Blood, The Bible And Fundamentalism:
A strange doctrine of blood
14 March 2004
Richard Alexander
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
THE ARGUMENT OF HISTORY: The Blood Doctrine as a Fundamental of the Faith
Some Respected Fundamentalists Teach the Blood Doctrine
Dr. M.R. DeHaan is a Blood Indoctrinator
Dr. Ian Paisley is a Blood Indoctrinator
Dr. Jack Hyles is a Blood Indoctrinator
Some Respected Fundamentalists Refute the Blood Doctrine
D.L. Moody Refutes the Blood Doctrine
Charles H. Spurgeon Refutes the Blood Doctrine
Blood Indoctrinators Attack Those Whom They Cannot Appropriate
The Blood Doctrine Echoes Certain Heresies
THE ARGUMENT OF SCIENCE
They Are Wrong Because They Think That Science Agrees With Them
They are wrong about blood's origins:
They believe that all human blood comes from the male parent aloneThey believe they are right because they have a straw man to attack, i.e., "The mother's blood does not flow through the umbilical cord."
They are wrong about blood's life-giving power, i.e., "Life requires blood."
THE ARGUMENT OF SCRIPTURE
They are wrong because they think that Scripture agrees with them
Jesus was not the only one called the seed of the woman
Christ did not have God the Father's blood
Eve's sin, as well as Adam's, was passed to mankind
Christ could not have fulfilled the analogies of the Old Testament by taking His blood into Heaven
Christ did not enter Heaven with His blood
INTRODUCTION
The Doctrine
There is a system of belief about blood that is accepted as doctrine in many churches. According to these churches, which are often fundamentalist Christian, the most important thing in the Universe is blood--yours and Christ's. If you have the wrong kind of blood, you will go to Hell. If you have the right kind of blood, you are part of Deity. Jesus was God and sinless only because He had the right kind of blood. Man is mortal and sinful because he has the wrong kind of blood.
Mankind has only one hope for everlasting life, according to these preachers. Since the fate of man is determined by the blood in his body, man could be saved if his sinful, deadly blood were replaced with perfect, immortal blood. Theoretically, there is more than one way to get sinless blood. If medicine could strain out the sin in our blood, we would be immortal. Medicine could offer to man the fruit of the Tree of Life that was denied to Adam and Eve. However, since medicine cannot do that, man needs some other source of untainted blood.
There is, fortunately, a reservoir of such blood, reserved in Heaven to redeem humanity. What is more, this blood is not merely perfect, sinless human blood. Since it is the blood of Jesus Christ, it is also the divine blood of God the Father. The blood that flowed through the veins of Jesus Christ's body while He was on Earth came from God the Father, alone. Jesus Christ had divine, sinless, non-human blood while He was on Earth.
When Jesus arose from the grave, He collected the blood that He shed, the only perfect blood in existence, and took it to the Holy of Holies in Heaven. Every drop of blood that was in Jesus Christ's body while He was on Earth is now on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies in Heaven. It is as fresh and pure as it was when it flowed in His body, and full of the Life of God. The supernatural blood of Jesus Christ is available for literal human consumption through the spirit; that is Salvation, according to many Christian Fundamentalist preachers.
The churches that teach this are sensitive about the belief. Those people who do not accept this doctrine cannot join the church, and those already in attendance may be asked to leave. Several Fundamentalist preachers claim that Salvation requires a belief that Jesus Christ had divine blood. Even so, some Fundamentalist churches have never heard of these beliefs, and some members refuse to believe that our leading preachers would believe such teachings. Yet, it is certain that those who teach this doctrine feel compelled to brand and throw out anyone who dissents on this one subject. Many church members get an awkward smile when this subject is mentioned, and they say that it's really not an important issue. When there is such a divergence in our views and knowledge of a subject that has assumed such importance, there is a crisis in the church.
Many important preachers support this belief--hereafter referred to as the Blood Doctrine--and they have many arguments for it. These arguments fall into three categories; Historical, Scientific and Biblical. Since they claim that these three bodies of knowledge support their Doctrine, this book will examine the validity, accuracy and absoluteness of each of them.
Not all Blood Indoctrinators claim every element of the Blood Doctrine that is presented here (although most Blood Indoctrinators claim most of them). The goal in this book is to evaluate the most critical elements of the Blood Doctrine (1 John 4:1-3, Acts 17:11). This book was written, not because the author is a great theologian, but because he is genuinely concerned about the errors that he sees in his denomination--errors that are not being addressed by those who should know better.
The meaning of the word "divine" is ambiguous, and this is adding confusion to the discussion of Christ's blood and body. A Blood Indoctrinator from Longview Baptist Temple told the author that "divine" meant "sent from God." That was his basis for claiming that Christ's blood and body are divine. He has some basis for using his definition. Terms such as "divine Scripture," for example, mean that it is from God. However, though it's true that Jesus was sent from God, and God prepared a body for Christ, there must be more to Christ's divinity than this. According to Luke 1:26 the angel Gabriel was sent from God, and John 1:6 says that John the Baptist was "a man sent from God." If Christ's divinity is nothing more than a reference to His dispatcher, then all the angels, prophets and godly men are a part of the Godhead.
The word "divine" has several meanings, including fortune telling (to divine; divination). For the purposes of this book, "divine" will mean "God, or a part of God, and worthy of worship as God, equal to God." The author maintains that Jesus Christ is divine, but His body and blood were the same as those given to ordinary humans, though Christ's were composed by God.
The Author
When he was five years old, he heard his preacher say that we must ask Jesus for His gift of Salvation if we were ever to enter Heaven. The preacher said that sin is like a disease, and Christ is the inoculation against sin. His mother told him that an inoculation is a shot, and that scared him from getting saved. Imagine that! He could have died and gone to Hell just because he was afraid that he had to get a shot to be saved. You never know what's going through a child's mind.
For three weeks, he battled his fear. Then, a visiting preacher said that some members of the audience needed to come forward to ask Jesus for His gift of Salvation, and the author-to-be decided that if he had to get a shot to be saved, he was going to get that shot! They took him into a side room and carefully questioned him (he was looking all around for that needle). He still remembers the concerned look on the face of the man who dealt with him. The church worker asked the young man to repeat a prayer with him (the author didn't know why), and when the worker finished, he told the boy that if he had meant that prayer, then he was saved. The author was surprised and relieved!
The prayer may not have meant much to the author, but he came by faith to ask Jesus for His gift of Salvation. The author's trust has been in nothing other than Christ's power to save him from sin and Hell, shot or no shot (Acts 16:31). Today he understands that it was Christ's substitution of Himself in God's judgement that gave the author the right to Salvation, and the author's faith in His ability and will to save the author that gave him Salvation. Repentance from sin was inherent in his understanding. He knew that God was holy, and he knew what holy meant. It would be a strange faith that would bring the repentant into rebellion with his Saviour.
