 Well, good evening. Good afternoon. Good morning to you all. I want to go ahead and talk about this subject that comes up from time to time. People ask about it and people ask about this issue about the blood of Jesus and to kind of give an explanation. Inevitably people always ask or tend to ask or comment on something that John MacArthur said some time ago and in truth he hadn't really said a whole lot about it in terms of or try to defend his point of late. This is an old issue. As a matter of fact, it really dates back to probably 1972, 1976, somewhere in that area. He's made some comments on it. That's just how long John MacArthur has been involved in and preaching and so forth. And so there was something that he said that obviously either was taking taking the wrong way or he said it the wrong way or he said it right correctly and others who disagreed have it all wrong. So I want to cover that but I want to first start off by dealing with one person who actually talked to whom he actually that is Dr. MacArthur actually met with and that would be a man by the name of Roland Rasmussen. I'm not even sure if he's still alive. Maybe he's still alive. I probably shouldn't say that. But they had a conversation on this very issue and so I'll play him. I'll also play Dr. MacArthur and then a statement that he made publicly and I'll get into where I think things ought to be how I think the Bible breaks it down to me. I think it's pretty clear but maybe there's some nuances. Maybe there's something I'm missing but let's just see. By saying that it's the death of Christ and not his blood that saves. The Bible says without the shed of blood is no remission. He shed his blood on the cross. In 1987 a preacher who has denied the efficacy of the blood of Christ by saying that it's the death of Christ and not his blood that saves and in early August I received a call from Dr. MacArthur's secretary who told me that Dr. MacArthur liked to meet with me. I agreed to meet and I said we'll meet in my office. So on August the 24th of 1987 Dr. MacArthur and his assistant a man named Dr. Provost came to my office and he walked in and he said what do you have against my doctrine on the blood of Christ. I said Dr. MacArthur I have several things against your doctrine. I said for example in your 1976 letter you said in one sentence there's nothing in his human blood that saves. I said Dr. MacArthur in that one sentence there are two heresies. I said first of all his blood was not human blood. His blood was the blood of God. Dr. MacArthur said where do you get that? I said I get that next 2028 where the Bible says feed the church of God which he had purchased with his own blood. He said so you make the antecedent of God of the word he the word God I said it's the only possible antecedent. I have checked with college grammarians about that. So before we move to Dr. Dr. Cohn Dr. MacArthur before we do before we go to John MacArthur's statement I do want to look up the passage that Mr. Rasmussen is bringing up which is acts 2028. Now full disclosure I know someone's gonna have a problem with this it just let me just say guys I am a fan of John MacArthur I got my MacArthur study Bible had this thing for I don't know something you can tell us ragged in the shoes and I've had this for I don't know 15 16 17 years so I don't have anything against MacArthur as a matter of fact I think he is what every pastor ought to aspire to be in terms of how he's conducted himself. Are there some things that he's gotten wrong well if you say no then you'd have to say that he's been perfect in his in his ministry which no one has been not even not even the Apostles have been perfect in everything they've done and said so and matter of fact we have scripture to back that up to show that even they have had some missteps that's that's to be expected oh by the way if you are the kind of person who would get offended about someone speaking about someone that you admire and again I admired that John MacArthur I do but if you get offended because someone would raise an issue then you're going to be guilty of probably idolizing the person and so I suspect that even having this conversation when we get to the end and kind of come to a summary and understanding of what the blood is and what the blood is about and why that we may even uncover some other issues that might need to be addressed later but that being said let me go to this passage here in Acts 2028 he says pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to care for the church of God and here it is and this is a passage he was getting at which he obtained that is the church of God which he obtained with his own blood and so the issue is when we say God's blood which is what he brought up he is referring to what what is the he in this passage referred to so let's go back and look at it the he in this passage as he says there's really only one antecedent this section pretty easy to go to now you look over it over to the right over to the Greek and now the word he is actually not there okay but this word right here it is excuse me it is a singular and it is heiress middle and so the antecedent because it's singular refers back to obviously say or first back to God and so this this church that he has purchased with his own blood his own blood refers back to the he so in this passage it is the blood of God that does sound weird that does sound kind of clunky to some because God doesn't have blood now hold that thought for just a second we'll come back to this issue because we need to find out does it really mean the blood of God or God's blood or is it referring to