Was Jesus’ “precious blood” any different in substance from ours?

In 1974, M. R. DeHann released a thin book entitled The Chemistry of the Blood, in which he maintained that, since blood derives genetically independently of the mother within a fetus, Jesus’ blood is not human, but perfectly divine. The molecular structure of the Jesus’ blood is fundamentally different from ours, and has intrinsic, physical value. Others have followed DeHann in this theory, even going so far as to maintain that the blood Jesus shed in his circumcision has atoning value (Rod Bell, “The Precious Blood of Christ,” Frontline 10 [September/October 2000]: 5). Others have long maintained that there is a physical fountain filled with Christ’s literal blood eternally preserved in heaven that is mystically dispensed to believers (see the resolution from the August 4–8 1986 World Congress on Fundamentalism held at BJU).

However, there are some very troubling problems with this theory that have been raised, most visibly John MacArthur. In the April 1986 publication of Faith for the Family, the first stones were cast at John MacArthur for disputing DeHann’s theory, and a huge controversy has raged ever since. DBTS has entered the debate on at least two occasions: Dr. Compton wrote an article, “The Blood of Christ” in the Sentinel 9 (Fall 1992): 1–2; and Dr. Doran addressed the topic at the 2000 FBF conference. For the following reasons, we must view Jesus’ blood as fully human, with no admixture of divine elements.

• Biologically and logically, DeHann’s theory proves too much. While a baby’s blood type can differ from that of its mother, it can differ from that of its father as well. Thus, while a baby may develop a circulatory system that, amazingly, is ultimately incompatible with its own mother’s blood, it does not follow that the blood derives only from the father. Further, while a baby’s blood may not share precise identity with its mother’s blood, the blood of the infant still receives its basic properties by inheritance from the parents, not from some external source.

• Exegetically and lexically, the primary significance of the “blood of Christ” is as a metaphor of the violent death of Christ on the cross. In the Bible “blood” often carries the idea of violent death, whether or not direct bloodshed is the means of death (Gen 9:6 [any murder]; Gen 37:26 [death by starvation/thirst]; Ezek 16:36 [death by burning]). The NT corroborates this testimony, at least twice using “blood of Christ” and “death of Christ” synonymously (Rom 5:8–11; Heb 9:14–15).

This is not to say that Christ did not have to shed his blood. He could not have drowned or been strangled to death bloodlessly. Just as the OT animal sacrifices had to die by shedding of blood because “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev 17:11, 14), so also the Lamb of God had to suffer the same fate (John 1:29). Nonetheless, the atoning efficacy is not tied to the molecules of Jesus’ blood, but to his violent death made efficacious by means of his perfect life.

• Theologically, this theory denies the full humanity of Christ and renders his death worthless for saving anyone. Christ had to be made human flesh and blood like his brothers in order for his death to have any value (Heb 2:14–18). According to this passage, God could only save that which he became—a human. If Jesus was not fully and perfectly human, we all lie dead in our sins to this day.

Historically, theories like DeHann’s have led to several heresies, namely, Docetism (the denial of the humanity of Christ); Apollinarianism (the denial of the full humanity of Christ); and the Roman heresy of Transubstantiation, which teaches that we drink the literal blood of Christ at Eucharist/Communion (John 6:54 et al) for its divine, sacramentarian properties. Christ’s blood, however, has no intrinsic sacramentarian value in its physical essence; instead, the purpose of Communion is to symbolize our association with and participation in the death of Christ (1 Cor 11:26).