The author believes that Jesus is the Creator of the Universe (John 1:1-3), that He is by nature (rather than by office or mission) uniquely the Son of God (Mark 8:38; John 10:30, 11:25-27; Hebrews 1:5-8; 1 John 1:3, 2:22-24) and that He is the One and only One through whom all mankind must pass to meet the Father (1 Timothy 2:5). He took flesh by a miracle of the Holy Ghost, who caused Christ's body to form in the womb of a virgin (Matthew 1:20, 23; Luke 1:35; Hebrews 10:5). His birth by a woman who was a virgin was a sign, and only a sign, given to the Jews to show that Jesus was the Promised One and that Israel would not permanently be destroyed (Isaiah 7:3-16, Matthew 1:22, 23). By the dictates of the Law, Christ had to be our near kinsman (Leviticus 25:47-49; Numbers 5:6-8; Ruth 3:9-13, 4:1-10), meaning that He had to be a blood relative of the human race (e.g., Deuteronomy 25:5--through the male, no less--Hebrews 2:16) which was promised (Genesis 21:12, Galatians 3:16). He also had to be free from transgression of the Law of God (Exodus 12:5).
Salvation is a miraculous work brought about by the Holy Spirit. The sinner is granted the faith necessary to trust in Jesus' right and will to save us. The penalty for sin required the life of the payer (2 Chronicles 25:4; Romans 6:23), and is symbolized by the sustaining substance of life, which is blood (Leviticus 17:11). Christ's blood is the symbol showing that Christ died in our place (Hebrews 12:24). As the author of the Old Testament, it was His right to die in our place (Hebrews 8:6-13, 9:15-22). The miracle of Salvation is symbolized by the Old Testament rituals of animal sacrifices. Christ fulfilled in reality what had been done figuratively by the Old Testament priests (Hebrews 10:1).
The Blood Indoctrinators agree with many of those things. There is no controversy that Salvation is by Grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. It is not refuted by Fundamentalists that the Old Testament Jewish practice of the right to redeem property foreshadowed the right of redemption that belonged to Jesus. Some Fundamentalists have even claimed that humans are "save-able" because Christ could be born as one of them. The angels, who are sexless, cannot be redeemed, because Christ cannot become their near-kinsman.(1) Finally, the Resurrection is agreed, by all those involved in this debate, to have been literal and essential to our Salvation. There is, therefore, a lot of material about which members on both sides of the Blood Doctrine agree. In fact, it is possible to attend many church services over several years, given by several Blood Indoctrinators, without ever hearing any of their odd teachings about the blood. This was the case of the author.
The Discovery
The author came into contact with the Blood Doctrine while he was a student in Bible college. It was an unexpected meeting. Pastor Rod Bell, of Tabernacle Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, said that science has proven that men get their blood from their fathers. The body comes from the mother, but the blood comes from the father. After saying that, Pastor Bell continued with the rest of his sermon, and the author, still smiling and unsuspecting, briefly thought to himself, "I wonder how science was able to prove that, and when did it happen? Why haven't I heard of this before?" The author had been greatly interested in science all his life, and believed that he had heard of most major discoveries. For the time, though, the author's attention returned to Pastor Bell's sermon.
A week or two later, the author attended a preacher's fellowship that was followed by a pot luck. One of the speakers was a young man who repeated Dr. Bell's statement. However, he did something very important in addition to simply citing a statement; he explained what the statement meant. That explanation shocked the author. "Surely," thought the author, "this preacher is mistaken. He is confused. He could not mean what he just said." It was so ridiculous a mistake that the author decided that he should inform the preacher of it. Perhaps it could be corrected before it went any further.
The author spoke to the young man as they stood together in the food line, and mentioned that he would like to discuss the sermon with him sometime. The preacher said that he was ready. The author, feeling uncomfortable in pointing out an embarrassing error in front of several people, replied that another time might be good. The young preacher restated that he was ready at that moment. So, the author began to ask questions that should have guided the preacher to realize the truth.
This lasted for a few minutes, with the responses of the preacher becoming more ridiculous, and the mood of the author becoming more incredulous. Finally, the preacher had enough, and leaned across the dining table where they had seated themselves, and said, "Your problem is that you are saying, 'Show me, show me, show me. That's humanistic and satanic and I don't want to discuss it anymore.'"
The surprises did not end there, though. The other Bible college students supported the preacher, and cornered the author on the matter. They supported the preacher on every point. By this time, the author was in shock. Yet, there were more surprises coming for him. He was summoned into the dean's office, and reprimanded for confronting a preacher on his sermon in public. A Bible college student must never contradict a preacher, especially in public. A teacher in the college, who was present with the author during several visits to the dean, said that even though there were some minor errors in the sermon, it was not right for a student to confront the preacher about them. The author asked what the teacher considered a minor error, but the teacher refused to cite any examples.
The Book
This book is presented because the author does not intend to be ashamed of his religion. It is clear to the author that some of the teachings of the Blood Indoctrinators are due to ignorance. Therefore, this book strives to provide the basic, necessary knowledge of the relevant subjects for those who are interested in the Doctrine taught by Jack Hyles, Ian Paisley and Curtis Hutson. Yet, this book is not textbook. It is an argument for the author's opinion and an attack on what could only be deception on the part of the author's opponents.
There is so much perversion in the World that it is a shame that our own Fundamentalist churches should give occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme. Hiding the existence of the errors in the churches is not acceptable, for "cursed is he who doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully" (Jeremiah 48:10). The matter has become of such a large scale that it must be laid open. The preachers are accountable to God for the spiritual growth of their people, so that was the first audience addressed, but when the preachers refused to hear, this book was taken to the public.
It is the right and obligation of Christians to make a defense of what they believe. Fundamentalism has denied that right from the author. The preachers will not permit him to speak of it to their members, formally or informally, nor will they answer his arguments themselves. The author does not expect them to read this book until they must, for they shun hard questions, calling them "vain babbling" and "division of the brethren." Perhaps if this book were made available to the general public, fundamentalism would realize that they must answer these questions when they make claims for the Blood Doctrine.
THE ARGUMENT OF HISTORY
The Blood Doctrine as a Fundamental of the Faith
I'm not teaching you any new thing tonight. I'm teaching you what all fundamentalists believe.(2)--Dr. Jack Hyles
Some Respected Fundamentalists Are Blood Indoctrinators
Dr. M.R. DeHaan is a Blood Indoctrinator.
When the author first learned of this Doctrine, he was astounded. He never before had heard anything like it. It was in the author's freshman year in Bible college, during a monthly pot-luck at a neighboring church, that a young preacher presented a wild explanation for Christ's sinless Nature. The preacher said that science has proven that a person inherits his body from his mother, but inherits his blood from his father. Christ was a man because He took His flesh from His mother, but He was the sinless Son of God because He took His blood from God, His Father. The preacher's proof was that doctors may test a child's blood or DNA to find the father of the child.
The preacher explained that after Christ rose from the dead He took His blood into Heaven. Salvation was incomplete until Christ presented His blood on the Mercy Seat in Heaven. Since Christians are members of the body of Christ, the blood of Christ actually flows from Heaven and through all believers, just as in a literal, physical body. When we confess our sins, the antibodies in the blood of Christ flowing through us attacks those sins and gives us an immunity to those sins. He claimed that it is the antibodies in Christ's blood that keeps us from sinning.