something else so just hold that to the side for a second I want to bring up something that John MacArthur said probably about let's say this is 2022 this was probably 30 almost 40 years ago about 36 37 years ago let's let's listen to this this is him responding to some of these things on his radio show blood I said God is a spirit that was the blood of Christ that was the blood of a man he was 100 and to say in general very simply that I affirm everything the scripture teaches about the blood of Christ seems very basic you know me well enough to know that I believe the Bible from front to back cover to cover as one little boy said from geniuses to revolution there's no point in the Bible that I don't accept totally and I believe it literally in every part for some strange reason now people have accused me of denying the blood of Christ which is not so I affirm that a literal Jesus Christ who was man in every respect 100% man yet God incarnate died on the cross shed his literal blood as a sacrifice for sin and I believe that and I believe that it was that sacrificial death of Christ on the cross that atone for the sins of man and those who believe appropriate that atonement and receive eternal life through his death and resurrection and that's now that that he said so far that lines up with virtually everything that practically anyone else would say concerning Jesus blood and his substitutionary atonement but let's continue and see what what might be if we can find an issue here historic Christian theology but in recent months I have noticed that there is a an encroaching heresy on the blood that there are people who say that the blood of Jesus was not human it was divine one pastor said to me he had the blood of God I said what is the blood of God he said divine blood I said God is a spirit that was the blood of Christ that was the blood of a man he was 100% man it's heretical to call the blood of Jesus Christ the blood of God and it demonstrates a failure to understand what theologians have called the hypostatic union that is the God man union in Christ there are others who say that there's something magical in the blood there's something in the blood itself that washes sin away when the scripture teaches that it was the death of Christ that atone for sin and he shed his literal blood in sacrificial evidence of the pouring out of his life for sin but there was nothing magic about that blood itself that could wash sin so therein lies kind of the problem that he that he's kind of waiting into one and the good the good part is is the person that that John MacArthur referring to we just heard him also refer to John MacArthur in having this meeting and so we're going to have to address whether this means the blood of God or God's blood whether that's a or how we should take that now we're going to look at another past we just looked at at acts 2028 and we do see that the antecedent of of his blood refers back to the he which is only the only the only possibility would be to God but does it mean something different but he made a statement that he is 100% man well that's true he is 100% man but he's also he's also 100% God now the question is since God doesn't have any flesh or bone is it proper to make the statement that the blood that was shed was God's blood well some of you all recall me talking about this before as matter of fact I even did a little short video on this and so some of you will be familiar with the passage that I'm going to go to this Old Testament passage but I think it's an awesome passage and it is it's so theologically rich that it it it talks about the completeness of our salvation while at the same time talks about God's triune existence and so forth so this is a pretty rich passage and the thing is it doesn't get a lot of highlights because just the English version of it doesn't really bear it out now recall in Leviticus in chapter 16 the whole issue of the atonement is brought up now before I get to it let's just do a recap and you all you all for lack of time we won't have the ability to do it right now but Rick you go back and look at the passages for yourself but the way this works is that God is the offended party he is the one that's been harmed so to speak God is not a God who just tolerates sin just let's us do what we want to there are consequences for sin and so he has decided that the punishment or the payment for sin either or will be blood could he have determined to be something else could he had determined it to be wheat could he had determined it to be I don't know a bag full of rocks he could have determined payment for him being offended in whatever manner he wanted to because he's got he is the one that decided that the atonement would be brought about by blood if you say that's extreme it doesn't matter he is the one that gets us at the tone for that now what he does in this in this regard is that once payment is made and we're talking about the old covenant the the day of atonement this what the law demanded was that once this payment was made once God was satisfied then the person would be in right standing now there's three parts to the atonement there's this covering there's this canceling and there's this reconciliation the covering cancel the covering and the canceling brings about the reconciliation without the first two the third doesn't happen the covering and canceling and what we mean by that is the canceling of the debt the blood pays a debt that's owed by God the covering is where the blood covers our sins and so he does not see our sin doesn't mean that God doesn't know that we sin doesn't mean the guy that literally forgotten