifice is still always and continually in the same condition, of the same force and efficacy, as it was in that hour wherein it was shed. The blood of other sacrifices was always to be used immediately upon its effusion; for if it were cold and congealed it was of no use to be offered or to be sprinkled. Blood was appointed to make atonement, as the life or animal spirits were in it, Lev. xviL 11. But the blood of the sacrifice of Christ is always hot and warm, having the same spirits of life and sanctification still moving in it"

d4v34x said...

I don't think Ketchum is stupid either. Until a few years ago, I thought the immaculate conception referred to the virgin birth as well. I'm a bit slow, but not stupid. :)

The most interesting quote in your most recent response is Owen. The blood is still warm? Wow. I'll have to think on that a while. I see his line of reasoning (from OT command/practice to NT atonement), but, as I said, my mind moves a bit slowly.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Mike Harding is calling the historical view, heteredox. Isn't it just the opposite? Isn't changing the old view, the already established view, the heterodox view? Heteros is Greek, meaning "another of a different kind." Isn't the merely "human blood" the new view?


Verses that come to mind besides Acts 20:28 are also the ones in 1 Peter 1:18, where the blood of Jesus is said to be incorruptible. Isn't merely human blood actually corruptible? My blood is corruptible? The only way to work those texts into a "merely human blood" view, the new view, is to make them mean something different than what they seem.

Lance Ketchum said...

I agree in most part. There are four texts where the phrase "own blood" is used. Obviously, there is an emphasis in difference between the blood of animals and the blood of Jesus. Certainly impeccability comes into consideration. The question comes in seeking a difference between the theanthropic union of Jesus and the theanthropic union of the indwelling of all believers. Are these unions equal? I do not believe they are.

The second question then raises regarding the actual conception of Jesus? Does God have DNA that passed into the egg in Mary's womb uniting divinity and humanity in a unique way? We do not know anything about this conception other than what is described in Scripture. If so, the blood of Jesus is unique in some unknown way. Can we know what way the blood of Jesus is unique? I believe it is unique, but I do not know how it is unique other than impeccability. I do not believe anyone can know that.

Ac 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 church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Heb 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.

Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Re 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, (a different Greek word for "own" here).

Larry said...

1 Peter 1:18 doesn’t say the blood of Jesus is incorruptible. The blood is spoken of in v. 19 and is called precious, not incorruptible. The word “precious” is timios, a word with reference to value.

The references to “own blood” are all in contrast to the blood of something else. It is not a reference to the nature of the blood, but to the fact that it is Jesus’ blood (not someone or something else’s blood) that bought the church, obtained redemption, sanctified the people, and washed us from our sins.

A verse that speaks clearly to this is Heb 2:14 where it plainly states that Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood that the children (humans) do. That seems to settle the issue. What's the old saying? Things that are different are not the same.

BTW, for those not following along, Mike asked for his comment to be removed since it (in his words) a "sarcastic note ... unnecessarily pejorative and a poor attempt at humor."

Anonymous said...


Here is a quote on the blood (and there are more) from Andrew Murray's book, "The Power of the Blood of Jesus."

"WHEREIN DOES THE POWER OF THAT BLOOD LIE? or what is it that gives to the blood of Jesus such power?"

"How is it that in the blood, alone, there is power possessed by nothing else?

"The answer to this question is found in Leviticus 17:11,14. '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.'

"I. The soul or life is in the blood, therefore the value of the blood corresponds to the value of the life that is in it.

"The life of a sheep, or goat, is of less value than the life of an ox, and so the blood of a sheep or a goat in an offering, is of less value than the blood of an ox (Lev. 4:3,14,27).

"The life of man is more valuable than that of many sheep or oxen.
"And now who can tell the value or the power of the blood of Jesus? In that blood, dwelt the soul of the holy Son of God.

"The eternal life of the Godhead was carried in that blood (Acts 20:28).

"The power of that blood in its divers effects is nothing less than the eternal power of God Himself. What a glorious thought for everyone who desires to experience the full power of the blood!"


Anonymous said...


Here's another "shocker" from Andrew Murray's book, "The Power of the blood of Jesus."

After discussing how Christ's blood accomplishes reconciliation, Murray says:

"The precious blood, divine, has been shed, RECONCILIATION is complete, and the message comes to you, 'Be ye reconciled to God.'"


Kent Brandenburg said...