That weekend, the author made a long-distance call to his mother, and described these claims to her. She learned from her boss, who is a medical researcher and ordained preacher, that these teachings were popularized by the efforts of the late Dr. M.R. DeHaan. Doctor DeHaan is considered a scientific authority because he was a medical doctor before he became a preacher. He died in 1965, ending a long career as a preacher and teacher on the Radio Bible Class. So important is Dr. DeHaan's influence that Dr. Bob Gray of Texas plagiarized a paragraph from page 17 of Dr. DeHaan's book in a sermon that Dr. Gray preached at Bella Vista Baptist Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1991.(3)
Many of the quotes from the other preachers mentioned in this book seem to have been mere recitals of Dr. DeHaan's teachings, since these preachers use the same illustrations and some of the same words that Dr. DeHaan used for the same points. Most of these preachers couldn't prove what they say, so are forced to lip-synch with Dr. DeHaan. The only reason that the other preachers are quoted in these cases is to show how wide-spread the Blood Doctrine is, to break up the monotony of reading quotes from one person and to abide by the quotation agreement reached with Zondervan Corporation.
Sword of the LORD also cites from Dr. DeHaan's book. They apparently used a different edition than did this author, because they cite some very interesting passages that the author could not find in his copy of Dr. DeHaan's book. The January 28, 1988 issue of Sword of the LORD quoted Dr. DeHaan as saying,
Every drop of blood which flowed in Jesus' body is still in existence...
Perhaps there is a golden chalice in Heaven where every drop of the precious blood is still in existence ...(4)
The really shocking statements attributed to Dr. DeHaan came later in the Sword article;
In his book, The Chemistry of the Blood, Dr. DeHaan (a medical doctor) says, "All the blood which is in the child is produced within the child itself as a result of the introduction of the male sperm. The mother contributes no blood at all."
... Then on page 42 of his book, Dr. DeHaan says, "Every drop of blood in an infant's body is the contribution of the male parent..."(5)
Notice that Dr. DeHaan is considered a scientific authority, and that the Blood Doctrine is made to look more authoritative, based on Dr. DeHaan's medical background. Yet, Dr. DeHaan finished medical school almost a century ago. As mentioned earlier, he died decades ago. At best, Dr. DeHaan's medical knowledge would be out of date, so more recent material should be cited. Instead of doing this, the Blood Indoctrinators have been forced to abandon medicine as a defense of their beliefs. When Doctor Paisley attacked a recent sermon that was written with the assistance of a modern medical doctor, he did not criticize the medical claims made in it, even though they directly opposed Dr. DeHaan's claims. Instead, he began by saying that he did not care what scholars said; he was only interested in the plain teachings of the Bible.
There is a chapter in this book examining the medical aspects of the Blood Doctrine. However, it should be mentioned here that Dr. DeHaan was always wrong about what science says about human blood. When Dr. Gray quoted Dr. DeHaan's medical claims at Bella Vista Baptist Church, the audience exploded with amens and hallelujahs, but when the author showed some of those people what medicine really says about the infant's blood, they became defensive. The Blood Indoctrinators only care about medicine when they can twist it to suit their uses. Modern medical knowledge, just like the medical knowledge of 50 years ago, directly refutes Dr. DeHaan's claims about the formation of human blood.
When the author returned to his mother's home, he was loaned a copy of Dr. DeHaan's book, The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. It was the 28th printing of his book in 31 years, the first one being printed in 1943, so there were probably a lot of people who liked his book and still believe his teachings. That book gave the author enough information eventually to piece together a continent of a doctrine that was like a New World to him. It would have been difficult for the author to have researched the Blood Doctrine without Dr. DeHaan's book showing the beliefs of the Blood Doctrine. Doctor DeHaan will be quoted often in this book.(6)
Dr. Ian Paisley is a Blood Indoctrinator.
Doctor Ian Paisley, Presbyterian preacher and Irish politician, is one of the greatest men in Fundamentalism today. He is a brave, godly man. There is a story (perhaps Dr. Paisley knows of it) of a police officer who confronted him. Doctor Paisley reportedly said to the officer, "Do you rebuke God's servant?" The police officer fell dead when he heard that. Doctor Paisley's life is constantly endangered by the Irish Republican Army.
Doctor Paisley's sermon, "Ten Impossibilities if the Blood of Christ Perished," was printed October 28, 1988 by Sword of the LORD. It was so good that Dr. Hutson, editor of Sword of the LORD, produced a booklet called The Main Message of the Bible that quoted from Dr. Paisley's sermon. If Blood Indoctrinators can be said to have an official position, Dr. Paisley's sermon may be said to be an official argument on the location of Christ's blood. One should not lightly oppose this man.
Dr. Jack Hyles is a Blood Indoctrinator.
In 1992, the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, held their annual Preacher's Conference with the theme of "The Blood of Christ." Soon after the conference, the author received a copy of Dr. Hyles' book, The Blood, the Book and the Body (no, the author did not imitate Dr. Hyles' title for his publications). Doctor Hyles is the only person whom the author has found who has put certain sections of the Blood Doctrine into print. These sections are often preached or are assumed to be understood, but the author wants to cross reference only printed material in this book, if possible. Therefore, this book will depend on Dr. Hyles for certain quotes. Doctor Hyles is on the Board of Directors for Sword of the LORD and is the pastor of the second-largest church in the world. He is the long-time hero of the author.
Some Respected Fundamentalists Refute the Blood Doctrine.
D. L. Moody Refutes the Blood Doctrine.
D.L. Moody's sermon, "The Blood of the New Testament," does not contradict most of the Blood Doctrine's claims for the blood of Christ--except for one point. Sword of the LORD published a similar sermon, attributed to Mr. Moody, but it was called, "The Blood In the New Testament." That one point was not in the sermon printed by the Sword. What was that point? D.L. Moody said:
Now the most solemn truth in the Gospel is that the only thing He left down here is His blood. His body and bones He took away, but He left His blood on Calvary.(7)
Mr. Moody said that Christ left His blood on Earth; the Blood Indoctrinators claim that Christ took His blood from Earth into Heaven. A well-known evangelist told the author that Mr. Moody made this point, that Christ left His blood on Earth, in many sermons. It appears that Sword of the LORD misrepresented Mr. Moody by including him in their debate on Christ's blood without mentioning that he believed that Christ's blood remained on Earth. Their misrepresentation increased the credibility of their Doctrine.
Charles H. Spurgeon Refutes the Blood Doctrine.
The Blood Doctrine refers only to the physical blood of Jesus Christ when it speaks of the blood of Jesus or the blood of His sprinkling. With that understood, they freely quote sermons on the blood of Christ, such as Charles Spurgeon's The Blood of Sprinkling (2nd Sermon). However, Mr. Spurgeon himself refuted this application of the term:
What is this "blood of sprinkling?" In a few words, "the blood of sprinkling" represents the pains, the sufferings, the humiliation, and the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which he endured on the behalf of guilty man. When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God; we mean what Isaiah intended when he said, "He shall make his soul an offering for sin;" we mean all the griefs which Jesus vicariously endured on our behalf at Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and specially his yielding up his life upon the tree of scorn and doom. "The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." "Without shedding of blood there is no remission;" and the shedding of blood intended is the death of Jesus, the Son of God.(8)
Blood Indoctrinators Attack Those Whom They Cannot Appropriate
The author has made an effort to gain the reactions of Fundamentalists across the country when they are presented with the Blood Doctrine, so that the quality of this book may be improved and unforseen arguments answered. For this purpose, about 25 churches or ministries were selected and a copy of a version of this book sent to them. Many never gave a reply (apparently they believed that this book was already too good for them to challenge it), but there were some surprises from those who did.