our sin or the things that we've done no he doesn't hold them over us they are in no longer anything that he regards in terms of our salvation what happens is our righteousness is from Christ in other words someone else's substitutionary atonement or expiation payment is credit to our account okay and then but the problem is that our sin I should say a problem for us but the sin debt that we have accrued is accounted to someone else and in this case it's accounted to in the old covenant it's accounted to the scapegoat the scapegoat is the one who uh-oh let me um ban this uh-oh how do you ban this thing somebody's a new moderate is a badness guy the scapegoat is the one who takes all the sins of the people so the the blood I'm sorry the blood that the sins of the people are pronounced on the head of the scapegoat and then that scapegoat is sent away okay and so in other words the pictures that all the sins of the people is sent out and then those sins are then out of the camp now the next part there's another there's another animal whose blood needs to be shed that animal's blood is shed upon the altar to make atonement to pay for sin and after that then there then God accepts the payment and then reconciliation is made and therefore the people's sins are atoned for for how long for one year remember this guys because it's important because we're gonna look at some other passages just a little bit and so those sins are atoned for for one year their sins are taken away now Jesus obviously is going to play the part of all three participants in other words he's going to play the part of the the priest he's a better priest than the other priests in this regard because his sins don't have to be atoned for before he actually goes and atoned for other people sin because the priest has to be in right standing before he goes before the Lord God and have that problem I mean Jesus didn't have that problem so we have a better high priest then as a scapegoat the one who takes away the sins from the camp Jesus does that as well remember John makes a statement when he sees Jesus look the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the earth so he plays that part also a better element then as the sacrificial lamb his blood is poured out unlike the other lamb the other animal this is only for one year but his blood obviously it's a better but it's a more perfect blood the consequence of sin in the garden meant that not only was man a fallen person but also the earth was thrown into chaos which necessarily meant the animals and so we had no perfect vessels to bring before God are you with me now that blood atoned for their sins it expiated or pay or perpetuated the price that God wanted that being said now let's go to Leviticus 1711 all of this is covered that I just said is in is in all of Leviticus 16 but in 1711 let's look what it says it says for the life of the flesh is in the blood now let me stop right there he has decided that the life of the flesh is in the blood this is God's decision this is above our pay grade we don't get to decide what's a satisfactory payment he has decided though but and that's true there's not a human being on a planet that is alive that does not have blood in them not one even even the babies in the womb we talked about this on yesterday when speaking about abortion how even the mother blood is there to take care of the baby until he produces his own blood so every living human being has blood in them as he says the life of the flesh is in the blood let's go back to it and look what he says he says and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls for it is in the blood it is the blood that makes atonement for your by the life now couple things obviously the blood is important you can't make it from genesis to access to Leviticus without seeing how important the blood is it might be gory might be messy but again this is God's standards what God has called for now why would this have anything to do with what Mr. Rasmussen said about this possibly shedding light on the blood of God well tucked in here in obviously you guys know that this was not written in English we have it translated from Hebrew to to English for our understanding but let's go and look at what the Hebrew says and you'll see what I'm talking about what he says in verse 11 he says I have given it to you on the altar now in Hebrews you have this look over in the top right hand corner the writing I don't know if you all can see this highlighted but you have this word right here which is the word I need okay again some of you have heard me say this before and so all it will do is either strengthen your understanding of it or reiterate it but the the way that you say I in Hebrew one of the ways is I need now it has the why in front of which is and so why I need or I need so I need then has the Hebrew word for I have given not a team now this needs to be understood in Hebrew or Greek and there are other languages that do this you don't always have to supply the pronoun that that goes with this for example this is I have given well but I is already implied or already supplied in the I have given okay let's look at it this word not that team mean literally means I have given now not team not not not time is to give and normally it would mean he gives but the way this is put together the formation this word with the Yad at the end the E means I so not a team in Hebrew means I have given are you with me so the question then is why does he need to supply the I in front of the not a team why does it need to be a I need it literally says I I have given by the way Hebrew reads from right