Thanks for coming by. I had already added Mike's retraction in the quote above. I appreciate it, even if it doesn't actually say that he was wrong, just that he shouldn't have said it. He's not saying these people are not stupid though. I'd have to be stupid not to catch that (oh that's right, I am stupid). I didn't read like a joke, unless mockery is a joke---I guess it is to some. I'm having some fun with it all though, since calling people stupid is like a playground fight. My feelings aren't hurt.

Regarding your exegesis of 1 Peter 1:18-19, it reads, it seems to almost anyone as a contrast between the incorruptible or perishable (silver and gold) and the unperishable or inccrruptible (the precious blood of Christ) [and Stephen Charnock (died in 1680) agreed.]. If not, then the first part, before the adversative ("but") doesn't mean anything. So that is actually clear. And since the Bible always harmonizes, I don't see it as a contradiction to the Hebrews passage. There are some great other passages in Hebrews about the blood too!

My post was mainly not interpretational, although I don't mind that, as much as it is a critique of whether it was truly stupid and whether it was heteredox (that is, the merely human blood position was the old, original position of Christians). I'm all open to see the rich theological history behind Mike's presentation. I've looked for it, tried, and can't find it. It is true that I've noticed that fundamentalists sometimes, not necessarily Mike, think that doctrine started with the advent of fundamentalism. I don't know if this is the case here, but a history is strangely missing.

Larry said...

Quickly, and then I will bow out here.

I agree that Mike's statement was bad. I am glad he asked for it be changed, although "You can't fix stupid" is actually a funny line, and is often used that way. It shouldn't be used here however.

Quoting people doesn't really help since you can always find people to say something. We have to turn to Scripture (which you agree with, in spite of your many appeals to other things).

When we turn to Scripture it is explicit that Jesus took part of the same flesh and blood that humans have (Heb 2:14). So how does that not end the discussion? Why are there people who still say that Jesus' blood was different?

With respect to 1 Peter, I am not sure who "almost anyone" is, but again, several things are clear: (1) there is a Greek NT word for incorruptible and Peter doesn't use it here; (2) the word he uses deals with value, and that makes perfect sense in light of teh silver and gold for redemption. They are valuable for many things; redemption is not one of them. They have no lasting value for that.

As you say, this doesn't contradict Hebrews, but I would say, only if you take both passages in their natural meaning does it not contradict. If you insist on "incorruptible" instead of "precious" in 1 Peter 1:19, you create a contradiction since we know that human blood is not incorruptible.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Larry,

I get the humor of the "you can't fix stupid" rhetoric, sort of like "you can't teach seven foot," "or 300 pounds," but in those cases, someone is in fact 7' and 300 lbs, so in this case someone is stupid too. And being stupid is not like being 7 foot.

You mention my quoting other people, but I quote other people, because they are taking that same "divine blood" position that might make them stupid, so Stephen Charnock would be stupid then. And you can't teach a classic volume on the attributes of God. It sort of hangs out there, unstupid-like.

I actually don't see how you don't see this. Let me put it with different terms to try to help.

"He did not build the house with leaky things, like cardboard, but with a valuable hardibacker."

If you are going to contrast the hardibacker with something that leaks, the obvious implication is that the hardibacker does not leak.

This is how that guys like Stephen Charnock, and almost very commentator in Christian history before 1950, figured out that by contrasting the blood with corruptible things, even ones that were kind of themselves incorruptible in a human sense (gold), Peter was talking about how really incorruptible the blood of Christ is. And then later, Peter says the Word isn't corruptible either. That parallel later is a dead give-away too, because it is showing that there is a contrast between the corruptible seed and the incorruptible, like there was a contrast between the corruptible, silver and gold, and then an incorruptible precious blood of Jesus. To say that Peter is saying only that the blood is precious, not incorruptible, seems to be trying to miss it to me, but that's me, who can't be fixed. :-D You, on the other hand, have to be working on all cylinders, because you agree with Mike.

Larry said...

On the "stupid" part, I think it was ... dare I say it ... a stupid thing to say. So let's take that off the table. You and I agree.

To the blood issue, it's a simple exegetical question: Did Jesus partake of the same flesh and blood as the children as Heb 2:14 says, or did he not? If the blood was different, then Heb 2:14 appears to be wrong. If it is the same as Heb 2:14 says, then we have a perfectly reasonable (and actually more sensible) explanation for 1 Peter 1:19.