There is a well-known Fundamentalist preacher in the Sonoran Desert, whom we shall call Bill (the author promised not to use that preacher's name in this book). Pastor Bill has a well-respected Bible college. The head of that Bible college, whom we shall call Pat, published a paper in a theological journal in 1988, an article that Professor Pat intentionally kept from the general public. In it, he stated many of the same points made in this book, so much so that it looked like the author could have copied him.
Professor Pat did such a good job that Ian Paisley thought it fitting to denounce him in a sermon made public by Sword of the LORD. Professor Pat and the author arrived at nearly identical conclusions independently; in fact, neither knew of the other when they wrote their arguments. The author had already spent over three years writing this book, and had distributed several versions of it, when he learned of Professor Pat's work.
Even though the author's findings corroborated Professor Pat's findings, Pastor Bill feels that the author is not prestigious or educated enough to counter effectively the Blood Doctrine. He feels that the author should gain a greater stature among Fundamentalists before presenting the facts in this book. Therefore, Pastor Bill has asked the author not to associate this book with Pastor Bill's ministry. For that reason, Professor Pat is not credited with compiling the Roman Catholic teachings that are cited by the author in this version. After all, Professor Pat didn't author the articles he compiled, and information cannot be copyrighted.
There are other Fundamentalists, preachers and laity, who have either agreed with the author's message or expressed ignorance of the Blood Doctrine. Most never knew of the Blood Doctrine's existence. If the Blood Doctrine is so important, why are so many Fundamentalists ignorant of the Doctrine? One missionary even defended Pastor Rod Bell of Tabernacle Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, against the author by saying that he had never heard Pastor Bell make the claims made by the Blood Indoctrinators. The author, who held the job of recording Dr. Bell's sermons for a year, cannot produce any physical evidence for Dr. Bell's position on this matter. Well, Dr. Bell? Would you care to publish your opinion? It was during a pot luck attended by your Bible college that a preacher did such a poor job of presenting the Blood Doctrine that it began the author on the path to producing this book. It was the head dean of your Bible college who defended that young preacher when the author began asking questions about the sermon. You were probably the first person that the author heard say, "Science has proven that men get their blood from their father, but their body from their mother."
If the Blood Doctrine is so important, why is so little said about it? The author has tried very hard to find printed statements saying that Christ had God's blood and that He took it to Heaven. He has tried to show that Blood Indoctrinators believe that sin poisoned the blood of man, making it deathly, but Christ gives us new life by giving us new blood. Yet, there are only three or four preachers who have actually published such things, and that was years ago.
The author was 20 years old before he first heard the Blood Doctrine, even though he spent much of his life in Fundamentalist churches and schools. Furthermore, the author's mother, who taught in the same churches and schools, never had heard of the belief, either. Indeed, the class valedictorian of one of those schools first heard of the Doctrine from the author. If John MacArthur had not made Fundamentalists angry, the author still might not know what many Fundamentalists believe about blood. For a few years the outraged Fundamentalists published those beliefs, and then the furor died down. The author cannot find any newly-printed material on the Blood Doctrine.
The author looked through volumes one and two of SALVATION Crystal Clear, which are published by a Blood Indoctrinator. They are generally good books, and they show Dr. Hutson's sincere dedication to his theme. Yet, he only mentions his Blood Doctrine in one sermon, "The Main Message of the Bible," which is in Book II, beginning on page 41. If the beliefs of the Blood Doctrine are essential to Salvation, why aren't they mentioned more often? There is a "cutesy" slogan that asks, "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" The author asks, "If you were arrested for believing the Blood Doctrine, could your sermons and publications convict you?" On the other hand, if this issue is not worth greater mention, why has the author been banned from church for his beliefs about Christ's blood?
The Blood Indoctrinators try to make themselves look authoritative by misrepresenting respected preachers of the past. The case of D. L. Moody has already been mentioned. Another example of this is Sword of the LORD's use of the late Oliver B. Greene. They printed one of his sermons in the October 28, 1988 issue, in which he makes a strong attack against those who attempt to gain Salvation by any other means than faith in Christ's work on the cross. He repeatedly said that such people were thieves who would steal the very blood of Jesus Christ. He was right; neither baptism nor sincerity nor anything other than faith in Christ's blood-drenched sacrifice on the cross in our place can give us Salvation. What Sword of the LORD did not print, however, were other expositions by Dr. Greene that contradict the assertions the Blood Indoctrinators make for Christ's blood.
One point made by the Blood Indoctrinators is that Christ took His blood into Heaven after His Resurrection. They say that between the time that Christ arose from the grave and the time that He ascended into Heaven with His blood, He must not be touched, for that would defile Him as High Priest. Yet, Dr. Greene's comments on John 20 explain
Certainly He did not say it [Touch me not] because it would have been sinful or wrong for Mary to touch His risen body, for only a short time later He allowed the other women who had been at the tomb to touch Him: "And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him" (Matt. 28:9). It was only a week after He said to Mary, "Touch me not" that He said to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" (John 20:27). So certainly it would not have been wrong for Mary to touch Him.
According to Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, the Greek word here translated "touch" means "to fasten one's self to, to cling to, hang on by, lay hold on, or grasp," and that is what Jesus could not allow Mary to do at that point.(22)
Despite Dr. Greene's comments, Sword of the LORD reported Dr. Greene's article, "Religious Thieves--The Dirtiest Gang This Side of Hell," in which he makes statements such as
Religious thieves are the dirtiest thieves on earth because they are trying to steal from God's only Son that which He bought with His own precious blood.(23)
In this way, the Blood Indoctrinators do more than attempt to improve their image by associating themselves with famous names from the past. In the context of the other sermons that Sword of the LORD was printing at the time, Dr. Greene's sermon seemed to attack those who do not fully accept the Blood Doctrine. The Blood Indoctrinators mince no words in their denouncement of those who don't believe that Christ had divine blood or that He took it into Heaven. It does not seem quite right that they would include Dr. Greene when he wrote such comments as he did in John 20. However, his sermon fits in with the overall use of vindictive language that issues from the Blood Indoctrinators.
Doctor Hyles said,
...I am disgusted with the way the blood of Jesus is being treated &ldots; I believe that the blood of Jesus Christ which was shed 2,000 years ago on Calvary is at this very moment and will be eternally on the mercy seat in Heaven in the presence of our God and our Saviour.
These enemies I feel are very dangerous to fundamentalism in our day...(24)
Doctor Ian Paisley was even more assertive in his attacks on those who do not hold his peculiar beliefs:
Into the pulpit of the churches there has come a new breed of men who sail under the flag of evangelicalism and some of whom even dare to hoist the flag of fundamentalism...
The plain teaching of the Word of God is totally opposed to their so-called scholarly substantiated message...