to left unlike English left to right but it's I I have given well what does that do in Hebrew what that does is it is to convey I myself have given so look what he says so he says for the life of the flesh is in the blood and he says for I I have given to them or to you I'm sorry so now here's the question what's the point that he's trying to get to that he himself God is supplying the blood I myself now in other words I'm not giving you some place to go and get blood I'm not supplying the animals for you I'm not supplying a resource a well no I myself am supplying the blood well now it kind of makes more sense with acts 2028 because this has got himself saying that I am offering I'm giving up the blood the problem is though wait a second God you don't have blood you don't even have a body so how in the world can God who does not have a body also give up blood well this is where Hebrew 10 comes in we might go to it we'll go to Hebrews 9 just a little bit but this is where Jesus or the quote is what Jesus also said that sacrifices and offerings you did not desire but a body you have given why well so he supplies the blood from his body so that's literally what that's literally what it means so God is saying I have supplied the blood and so when acts 2028 now it makes even more sense when he says this is the blood of God which is literally it is little let's put it back on the screen this is literally what the passage says in acts 2028 he says to to take care of the church of God which he obtained with his own blood so who obtained the church with his own blood God obtained the church with his own blood well how could that be if God you don't have blood well because a body I have prepared for whom for Jesus and it's still called God's blood that's why I said that is a really really theologically rich passage in Hebrew 1711 awesome passage granted it's hard to see in the English but the Hebrew bears it out now the problem is this though John McCarthy has made a statement in an interview that muddy the waters up and it causes folks to say wait a second is is is that really what you believe so let me let me just play this I think I made him had it have it at the wrong spot so let me just make sure I put it in the right spot state that we are redeemed quote not by his bleeding but by his dying do you still stand by that and why yeah wouldn't we're not saved by his bleeding because wouldn't have done any good if he just bled Jesus had just bled nobody would be saved the wages of sin is not bleeding the wages of sin is death now to be clear no one is really saying that him just bleeding by himself that that was enough no the issue is the bleeding accompanied with the death so let's let's go back to it and people must understand that it's not the bleeding of Jesus and it's not the blood of Jesus to speak of the blood of the cross the blood of the cross is to simply speak of the efficacious substitutionary sacrificial death of Christ do i think he had to to actually die actually bleed no not to save us but to fulfill the old testament picture somebody suggested that i might have thought he could be bludgeoned to death well i suppose if god had decided that's the way he would die it would be fine but the pattern and the picture of the shedding of blood was in the whole old testament sacrificial system and as the fulfillment of the final lamb he fit that model and that pattern but we are not saved by his so he makes it clear he says it cut off a little bit there but he says that in the end that we are not saved by his blood so the question is what if Jesus had just simply died but there was no shedding of blood well this is where i disagree with john mccarthur i know there's a lot of folks who admire john mccarthur i do too but you've got to be able guys to say if someone even for someone that you admire if they're wrong say hey i i believe that's wrong and here's why we're gonna look at the scriptures but him just dying either by drowning or someone beating him up or someone hanging him or him being stoned was that enough well if god had initially stated that that's what he wanted well then sure but god didn't state that god stated that there must be this blood to be shed that's what's always been required and so let's look on some passages and let's just see if we could see this throughout scripture uh what i want to go first well let's start with what jesus said first let's go to john 653 and he says so jesus said to them truly truly i said to you unless you eat the flesh of of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you now obviously he's not speaking of eating literally his flesh and drinking literally his blood but the point is jesus is magnifying the blood the role of the blood the with the flesh his his flesh being battered him dying but the blood is very important now that might not be enough for let's say maybe mr mccArthur but i think it should be but let's let's continue let's go to romanus 59 and he says and this is a big one he says since therefore we have been justified by his blood how much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of god now his point here is since in the past we were since we're atoned for by these animals how much more by his blood how much more by the blood and it emphasizes the blood and says that we are justifiable what does the word justified me the word justified means to be declared right and treated as such well how are we declared right and to be treated as such well he says according to this passage verse nine by his blood obviously by god's blood so guys that is that is extremely important then do i want to yeah you