In other words, if you are right about 1 Peter 1:18, then Heb 2:14 has no legitimate explanation. If I am right about Heb 2:14, I have a perfectly legitimate explanation for 1 Peter 1:19 that (1) honors the actual word Peter used which is timios not afthartos (and since we believe in verbal inspiration, that's a plus) and (2) honors the actual point Peter is making about things valuable enough to provide redemption.

You want to use "pfthartos" as the governor of meaning for "timios," rather than the other way around. But you actually have to make a biblical case (and quoting Charnock doesn't qualify as an exegetical argument). The biblical case must take into account the full scope of theology. In that case, I think your case is beyond rescue, no matter who you might cite.

As you point out, just four verses later, Peter uses the word "imperishable." So he certainly had it in his vocabulary and chose not to use it in 1:19. He uses that term in reference to the word but not in reference to the blood. Should be instructive, should it not? You want to ignore that as if the words don't matter. I, on the other hand, don't want to ignore that. I think the words matter.

There are many classic volumes, and most of them (excepting the Bible) have errors in them. Being classic is not the same as being correct. And saying that you don't know how I can't see this doesn't really help. Might it be because your point is not that strong? I can see your point just fine. I think it is a bad point.

To quote you (now twice recently), I don't know how you can't see this. But alas, here we are.

But can I take this off course here just a bit (since we have both made our case and are unlikely to persuade each other), is this a doctrine that you would separate over? Assuming you and I agreed in all other areas, would our disagreement here be enough to prevent fellowship?

Don Johnson said...

Well, Kent, I'm with Mike on this one, except for the word 'heterodox'. I think the outrage over this issue is a little much, but the fact is that if the hypostatic union means 'very God a very God and very man a very man', then it means all aspects of his humanity must be fully human.

Or, to put it another way, if Christ's blood has some mysterious 'divine-not-human' property, then so does his hair, bones, flesh, and every other aspect of his humanity. Would he be a very man if that were true?

The reason the blood is precious is because it was spilled for our redemption, not because it had some peculiar quality that made it other than human blood.

Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kent Brandenburg said...

OK Larry,

I'm clear on your argument. You are buttressing your view of 1 Peter 1:18-19, it seems, on Hebrews 2:14. I've taught through Hebrews 4 times. It's one of my favorite books. Jesus took part of the "same." Jesus was the same enough to be a man. He was 100% like man in the sense that He possessed flesh and blood. But we don't argue that he was exactly the same, because He wasn't fallen, He wasn't able to sin, even though He was tempted in all points as we are. And why? Because He is God, which is why He could destroy the Devil. You can make the point from Hebrews 2:14 that Jesus had human blood. I've never denied that. And I'm also denying that He had one nature. What I'm denying is that His blood was the same as ours. Yes, maybe if, like Bauder posits, you put His blood under a microscope, it would look the same, but that does not take into consideration what you could not see, the spiritual.

I believe through the hypostatic union, like Charnock, that Jesus had incorruptible blood. What that all means, I don't know. And it's why I say His blood was 100% human, but had a divine quality, enough that it was singled out.

But that does get us back to the point of my post. Who is heterodox and who is stupid? It can't be that the people who are universally and historically recognized as not stupid and also have this same position that I'm positing, that doesn't disagree with the historic Trinitarian statements, say what I'm saying, and not what, it seems, Mike Harding is saying. You are saying that it doesn't matter what other men were saying. Ultimately that's right, but like I've written in my two previous posts, you can't ignore or disregard history. History holds the orthodox position. The new position is the heterodox one. Someone may write up as orthodox, but it isn't. And I wouldn't have been the one making a big deal about it, which brings me to you.

I don't believe you deny the blood. I haven't said that MacArthur does. I say His position is wrong, and also "might be" dangerous. Blood does not always mean "death" like he teaches, even as a metonym. He takes that position so far, that he seems to deny that the blood itself does anything. He even says that Jesus' blood itself does nothing. That's a position that bothers me a lot. Would I separate from it? I don't know yet.

Anonymous said...


Here are a few more "heartburn" quotes from the stupid and benighted.

First, Andrew Murray:

"The blood has irresistible power. Through the blood Jesus was raised up from the grave, and carried into heaven. Be assured the blood is able to preserve you every day in God's presence by its divine lifegiving power."

"His blood was in itself of infinite value, because it carried his soul or life. But the atoning virtue of His blood was infinite also, because of the manner in which it was shed."

