[suzyjaruki]

Have you read, in context, not just the quoted portion from this article, what MacArthur is teaching regarding the blood?

I have a copy of MacArthur's Hebrews commentary and have read it in context, pages 236-7, and do not deduce from it any heretical teaching, but rather, covenantal teaching. The title of the chapter where this is found is "Necessity of Messiah's Death," then the subtitles "A Testament Demands Death" and "Forgiveness Demands Blood."

IMO, after researching one of the original sources quoted in this article, I come away thinking the author of the posted article is on a heresy hunt and looks for heresy in all the wrong places.

[Full Court]

I come away thinking the author of the posted article is on a heresy hunt and looks for heresy in all the wrong places.

E.L. Bynum is a well respected pastor. He isn't the only person to expose this false teaching of Macarthur's, he is just the one I found first.

[dangus]

No, I did not, and I did for this reason state that my views were based solely on if this was a fair depiction of his views. However, it does appear that MacArthur did mistate himself, for most assuredly, blood does not mean death.

[Quix]

IMO, after researching one of the original sources quoted in this article, I come away thinking the author of the posted article is on a heresy hunt and looks for heresy in all the wrong places.
- - - -

Hmmmm. I hope you're right.

Though, in general, I'm not very blessed by folks who seem to be most thrilled and energized by heresy hunting and grabbing folks by the intellectual jugular vein

rather than loving folks into The Kingdom.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I think MacArthur is one of the greatest preachers of our time. He is gifted, brilliant, and dedicated. I love his fire and his heart. BUT....he is not perfect. His gift for dissecting passages once in awhile messes him up (and that's assuming I'm right when he's wrong -- big assumption). He does over dissect sometimes (even reading too much into a passage, usually with no harm done), and he can also be very guilty of the straw man argument. So he isn't perfect. Who is? I believe his contribution to the church in this age is invaluable.

Having said that, let me pick at this: 1986 letter. "Bloodshed was God's design for all Old Testament sacrifices. They were bled to death rather than clubbed or burnt. God designed that sacrificial death was to occur with blood loss as a vivid manifestation of life. ('the life of the flesh is in the blood') being poured out. Nevertheless, those who were too poor to bring animals for sacrifices were allowed to bring one-tenth of an ephah (about two quarts) of fine flour instead (Lev. 5:11). Their sins were covered just as surely as the sins of those who could afford to offer a lamb, goat, turtledove, or pigeon (Lev. 5:6-7). That is because the sacrifice was entirely symbolic anyway."

Jesus is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice is compared to the passover lamb where the blood was specifically used to effect the passover of the plague of death, not just the death of the lamb. The Lord's Supper is in remembrance of both His body and blood. MacArthur goofed a little by making this an issue, and he pulled the straw man thing to aid his case. I don't like it. But his fundamental point is still correct, and I will just refer to someone else on this particular doctrine. Certainly I would not call him a heretic for this.