know what before i go before i go to hebrus let's look at colostians 126 i didn't put the greek up but it's okay colostians 120 i'm sorry he says and through him to reconcile to himself all things whether on earth or in heaven look what he says making peace by the blood of the cross so it's the blood of the cross remember i said that that what the toman does whether it's the old or in the new or for whether for the jew or for the greek for the jew or the gentile there's this covering cancelling and reconciliation that necessarily has to happen and the way that this this the reconciliation overall the goal is peace between god and mankind brought together you're not being brought together before god if there is no peace now you may have some peace you may not have a big issue with god but god has an issue with you because of sin i use an example like this let's just say someone stole my watch my buddy frank stole my watch and i'm looking for my watch and frank is in my face with the watch well i look at frank and said frank that's my watch he said oh i'm sorry i apologize okay but frank keeps wearing my watch well wait a second frank we got to fix this you can't keep coming to me with the same sin in my face in this case the watch and so frank says well what can i do to be right with you well and i want to be right with you so there's got to be something to atone for this and so i set the demands well if the demands are set and met and i might say frank giving my watch back and a thousand dollars frank's like well that's a lot but okay so once the demand is met then frank is in right standing i can never bring that up again before him and so also on top of that we have this piece we are reconciled well that's what he's talking about that's what paul's talking about here we had everything that we've been brought together by the blood of the cross we have peace now by the blood of the cross okay now if you notice the shirt that i'm wearing i wear one of this this shirt or another shirt the short sleeve shirt this red lives matter and i talk about why what the red lives refers to the red lives refers to the blood what you never can see is what's on the back of the shirt that is this passage here now you don't have to try to read it here i'm going to put it on the screen which is aphesians one verse seven and there it is it says in him we have redemption through what through his blood the forgiveness of our trespass according to the riches of his grace so how do we have redemption his blood that necessarily means his death so obviously we're not saying that him simply just shedding blood or going to the blood bank and donating blood and laying at the foot of the cross is enough no that's not what we're saying we're saying in this gruesome way that he is going to die and this outpouring of his blood the shedding of his blood it fits exactly what the old covenant required remember jesus makes a statement he says i did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law well how was the law fulfilled the laws were filled by by um the blood expiating or paying the actual debt and so jesus fulfills it by playing all three parts that we see on the day of atonement paul tells us in in uh in in romans five also that we are brought together by this reconciliation now and the word that's used that we won't go over it but the word the recon saved by the reconciliation is high cartilage which is the reconciliation pointing back to the actual atonement okay that jesus paid now the point of this is that our our being bought is bought by the blood his blood remember his blood is what god has wanted us or wanted to ransom us with as a matter of fact there are a few other passages that we won't i won't just go through them i'll put them on the screen real quick so we can kind of look at them and it says like first Peter 1 18 says knowing that you were uh ransom uh from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers not with perishable things such as silver gold but with the precious blood of christ so that again the precious blood of christ first john 1 7 but if we walk in the light as god is in the light we have fellowship with one another and the blood of jesus his son cleanses us from all sin so we are cleansed by his blood and then we just read clausians one by the way if you're wondering if there's miss billings know what i did was when i copied and pasted over to that the little references the letters t r j s i copied and pasted those went over there too and it just came like that so but anyway so we are reconciled we have we have been redeemed and we have this fellowship because of his blood i think that's absolutely key now let's go to hebrew's chapter nine and work our way through in hebrew's nine it says but when christ appeared as a high priest remember i said that he is going to perform all the different functions he plays a part of a high priest he plays a part of the scapegoat the one that takes away the sins and he also plays a part of the sacrificial lamb so when christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come then let me make this bigger up here i don't know why didn't enlarge this as well i'm sorry then through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands that is not of this creation he entered once for all into the holy places not by means of blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood so his blood is important and we're told why it's important in two passages already because he is god remember we know that his blood wasn't supplied by his by his earthly father not by joseph he was not born of a mancy but he was born of the