"That mark is the most wonderful thing that is to be found on earth or in heaven--THE BLOOD OF JESUS. The blood in which the life of the eternal Son of God is: the blood that on the throne of grace is ever before God's face; the blood that assures you of full redemption from the power of sin: that blood is sprinkled upon you, as a sign that you belong to God."

"The blood, through which he sanctified Himself, has entered heaven to open it for us."

"And how is it the blood exercises this wonderful power?
"Scripture says, 'The life of the flesh is in the blood'(Lev. 17:11). The power of the blood is in the worth of the life. In the blood of Jesus the power of the divine life dwelt, and worked; the Blood has already in Him almighty and uncesasing power."

"So the blood has its wonderful power, not only because the life of God's Son was in it, but because it was given as an atonement for sin. This is the reason Scripture speaks so highly about the Blood."


Anonymous said...


Here are some more Murray quotes. These are taken from his book, "The Blood of the Cross." They'll cause a lot of wretching and heaving in Hardingdom, I'm sure.

1. "The blood possesses its power to cleanse and to make us fit to serve the living God by the Eternal Spirit, who was in our Lord when He shed His blood. This does not mean merely that the Holy Spirit was in the Lord Jesus and bestowed on His person and His blood a divine worth. It is much more than that--it indicates that the shedding of His blood was brought about by the Eternal Spirit, and that the Spirit lived and worked in that blood, so that when it was shed it could not decay as a dead thing, but as a living reality it could be taken up to heaven, to exercise its divine power from thence."

2. "Not only had the act of shedding His blood an eternally availing worth; the blood itself has Spirit and life in it, and is always efficacious by the power of an eternal life. This is why the Epistle to the Hebrews lays much emphasis on the work of Christ as being once for all, and eternal."

3. "By the eternal Spirit the blood has obtained an eternal, ever-availing, ever-fresh, independent, imperishable power of life."

4. "Spiritual things must be spiritually discerned. Our human though cannot apprehend the mysteries of 'the Holiest' in heaven. This is especially true concerning the unspeakable glory of the holy blood in heaven. Let us with deep reverence entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Spirit, waiting on Him in holy stillness and awe that He may witness with, and of, the blood."

5. "The Spirit attains His full power in us, through the blood. Just as the outpouring of the Spirit followed the outpouring of the blood and its translation into heaven, so it is also in the heart. In proportion as the blood obtains a place in the heart, and is honoured there, so the Spirit is free to carry on His work."


Anonymous said...


Here's a "blockbuster" from F.E. Marsh's book, "Why Did Christ Die?"

"The blood of God (Acts 20:28). The Church of God is said to have been purchased with His own blood, therefore the coin which has acquired the assembly of the redeemed is Divine."


Jon Gleason said...

Hmm, wrote a comment, blogger seemed too eat it when I tried to preview it, trying again.

Larry, thank you for telling us about the retraction. I hadn't read it. I was very disappointed, so very glad he retracted.


Gentlemen, it is not logical to assume that the full presence of every human attribute precludes the presence of divine attributes as well. It just isn't.

Jesus was fully human in mind, emotions, and spirit. Otherwise, Hebrews 2 and 4 are meaningless. Yet, it is abundantly clear that in these areas He was also divine. That did not make Him less human in these areas. He was still tempted in all points as we are.

If the presence of divinity did not diminish His mental and spiritual humanity, why assume it must be absent physically lest it diminish His full physical humanity? This is not logical.

I see absolutely nothing, either Scripturally or logically, that either demands or precludes the idea that there is something beyond human about the blood of Christ which yet does not diminish His humanity.

"I don't know" are three very valuable words....


Kent, as to I Peter 1:18-19, it certainly is saying the blood is not corruptible. I don't believe it proves the presence of divinity, however.

Corruptible here seems to have no moral connotations, but simply means decaying (unlike silver or gold). Since Christ rose and His flesh and blood did not "see corruption," this may simply have in view the resurrection (note verse 21). Verses 18-19 fit with a "divine blood" view, but since the wording is consistent with a reference to the resurrection, I find it a shaky foundation on which to build a case.

Jonathan Speer said...

In the interest of bringing Bro. Brandenburg's view and Bro. Larry's view into harmony, and with an eye toward understanding God's Truth, I would like to suggest that possibly Hebrews 2:14 describes the blood Christ received and 1 Peter 1:18-19 describes the blood He shed.

Any problems with that?

d4v34x said...

The same enough? 100 percent like? Yikes.

Would you say His physical creature was the same as Adam's? If it were, couldn't his impeccability be entirely resident in His spiritul being?