[this new breed of preachers] abrogate themselves the power, in the name of self-professing scholarship, to reject the plain teaching of the holy Word of God. What their "scholarly" minds cannot conceive, their "scholarly" arrogance rejects.(25)
Another method used by the Blood Indoctrinators that is similar to the two already stated is to ignore respected preachers who did not say anything that supported the Blood Doctrine, but said things that definitely could hurt it. Arthur Pink is one such preacher whose writings on the sacrifice and blood of Christ are being ignored. Mr. Pink had a view of Christ's command to Mary that was contrary to the opinion of the Blood Indoctrinators...
... in His "Touch me not" to Mary, the Lord was giving plain intimation that the Christian would know Him only in spirit, as the One with the Father on high; hence His "for I am not yet ascended"!(26)
... his opinion of Christ's blood defied the Blood Indoctrinators' claims that Christ had divine blood...
In the words "He also Himself likewise took part of the same" we have an affirmation concerning the reality of the Saviour's humanity. It is not merely that the Lord of glory appeared on earth in human form, but that He actually became "flesh and blood," subject to every human frailty so far as these are freed from sin... (27)
...he disproved the Blood Indoctrinators' claim that Christ took His blood to Heaven "Neither by the blood of goats and calves": it was by means of these that Aaron entered the holy of holies on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:14, 15) &ldots; It was by virtue of the blood of these animals that Aaron entered so as to be accepted with God. The reference here is not directly to what the high priest brought with him into the holiest--or the "incense" too had been mentioned--but to the title which the sacrifices gave him to approach unto the Holy One of Israel...(28)
,,,and he asserted that Christ obtained our redemption before He entered into Heaven...
"Having obtained eternal redemption," and this before He entered Heaven...(29)
Finally, the Blood Indoctrinators try to make those who oppose them look bad by associating them with bad company. It goes beyond the attacks received by the author that his beliefs are, "humanistic and Satanic." The ploy of the Blood Indoctrinators is to avoid mentioning anything favorable that their dissenters have said about Christ's blood. The Blood Indoctrinators also attack by retelling the words of some ignorant, zealous person who is not a representative of all those opposed to the Blood Doctrine. The author has heard many times the story of the young man at a Christian college who said that the blood of Christ has no more to do with his salvation than does the blood of a bantam rooster, as though that were typical of the beliefs of those who reject the Blood Doctrine. The author has never read nor heard any of John MacArthur's sermons, but the Blood Indoctrinators keep trying to associate him with Dr. MacArthur, anyway.
All of this shows several things:
1) The idea that Christ had divine blood that He took to Heaven was alien to the religious ideals that Fundamentalism was formed to emulate, but not to pseudo-Christian cults.
2) Those Fundamentalists espousing the Blood Doctrine are guilty of shoddy, hasty research, or outright distortion, which they are willing to represent as authoritative and universally-accepted.
3) The Blood Doctrine is not, nor ever has been, uniformly accepted by godly men. In fact, it has been regularly rejected by godly men. Now, a handful of men say that they are teaching the plain truth of the Bible, as accepted by all godly men. Those who make that claim are Curtis Hutson, Ian Paisley and Jack Hyles, who were strongly influenced by the late M. R. DeHaan.
4) The Blood Indoctrinators continue propagating their beliefs, despite any facts that might prove them wrong. For this reason they will slander those who oppose them and will not listen to, nor answer, arguments made against their beliefs.
5) The Blood Doctrine is mostly an assumed doctrine. It is assumed that everyone in a Fundamentalist church knows all about it and believes it, so there are almost never any sermons or teachings made on it.
These facts only become more obvious as other facts are revealed in this book.
Many Fundamentalists have a unique way of thinking and reading, one that defies logic; some are proud of this, claiming that their faith must exceed all reason. Some claim that it will keep them from becoming Liberal, although such a goal actually would be achieved only by respecting God's Law. A great Fundamentalist preacher is a man who is granted an honorary doctorate, and then denounces scholars as people who vainly trust in man's knowledge to find the truth.
One group that Dr. Cramp did not mention, but that bore interesting similarities to these people, was called Abecedarians (abecedarian means that it relates to the alphabet). Another name for them was Zwickau Prophets. They were fanatics. It is not good to generalize a group of sober individuals based on the traits of fanatics, but there was a striking belief held by this group. They preached that learning is a hinderance to living a spiritual life, and said that it is desirable not to learn even the characters of the alphabet. Originally, they were followers of Luther (1521). After they were driven from Zwickau for sedition, they merged with the Anabaptists. Their more moderated form has influenced some sects of modern Methodists.(30) The man who can deny that people like them exist in Fundamentalism is either ignorant or lying. The Abecedarian beliefs provide a very convenient explanation for some of the Blood Doctrine.
The reader may believe that these statements are cruel. Surely, no one can be so brutish, so ignorant and obstinate as the author has portrayed the Blood Indoctrinators. If the reader feels that way, it is because he has not had much experience with these people. The author spent many years with them, sometimes without any contact from anyone else. One reason the author quotes so much from the Blood Indoctrinators is to show that they really are that unreasonable. This book probably will not change their minds; nothing short of a direct revelation from God will change their minds. Some of them know they are wrong, but preach their lies because they feel that it supports some higher truth. Others admit that they don't want reason or knowledge to change what they have accepted by faith. Some are just incapable of much rational thought.
At the beginning of this section, there was a quote from Dr. Hyles in which he said that he was preaching what all Fundamentalists believe. That is certainly untrue. Dwight L. Moody, Oliver B. Greene and Arthur Pink all denied the claims of Jack Hyles, Ian Paisley and Curtis Hutson. Brother Hyles must now know that his statement was untrue, because a year after Bro. Hyles made his comment, Sword of the LORD published Dr. Paisley's article attacking Professor Pat for writing his article on blood.
How can these men consider themselves to be honest when they say and do these things? Pastor Burt Singletary of Manzano Baptist Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has a way; sidetrack everyone onto a different issue. He gave his ultimate dismissal of this book by stating, "You've said nothing new. All you did in your book was quote people." Of course, his point is meaningless; the goal of this book is in researching the issue, not in creating stories from the author's imagination. Furthermore, Pastor Singletary was able to give his criticism without actually reading this book; he relied on someone else's evaluation. Naturally, he could not disprove arguments that he had not seen or heard, so he attacked an issue that he created. His method of rebuttal, though, is common among Blood Indoctrinators; they defend their beliefs by making comments that neither defend their Doctrine nor rebut the author's charges. They are uniformly interested in substituting insults for relevant defense.
The Blood Doctrine Echoes Certain Heresies
Socinianism
John Owen, a Puritan commentator, spent much effort in his 1680 commentary on Hebrews in discrediting the Socinians. The Socinians originated in the Sixteenth Century. They were anti-Trinitarians, and they influenced the English Unitarians. The Socinians believed that Christ's sacrifice was only in Heaven and that His sacrifice on the cross did nothing to buy our Salvation. Mr. Owen spent a large portion of his commentary on Hebrews in showing that it is un-Scriptural to claim that Christ took His blood into Heaven. He argued that Christ had human flesh and blood, and that it was needful for Christ to have shed His blood for our Salvation. Although the Blood Indoctrinators may not be Socinians, it is interesting that so many of the arguments against the Socinians directly attack the Blood Doctrine. It is a strange coincidence.