holy spirit and we're going to see that in a second speaking about the elements that that that christ brings rather than some old tainted blood so let's go back to it verse 13 for if the blood of bull of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer speaking of the priests sanctify for the purification of the flesh how much more will the blood of christ of the anointed one who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to god to purify our conscience from dead works that serve the living god so his blood there's no there's no blemish to him meaning also naturally that his blood also there is no blemish to that as well let's continue therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant for where he where a will is involved the death of the one who made it must be established so now to to john mccarthy's point there needs to be there needed to be a death and we agree with that they're absolutely you could not just bleed but you also could not just die any kind of way you could jesus could not have died of natural causes he could not have died of a drowning there had to be shedding of blood he could not just shed blood that's enough blood i'm through going about his business no he had to die in that process are you with me so the ultimate sacrifice was paid because if you if god were to look around to find something on earth there's nothing there to pay for god's death there's none so let's go back to it uh let's see now what he says in verse 19 for when every commandment of the law had been declared by moses to all the people he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and his up and he sprinkled both excuse me uh drop down to verse 20 says this is the blood of the covenant that god commanded for you and in the same way he sprinkled the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship indeed under the law look what he says almost everything is purified that means cleanse almost everything is cleanser purified with blood and here it is key verse what does it say and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness or some version may say remission of sin so that should be more than enough i really believe that uh john mccarthur i don't know if may it might be that he is he posed a position and is now just sticking to it uh is there something magical about jesus's blood no there's not but is there something supernatural about his blood that's a better word yes there is something supernatural about his blood where did his blood come from though it's contained in a human body it's not like the same human body that we have this is a perfect body without spot or blemish and so too is the blood this was jesus who was born of the holy spirit mary's pregnancy was not caused by joseph or any other man whereby that the child would have been born through an incorruptible seed no he was born of an imperishable which is the word that's used here imperishable seed or bloodline are you with me and so because of that the blood is that much more important if the blood was not a big deal and any old blood would work and there was nothing special about his blood then the blood of bulls and goats would have suffice but because his blood is perfect sinless and so no we're not saying it's magical blood but we are saying it is divine blood according to acts 2028 and according to Hebrews Hebrews according to Leviticus 1711 this is the blood that was supplied by god and how did he do so as a matter of fact let me go ahead and put it on the screen so let's just so i can have my my scriptural backing in what i said matter of fact you know what let's keep reading let's keep reading thus it was necessary verse 23 for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites but the heavenly things themselves with a better sacrifice than these meaning this is this is referring to the blood that he uses this is a much better sacrifice that's being used for christ has entered not into holy places made with hands which are copies of the truth things but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of god on our behalf and he didn't have to do so i'm just i'm kind of paraphrasing now to get to the point he didn't have to do so yearly year after year after year like he says in verse 25 as the high priest entered the holy place every year with blood not of his own so the high priest is going in with blood that's not his behind now notice he's making the the other comparison the high priest is going in with someone else's blood are you with me the high priest is using blood that's not his but blood of another god has promised though in the next chapter seven chapter 17 that he's supplying the blood and it's not the blood of another that's why he's making that point to draw the comparison that the high priest would do so with the blood of another someone else's blood not his own verse 26 for then he would have to suffer have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world but as it is he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifices of himself the sacrifice of who the sacrifice of this high priest that is jesus and just as his appointed man wants to die and after that the judgment so christ has been offered once to bear the sins of many but he will pillage second time not to do with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him now here it is in chapter 10 he says for since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities it can never by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year make perfect those who draw near otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered since the worshipers having