Also, consider that the indestructability describes the efficacy rather than the physical substance.

Still thinking on Owen.

Larry said...

Couple of things, by number for ease.

1. I am not sure why Murray is being quoted. If the point is to multiply quotes, we can do that. But those quotes aren't infallible, and the fact that some people believe that the blood is "divine" is undisputed. The question is whether or not they are correct. For that, we must turn to Scripture, not Murray, Charnock, or anyone else.

2. To Jonathan Speer, where would we get the idea of two different bloods? I imagine that is worse in some ways that the alternative in either direction. Whatever the blood was, it always was.

3. To Dave, I would say his physical creature was the same as Adam's. Sin is not inherent to humanity. So impeccability is not connected to the blood but to the divine nature.

4. To all, to my knowledge we have yet to establish what the blood of spirit might be. I can't really attach a meaning to that. Since God is spirit, what kind of blood does spirit have? It seems to e that blood is human, or created, by definition (unless you want to argue that blood is eternal).

Jonathan Speer said...


After re-reading what I wrote, I see why you would have a problem with it...

I didn't intend to imply that the blood itself had undergone any change, but that it was being described from those two different perspectives.

Thanks for letting me clarify.


Kent Brandenburg said...

Everyone (and hello Jonathan),

I'm going to write another one on this to put some things in perspective, and to talk about why it might be a "big deal." D4, I said, "the same enough" and I have been rolling that one around in my head, because he was the same in that he had flesh and blood, but does that mean identical? If in one sense He had incorruptible blood, He wasn't exactly the same as us, but "the same enough" to be 100% man. This is where mystery comes in. That doesn't mean we jump to my denying Jesus' humanity, which is a hint of what Don is intimating (how about all those qualifiers?).

Hebrews 2:14 doesn't make 1 Peter 1:18-19 mean something different than it does. They are compatible, not in the way of making His blood corruptible, just so that a view of Hebrews 2:14 will stand. I think I can begin only to speculate on certain things, and it is at those points that I just take what it says on faith. Speculation is just speculation. Maybe it was His resurrection, because a glorified body can walk through walls. Was He still man? Yes. Can you walk through walls D4? But you are "the same enough" still? Yikes?

Don't deny one thing to hold to something else. I think MacArthur does this. In order for Jesus' blood to be human, he says that Jesus' blood doesn't itself do anything. Are we all in agreement on that? There are verses that say His blood does something, and if it is incorruptible, then it could continue doing something, like cleansing the sins of those who walk in the light as He is in the light.

Enough for now, but to make what I'm explaining or describing to be stupid and heterodox seems to be over the top. Don, this isn't outrage. But at the same time, it's not heterodoxy. Does denial of heterodoxy have to be outrage? It reminds me of the book several years ago now by William Bennett, titled The Death of Outrage. I'm outraged like that, if I'm outraged.

Anonymous said...

Hi Larry,

Why the quotes from Murray, Marsh, and Smeaton? Simply to show that the loose talk about the blood being divine, imperishable, and incorruptible isn't unique to believers today. In other words, it's not a current phenomena. Yet many have bloviated about how the divine-blood theory was unhistorical and a recent invention. I'm glad you don't fall into that camp. And, yes, I agree, Scripture must be the deciding issue--not theory, historical positions, or creeds and confessions.

Through the centuries good man have held very strong views about the blood. Bauder's recent explanation that early writers used the language of divinity in speaking of the blood but that they didn't mean anything more by it than what he himself means is silly. They were precise men, and they consequently chose not to express their views on the blood in the words of either J-Mac or Bauder.

That's not to say I believe Christ's blood was divine or now in heaven. I don't. I believe, however, it did obtain an extraordinary value by virtue of the hypostatic union. That union allowed God to obtain sacrificial blood with the value needed to make atonement for all sin. But that it became something other than human blood, I reject.

I think words like "heresy," "heterodoxy," and "stupid" are unfortunate when speaking of brothers who hold the blood to be special--entirely human, to be sure--but something special nevertheless. I reject the notion God can create divine blood, or divine anything for that matter. But that the blood of Christ had a value and worth far beyond that of a sinless man is undeniable.


Jon Gleason said...

"4. To all, to my knowledge we have yet to establish what the blood of spirit might be. I can't really attach a meaning to that. Since God is spirit, what kind of blood does spirit have? It seems to e that blood is human, or created, by definition (unless you want to argue that blood is eternal)."