Gnosticism
Gnosticism was a strong competitor to orthodox Christianity for a thousand years. However, most Christians today do not know much about the Gnostics. This may be how a Doctrine that resembles Gnostic theology could gradually permeate our churches without raising alarm. A brief survey of Gnosticism will be useful in understanding the similarities between Gnosticism and the Blood Doctrine.
Gnosticism gains its name from its plan of Salvation; man is saved by having special knowledge (gnosis is a Greek word meaning "knowledge") imparted to him. Gnosticism should not be confused with agnosticism (the philosophical position that wonders, without assurance, if there is a God or gods), since the two are completely unrelated. According to Earle Cairns,
Gnosticism sprang from the natural human desire to create a theodicy, an explanation of the origin of evil... it was also a logical or rational system that illustrated the human tendency to seek answers to the great questions of the origin of man. It sought to do this by synthesizing Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy.(8)
According to Professor Groningen, Gnosticism formed from the desire to scientifically explain religious concepts:
The scientific aspect in man's life and world of thought, study and work has been unduly neglected in the study of Gnosticism. Positively, I have posited that the spirit of scientism, native to all men, a strong factor in Hellenism, evident in early pagan religions was the basic motif in the origin of Gnosticism.(9)
Gnosticism dates at least to the First Century ad, and may even predate Christianity by a few decades. It was a general name given to many groups, just as Christianity is a general name given to many groups. Unlike Christianity, Gnosticism was not an independent religion. The Gnostics were syncretists (syncretism is a meshing together of unrelated religious organizations); they adapted their beliefs to fit the local beliefs of the areas they invaded. Instead of competing with other religions by establishing Gnostic churches, Gnosticism gained members by acting inside the churches of other religions, in a manner like that of a virus that has invaded a living cell. Because Gnosticism depended on the members of other churches for the spread of their ideas, syncretism was essential for their survival.
The scene of such an invasion must have been like that found in our Bible colleges, where all types of strange ideas bubble up in a froth of zeal and half-ignorance and are gazed at with wonder for the delightful ways that such ideas weave the known with the unexplained. It is the human spirit to be creative, and to desire to contribute ideas. Gnosticism would have held great appeal for the elegant ways that it explained the how of the Bible. It is widely thought that the Apostle Paul opposed the Gnostics in his books, and Augustine, a "church father" who was converted from Gnosticism, frequently countered the teachings of Gnostic theologians.
Gnosticism may have originated in Babylon (Iran). It eventually imbedded itself in the religions located from England to India, possibly even reaching China. Even today, active groups of Gnostics, called Mandeans, exist in Iran and Iraq. Gnosticism has features seen in Babylonian ism, Judaism and Grecian philosophy. Its core beliefs have remained similar for millennia, although the manner in which it expresses these beliefs had to vary widely to accommodate the religions that it invaded.
The distinctive features of Gnostic groups were a belief in; an evil Creator God, whose Universe (ours) is inherently evil; a good Redeemer God, who is unknown to humans except by special knowledge; and the human's body being the work of the evil Creator, but the human's spirit being the work of the good Redeemer (this is the idea of a "divine spark" in man). Everything associated with the material Universe is evil, because matter, having been created by the evil God, is inherently evil. Not even Jesus Christ could have a material body and remain sinless.
Most Gnostics also believed that procreation was a device of the evil God to increase the slaves that he controlled. The most sacred group of the Twelfth Century Cathars, the parfaits, refused to eat anything associated with procreation, including eggs or cheese. Like other Gnostics, they believed that all matter was evil. To them, even the grass was "only corruption and confusion."(10)
The key comparison between Gnostics and Blood Indoctrinators is in the belief that matter is inherently evil. The Gnostics claimed that Christ could not have been perfect if He had a body of matter, for matter is sinful, and Christ was perfect. See, in their own words, what the Blood Indoctrinators claim:
Even though Jesus... received His flesh, His body, from a sinful race, He could still be sinless as long as sinful blood was not in His body... That was the problem solved by the virgin birth.(11)
If Christ had not been the virgin-born Son of God, He would have been a sinner...(12)
Why would the Blood Indoctrinators claim that Jesus would have been sinful if He had not been born of a virgin? In order to understand their claim about Christ's sinlessness, something must be understood about their claim for the transmission of sin. That is found in the phrase, "as long as sinful blood was not in His body." The Blood Indoctrinators claim that sin exists only in human blood, and all human blood comes from the male parent. The virgin birth preserved Christ's sinlessness, they say, because it kept Him from gaining human blood.
Is there any verse in the Bible that says such a thing? There is not, and the Blood Indoctrinators have to go through several steps of reasoning and Scripture to justify their claim. Specifically, they begin with Leviticus 17:11, which says that the life of the flesh is in the blood. They reason that if we die, it must be because death has overcome the life that is in blood. For death to overcome the life that is in blood, death must also be in blood. They continue by citing Romans 5:12, which says that death is caused by sin. If life and death are in blood, then sin must also be in blood.
Of the five claims made here, only two could be biblical. The rest are man's invention. Why are they all presented as the plain teaching of the Bible?
The Blood Indoctrinators continue, as they must now deal with the problem of how Christ avoided human blood, and the sin that is supposed to be in it. Since the Bible ceased giving them support long before this, they proceed with only their imagination.
The ancient Blood Indoctrinator may have claimed that a miracle kept Christ from inheriting His mother's blood. Science could not have offered the Blood Indoctrinator any help more than 200 years ago. The problem with claiming that a miracle did this is that Scripture does not support it; it is merely a guess, necessitated by the requirements of the Doctrine. Apparently, the modern Blood Indoctrinator does not feel the need to appeal to this cause, since he believes that he has a natural explanation. The discovery that the mother and unborn child have separate blood supplies seemed to offer the explanation that he needed in order to prove his belief.
The author does not know when the Blood Indoctrinators first found this support from science, but it is obvious that it happened at least a century ago. The Blood Indoctrinators used science as justification for their belief that blood, and the inseparable sin and death in it, only enter the child from the male parent. The mother, they claim, contributes none of these to the next generation. Therefore, Christ could only be sinless by having only a female human parent. The virgin birth is thus explained. If the testable facts are as the Blood Indoctrinators claim, then the Blood Doctrine has a very strong argument in its favor, and opposing views would be at a disadvantage.
This advantage would be necessary to overcome the flaws in their earlier reasoning. The line of thought that concluded that sin is passed through blood is called, in logic, non sequitur ("it doesn't follow"), meaning that the conclusions reached do not follow from the facts given. Almost every step of reasoning that Dr. DeHaan used to determine that blood is sinful is an example of illogic. The Bible mentions that flesh lives because it has blood, but Dr. DeHaan expanded that to mean that flesh lives because blood contains a substance called "life". Furthermore, he invented a substance called "death" to act in the blood with "life". The Bible does not say that the death of the flesh is in the blood, but the Blood Indoctrinators are dogmatically-certain that it is so. Therefore, there is no reason (on the basis of pure logic) to suppose that Christ must not inherit blood from His mother.