once been cleansed would no longer have any conscious of sin now remember what what have we already been told before we get to this book what cleanses us is the blood okay remember under the old covenant they weren't cleansed uh like we're cleansed this was not a a one time uh for all ages sort of thing they had to have this over and over and over and over and over again but this blood as paul has told us and they also the writer of heaps tells us that this cleanses us once and for all let's continue he says otherwise uh would they not have ceased to be offered since the worshipers having been cleansed verse three but in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and ghost takeaway sins now let me fix this real quick let me let me expound on this he says but in these sacrifices there's a reminder of sins every year why is there a reminder of sin what couple things one what the old covenant the law did not address was a person's heart and their moral failings you as a matter of fact you knew you you were guilty of sin and had to deal with sin every year why because you knew the oh we gotta deal with this sin sacrifice all the time not just every year but also throughout the year someone who is let's say on dialysis or having to constantly go to the doctor or constantly take medicine they're grateful for the medicine and for the medical procedures but there's this reminder often about their condition the person has kidney problems there's this reminder of constantly having to go for dialysis or the person who has cancer always having to go for some sort of treatment or whatever it is there's this constant reminder because i have to keep going through this but because we've got some good blood some better blood some perfect blood this is one time and there is no longer a reminder of sin oh by the way the sin was cast upon his head and taken out now the issue in in the book of Hebrews is that these Jews are so used to the day of atonement having to do this over and over and over and over and over again thinking that when they do mess up and their consciousness is bothered by that because they have a repentant heart they're thinking well i got to do something about it because that's what i'm used to doing that's what we're so used to doing as a people for all this time and the writer is trying to explain to him no you don't have to keep doing this is done once for all but now let's go to verse five he says consequently when christ came into the world he said look what he says when christ came into the world he says sacrifices and offerings you have not desired but a body you have prepared for me and burn offers and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure then i said behold i have come to do your will oh god as is written in the in i'm sorry as is written of me in the book in the scroll of the book and so this is the point when we talk about this this blood that he has to give he has no blood to give unless he has a body the angel the lord because we know that that is the pre-incarnate christ the angel the lord could have turned around and and died on the cross right no but this is now jesus who has who's given this earthly body who has given this earthly body with blood he sheds his blood for us and that's why he said earlier in chapter 922 without the shedding of the blood there would be no remission no payment nor for no forgiveness of sin so now is it possible that we are misunderstanding john mccarthur i don't i don't know um if that's the case he ought to he owes it to us and everyone else will listen to him he owes it to us to kind of clarify himself but it seems to say though that because he says that i guess if if if he could have died by blood you know what have you and then he turns turns around and says that we are not saved by his blood well we absolutely are saved by his blood are we saved by his blood alone no are we saved by his death alone no the two go hand in hand and so it is required that our salvation be at the death this blood shedding death to make atonement for us so now the question is going to be for some if if john mccarthur and by the way i think this is an important issue what does that make john mccarthur a heretic does that mean that he's in heresy no no i i don't think that because john mccarthur believes the same thing that you and i believe in terms of salvation that faith in christ what he's done on the cross is necessary is required for salvation but is he is he wrong yet very much so and i think the problem could be though that there's there's not enough people who when they see sin not sin when i'm looking someone's comment when they see an error to not call it out you have to you have to be willing to call out the error of someone else even if it's a beloved person even this person has been around for for and he's been around for a long time if i say listen i disagree here's the reason why okay there are there are thousands of i shouldn't say thousands but there are tons of scholars out there who also vehemently disagree now they don't call him a heretic they say you got this wrong they understand that he died and did shed blood in the shedding of the blood was for our our our salvation but it's the extra thinking that goes on that will cause him to think or other to think that that uh it wasn't totally necessary no the blood is the blood is totally necessary why is the blood totally necessary because god said it was and that's more than enough again it's not a magic not magical blood it is god inspired god ordained and divine blood according to acts 20 according to uh Hebrews 9 and 10 and according to Leviticus 17 so