Larry, this to me is the only real problem with the view that the blood is divine (as well as fully human). I do not find Hebrews 2:14 compelling against the view at all (for the reasons I gave above), but the divine nature is Spirit, so in what way is it transferred to flesh and blood?

And the best answer I can give is that if it is, I don't know how. But in the Incarnation we're in such an area of mystery to me that I'm not sure I should expect to be able to answer that question.

Perhaps people are quoting Murray and others because of the charge of heterodoxy. There is sufficient historical basis for the view that a charge of heterodoxy bears a higher burden of proof.

When you start to string together names like Charnock and Owen and Murray, etc, etc, you're going to want pretty clear exegesis before ruling a view as outside the realm of orthodoxy. The quotes matter in that regard, even if the "stupid" charge has been retracted.

George Calvas said...

If you are going to "teach those things that become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)" it is imperative to exegete the scriptures as well as to compare scripture with scripture to build a doctrinal case.

Therefore, let us "study to show thyself approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15)":

1> Acts 20:28; Hebrews 9:12 / 13:12 and Revelation 1:5 speaks about Jesus Christ "OWN BLOOD".

Is this in regards to his humanity or divinity?

2> Leviticus 17:11 teaches us that the "life of the FLESH is in the BLOOD". This now defines that blood gives life to the flesh, and we know that every human begin DIES and therefore his BLOOD is corrupted which bringeth forth that death.

3> Acts 2:27, 31 cf Acts 13:34-37 teaches us plainly that Jesus Christ flesh never saw corruption while it was "dead" in the grave for three days.

Since the life of the flesh is in the blood, and the Lord Gods FLESH never saw corruption, the scriptural conclusion bears witness to the fact that that blood was DIVINE, for how can the "blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7) less it is divine?

Also, if Jesus Christ never died, would he not live forever as God manifest in the flesh?

KJB1611 said...

George, your argument would also prove that Christ's flesh was Divine, not human.

While the hypostatic union is a difficult subject, and easily misunderstood--seen, for example, in the fact that Nestorius was condemned for Nestorianism when he was not a Nestorian--Chalcedon got it right.

Therefore, Christ's blood was truly human blood, and Acts 20:28 deals with the communicatio idiomatum.

Therefore, since we can refer to the Person descriptors that pertain to both natures, Christ's blood is Divine because it pertains to a Divine Person, while His blood is human and not Divine in that it pertains to His human nature only, not to His Divine nature. Christ's blood is Divine in the same sense that the Lord of glory (Divine nature) was crucified (human nature) or the Son of Man (human nature) was omnipresent (John 3:13). His blood is only Divine in the sense that His hands, arms, legs, and hair was Divine--it was hair, hands, etc. that was truly human but was united to a Divine Person.

Chalcedon got it right--and we probably can't go much further than they did there in the question of the mystery of God manifest in the flesh.

George Calvas said...

kjb1611 answered below:

Why use that username if you are not going to use the scriptures to prove your points?

I am not interested in Latin or quotes from others, but instead "what saith the scriptures".

Your arguments speak more of vain philosophy than scriptural truth.

1. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It says God created MAN. Now was not this MAN created perfect, without sin and made also in the IMAGE of God?

2. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

And you should know, according to the above verse and the truth recorded in Genesis 3 on the fall of man, Adam lost his IMAGE which was in God and therefore DIED (Genesis 5:5).

Jesus Christ came as a perfect man, "the first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:47)", God manifest in the flesh, and therefore would NEVER DIE unless he was killed, and knowing he was does not change the scriptural fact that "neither his flesh did see corruption (Acts 2:31)" after he died.

So, he took on the form of man as Adam before the fall, 100% man with flesh and blood that is DIVINE so that a man who is born again and is passed from death unto life, he knows "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:53-54)".

Therefore, those who believe the blood is not divine, "do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).

KJB1611 said...


I believe I have made my position clear above, and I'm not going to rehash the Christological controversy of the fourth and fifth century here. Genesis 5:5 says nothing about Adam dying because he lost God's image. I hope you really believe Christ is 100% man and 100% God while being one Person, even if you call Chalcedonian Christology, which is clearly Biblical, "vain philosophy."

George Calvas said...


Of course Jesus Christ is both 100%human and 100% God.

Therefore, I and others have proven the scriptures clearly teach that Jesus Christ is 100% human (his body and blood) is also 100% God by making that which human, DIVINE.

To explain it any other way is nothing more mere speculation.