Even more serious than the Blood Indoctrinator's illogic is that their belief is as purely Gnostic as we might wish to find in the modern world. Science was only cited because the Blood Indoctrinator needed some way to preserve Christ's sinlessness in the face of the hazardous inheritance of sinful blood. The entire line of thought, from the claim that Life exists in blood to the claim that Christ had to have received His blood from a non-human source, is simply from a form of Gnosticism. If one discounts the idea that one's matter makes one a sinner, then all of this intellectual juggling becomes unnecessary. Perhaps there is some truth to the observation that Gnosticism is "the one heresy that continues to arise at various times in the history of Christianity."(13)
The ancient Christian Gnostics believed in the virgin birth, too. In fact, it was essential to their explanation for Christ's sinlessness. Christ was said by some Gnostics to have passed through the body of Mary as light passes through a window.(14) So far, the Blood Doctrine closely resembles Gnosticism on two important points: matter is sinful, and the virgin birth preserved Christ's sinlessness. Furthermore, Gnosticism spreads by taking legitimate doctrinal interpretations and adding its characteristic meanings, just as the Blood Indoctrinators have done to traditional Christianity.
The Blood Indoctrinators claim that they believe the plain teaching of the Bible. The Baptists, in particular, claim that all else must be rejected when discussing doctrine. The Bible never says that blood is sinful or that the virgin birth preserved Christ's sinlessness. Will the Blood Indoctrinators stand true to their claim of accepting only the plain teachings of the Bible? Will they admit that their Blood Doctrine cannot be more than guess? Or, will they admit that they accept the Bible, plus their own inventions, as doctrine?
The Gnostics had to reconcile their view of the innate sinfulness of matter with the Scriptural claim that Christ took flesh and became a man. How could Jesus be perfect if He had a body like ours? The answer had to be that Christ did not have a material being. Christ could not be a part of the physical realm. The body He used was really of a celestial substance.
The Blood Indoctrinators have to reconcile their view of the innate sinfulness of human blood with the Scriptural claim that Christ partook of the flesh and blood of humans (Hebrews 2:14). The answer has to be that Christ took on human flesh, but He had God's blood. Christ could not be God and sinless if He had human blood. The blood in His veins was really of a celestial substance.
Although the Gnostic cults taught that all matter was sinful and the Blood Doctrine claims this only for blood, both claim that contact with sinful matter makes one a sinner, or lost. Salvation, to a Gnostic, was found by escaping the physical world. Salvation, to a Blood Indoctrinator, is found by removing Adam's blood. Both systems claim that evil matter must be eliminated for Salvation.
Orthodox Christianity, whether Presbyterian, Lutheran or Waldensian, has never claimed that sin is a substance. They have never claimed that it is in blood, in flesh or in any other element. This idea is unique to Gnosticism and the Blood Doctrine. It exists nowhere else.
These similarities in doctrine would be enough for concern, but there is an interesting fact that is worth mentioning here. It is an amazing irony that Fundamental, Independent Baptists claim to have come from groups known to have been Gnostic. According to The Trail of Blood (by Dr. J.M. Carroll) and other Baptist history books and booklets, the Paulicians of Asia Minor and the Albigenses of France (the latter was one of many groups known as Cathari) were both Baptist, and lacking any element of Gnosticism in their doctrines. The Baptist historians claim that these groups were called Gnostic by those who wanted to slander them.
If we assume that Anabaptists existed in those ancient times, it could have happened that some of those called Albigenses or Paulician were actually Anabaptist. A person may be given a derogatory name that has no actual connection to that person. An example is the modern insult of calling a person a "pollock" when we think that he has done something stupid, even though Poles aren't necessarily stupid, and the insulted party may not be Polish. Perhaps a true Baptist would have been mislabelled as a Cathari simply because the Cathari had a bad reputation. However, there is reason to doubt strongly the claims made that Baptists existed before the Sixteenth Century. It is doubtful that Baptist ideals existed a thousand years ago in any way different than Lutheran ideals existed. The author believed otherwise for years, until he began examining the supposed ancestral groups.
There seems to have long existed an acceptance of Gnostic beliefs when attempting to prove an ancient line for the Baptists. For example there is a group mentioned by a Canadian Baptist scholar, Dr. J. M. Cramp, in his 1868 book on Baptist history. Compare the beliefs of the Gnostics and the Blood Indoctrinators to this group from the Sixteenth Century:
Impartiality requires us to mention one opinion which some of them held. Unable to conceive how the Lord Jesus could be the Child of the Virgin without partaking of human depravity, they imagined that, though born of Mary, He did not "take flesh" of His mother. Joan Boucher was burned alive... [for] this alleged heresy. It is not necessary to trouble the reader with observations on it. It is often better to confess ignorance than to dogmatize. Suffice it to say that among the Baptists of those days the opinion in question was a harmless speculation. They believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was "God manifest in the flesh." That was enough. If they did not choose to adopt the current modes of expression, they were at any rate sound at heart.(15)
It is not a concern that these people did not believe that Jesus took his body from Mary; the Bible does not say where the matter for His body originated, unless it is found in Galatians 4:4. The troubling area is that they could not understand how He could be sinless if His body did come from Mary. That raises the question, "Did these people actually believe that Christ was God manifested in the flesh?" It appears that they felt that even God was subject to the depravity supposedly inherent in human flesh. Incidently, the first person in history to be burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic denomination was an Albigensian Gnostic.
This Sixteenth Century belief was not a "harmless speculation." It has the face of Gnosticism, an impersonation of Christianity. The Apostle John warned us that those who denied that Christ was manifested in the flesh were of the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:1-3). The Blood Indoctrinators should beware. They should not be attacking people who do not accept their Blood Doctrine. At least Dr. Cramp acknowledged that such a belief was odd and needing an apology. The Blood Indoctrinators don't find it odd, and demand conformity.
In the case of the Blood Indoctrinators, there should also be asked the question, "Do these people believe that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh?" They claim to believe this &ldots; except for His blood, which was still of a celestial nature. They should acknowledge that Christ's body was either fully human or it was not human. Equating sin with the existence of a material component is a key element of Gnosticism. Only in paganism and Catholicism does a material substance convey properties (i.e., the concept of magic substances). The Blood Doctrine is perilously close to this.
Independent Baptists have the practice of creating their church genealogy from groups of persecuted, anti-Catholic religious troublemakers. In some instances, such as the Henricians or Savonarola, there is no justification for including them in the history of the Baptists other than the trouble they caused the Roman Catholic church in their calls for church reform. Historically, the rebel is first hunted and killed, and then he is heroized and then everyone wants to associate themselves with him. Many Baptist historians since Dr. Cramp's time have imitated him. Some have not been so careful as Dr. Cramp's apologist, Dr. Richard C. Weeks (of Maranatha Baptist Bible College), to declare that they are not saying that Baptists actually always existed. Doctor Cramp was supposedly only pointing out that there "is a descent of New Testament doctrine by Christians and churches that is observable from century to century, if not from generation to generation also."(16) One may wonder why, then, did he title his book Baptist History? He could have called his book Christian History. Why did he also reject some groups for inclusion, saying that such groups weren't Baptistic in principle?
