Blood of God: For those of you who read my recent post on what is often called “experimental Calvinism,” you may remember me mentioning a brother from England associated with the Gospel Standard Baptists, with whom I corresponded extensively some 25 or 30 years ago. I could mention his name, but truthfully I hesitate to do so, because for all I know he may still be living, and if so he would now be well advanced in years. I would have no desire whatsoever to trouble or offend an aged brother simply because I am reflecting aloud upon certain expressions or theological impressions found in his writings.
And honestly, as I look back upon my own life, and consider how deeply certain convictions concerning Christ and the gospel have become settled within me over many years, I do not think that in my later days I would especially want someone dissecting every expression, questioning every imperfect phrase, or unsettling my thoughts over matters that have shaped the entire course of my life and understanding of the grace of God. Obviously, if a man openly embraces some destructive or Christ-denying heresy, that is another matter altogether. I Corinthians 13:6. But there is also a difference between carefully weighing language and simply looking for reasons to disturb or dismantle another man’s faith.
Anyway, that thought crossed my mind because I recently came across a little book this brother had written decades ago through a very small private publisher. As I began rereading it, especially the portions I had marked and underlined years earlier, I found much of it surprisingly rich in Scripture and deeply occupied with Christ. The language at times is very intense, almost overflowing in its attempt to speak of the incarnation, the sufferings of the Son of God, and the glory of redemption. I Peter 2:7. While working through the small book, I came upon a certain expression that I felt was worth briefly considering, not for the purpose of fault-finding, but simply to weigh the language carefully in light of Christ and the Scriptures.
The particular expression that caught my attention was the phrase “the Blood of God.” At first glance, some may immediately recoil from such language, while others may embrace it without hesitation. Yet the matter is perhaps more careful and weighty than either reaction alone allows. Interestingly enough, Scripture itself uses language that comes remarkably close to this very expression: “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:28. So whatever difficulties men may feel with such wording, we cannot simply dismiss the instinct behind it as though it were automatically irreverent or heretical.
At the same time, these subjects require great care, because when speaking of the Person of Christ we are standing upon holy ground. One important distinction, I believe, is this: the divine nature itself did not suffer or bleed, yet the Person who suffered in human flesh was truly God the Son. Christ is not two persons, but one Person possessing two distinct natures. John 1:14. Once those distinctions begin collapsing into one another, confusion sometimes arises. Historically, many controversies concerning the person of Christ did not begin with men consciously denying Him, but with sincere attempts to exalt His glory while pressing theological language beyond the careful boundaries Scripture itself appears to maintain.
One reason such expressions have appeared so often in the language of believers is because the glory of redemption is bound up with the dignity of the Person who accomplished it. Scripture does not present the sufferings of Christ as though a mere man suffered alongside God, but rather that the One who humbled Himself unto death was Himself the Lord of glory manifested in flesh. The blood shed upon the cross was truly human blood, yet it belonged to the Person of Him who is called “God manifest in the flesh.” I Timothy 3:16. And this is precisely what gives such infinite worth and efficacy to His sacrifice. Hebrews 10:14. The majesty of redemption does not rest merely in the intensity of Christ’s sufferings, but in who it was that suffered.
Perhaps this also explains why believers through the centuries have sometimes reached for unusually strong language when speaking of the sufferings of Christ. The heart recoils at reducing the great work of redemption to something distant, abstract, or merely technical. For the cross was not simply the suffering of another man, but the self-humbling of the incarnate Son of God. “The Lord of glory” was crucified. I Corinthians 2:8. And though careful distinctions must certainly be maintained, there are moments when one almost understands why overwhelmed believers have struggled to find language adequate to express the depths of the love and glory revealed in the sufferings of Christ.
Anyway, these are simply a few passing thoughts that came to mind while rereading the little book again after so many years. I certainly do not pretend to speak with the precision of the old theologians on subjects so deep and sacred. I only know that whenever the Person and sufferings of Christ are being considered, we are handling matters far too glorious for careless speech. I Timothy 3:16. There is something deeply humbling about attempting to speak accurately concerning the ONE in whom “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9. And while careful distinctions certainly matter, one can almost understand why men, captivated by the glory of Christ, have sometimes pressed their language beyond the limits of careful precision. John 1:14. MPJ