Doctor Cramp's book, like so many of our "Baptist history" books, is really a brief commentary of a small fraction of the many diverse groups that have once called themselves Christians. It is obvious that he, like many Baptist historians, is trying to justify the claim for the purity and superiority of the Baptist faith over all other denominations by claiming that famous groups of religious dissenters were really proto-Baptists. In his attempt to glorify the Baptists, he ignores many idiocies, heresies and even blasphemies that were in the churches the he used in his historical examples, and were found in some churches of later Anabaptists (to be fair, let us add that many denominations had their moments of incredible folly). However, Dr. Cramp was more frank about inglorious "Baptist ancestors" than are many other Baptist historians.
How is it that true Gnostic groups have been integrated into Baptist history and Baptist historians have made defenses of Gnostic beliefs? It may be that some scholar or professor believed that Baptists really came from groups that were strongly Gnostic, and his heirs have been trying to restore Gnosticism on those grounds. After all, the single greatest "Christian" enemy of Roman Catholicism, for the last 1700 years or so, has been Gnosticism. There can be little doubt that someone is resurrecting Gnosticism in the statements of the Blood Indoctrinators. If someone is doing this because of a mis-guided idea about Baptist genealogy, it would be a tragic abuse of the trust placed in our spiritual leaders by our congregations. It is unfortunate that our preachers give so few details about the reasons they teach some things.
3. Docetism.
The Docetae were practically the same as the Gnostics (Docetism became an important Gnostic doctrinal position after Gnosticism became Christianized). The name "Docet" comes from the Greek word meaning "to seem," a reference to the Docetist's explanation for Christ's sinlessness. Since matter was inherently evil, they claimed that Jesus Christ's body must have been an illusion; it only seemed human. For brevity, this book includes similar systems of thought under the name of Docetism, regardless of their origins. All the groups included here under Docetism were similar:
This heresy rests upon the notion of the inherent evil of matter. For with a material body inherently evil the Divine Nature cannot be thought to have united Itself; neither in the systems of the Gnostics, who tried, by a succession of Aeons, to bridge over the space between the Deity and Matter, could it be thought that the Aeon, derived from the Divine Nature, whose office was to correct the work of the evil Demiurge, united himself with the handiwork of that Demiurge. In this difficulty, some were led to deny the reality of the body, some the truth of the union. The former were the Docetae. Of them, some held that the Body of our Lord was merely simulated, that it was an immaterial phantasm: some allowed that it was a substantial body, but of a celestial substance.(17)
Notice the author's emphasis on that last phrase. The Blood Doctrine claims that Christ was divine because He had divine (celestial) blood. If so much as a drop of human blood had been in His veins, say the Blood Indoctrinators, Christ would have been a sinner, because sin is in human blood. Furthermore, Christ could only be God by getting His blood from God the Father. God does not have power over matter, for if His body contained human blood, He would have become a sinner. If the Blood Indoctrinators are correct, Christ faced a more onerous situation than that of a healthy man living in an AIDS commune; one drop, and even God incarnate would be lost for eternity, even if He did nothing wrong. Jesus must never have gone to the dentist.
The other groups included in this section are the Monophysites and the Apollinarians. The Monophysites claimed that Christ's twin Natures (the divine Son of God in the human body of man) combined to form one amalgamated Nature. The Apollinarians believed that Christ was simply lacking a normal human nature. The Monophysites are divided into two groups; the Phthartolatrae and the Aphthartodocetae. The Aphthartodocetae believed that Christ's body remained impervious to decay, weakness or suffering, except what He willed Himself to suffer, since His body was made of Divine substance. The Phthartolatrae, in contrast, believed that Christ was no more than an ordinary man, and subject to the same weaknesses. The Aphthartodocetae came into existence in the Fifth or early Sixth Century. The Monophysites, from which they came, became a distinct group when they were expelled from the Orthodox Eastern Church in A.D. 451.
The Blood Doctrine, like many other sets of teachings, is a repackaging of beliefs that have continually resurfaced in new combinations with other beliefs for the last 2,000 years. There were many groups that believed that Jesus was a mere man, and that this was a result of His becoming incarnated. There were many other groups that believed that He did not have a human body or human desires, and that this was a result of His being God in the illusion of flesh. The Socinians were Monophysites, as were the Baptists who succumbed to the Eutychian Heresy. For 2,000 years, people have struggled to understand how God the Son could become a man. Undoubtedly, this struggle will continue until we all sit at Jesus' feet.
Until that time, the author's position is that a person's being is not determined by his body; a man remains the person he is whether his arms are made of flesh or metal. The Bible says that God the Son took flesh and became a man. Understood in the term "flesh" is the blood that is in it (at least one verse specifically mentions the blood of Christ as being human). Jesus was God, but He cloaked Himself with the flesh and blood that makes up all men, and subjected Himself to the frailties of that body. His essential substance as God the Son could not be changed simply by changing His blood or His flesh, and His body could not be human if some of it was divine. The Bible clearly warns us that it is the spirit of the antichrist that denies that Jesus became God in human flesh (1 John 4:2, 3). There is no such thing as "divine blood," anymore than there is such a thing as "divine flesh," and we know that Jesus had human flesh. Because the author believes this, He has been banned from joining Fundamentalist churches and told that his beliefs are Satanic (Matthew 10:25; John 16:2, 3).
4. Mormonism.
There are similarities between the Blood Doctrine and Mormonism. The preacher who called the author's attention to this doctrine had done so by preaching a sermon so bizarre that it sounded an alarm that something was badly wrong. He made all the claims of the Blood Doctrine that are listed in this document, and also said that when a man is saved, the blood of Christ leaves Heaven, enters his body, and that man becomes a part of the body of Christ, complete with the blood of Christ in him. When that man sins, the blood of Christ responds, producing anti-bodies in the man. When he confesses his sin, Christ's blood leaves Heaven, flows through the believer, and washes away that sin. Ever after that, the man has an immunity in his blood against that sin. A Christian has Christ's blood in him, making all Christians part of one body.
Several other preachers say similar things. Perhaps they misunderstood Dr. DeHaan, who said,
What the blood in our bodies does for us in times of danger and attack the PRECIOUS BLOOD of the Lord Jesus Christ does for each and every believer...
It is the army of "white cells" in the blood of Christ which puts the enemy to flight...
Your only hope is in CONFESSION of your sin, and then He sends the "army" of "white cells" of the precious blood of Christ to cleanse you. Then TRUST Him to keep you from sin through that same precious blood which, in addition to the "white cells" of fighting and cleansing, also contains the ANTITOXIN against further sinning...(18)
Ordinarily, Dr. DeHaan's statements would be understood to be figures of speech. However, the statements relating to blood that are used by other preachers shows that they would interpret Dr. DeHaan literally. Doctor DeHaan's ideas are not unique, though. Here is a virtual image to his claims:
...as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene... while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost.(19)
If a Jew comes into this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize. He may have been born and bred a Jew... but I will tell you a secret--there is not a particle of the blood of Judaism in him, if he has become a true Christian, a Saint of God; for if there is, he will most assuredly leave the Church of Christ, or that blood will be purged out of his veins. We have men among us who were Jews,... here is brother Neibaur; do I believe there is one particle of the blood of Judah in his veins? No...(20)
If you haven't already checked the references in the endnotes, you may be surprised to learn that those quotes came from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the first two leaders of Mormonism. Kind of spooky, isn't it? When Jerald and Sandra Tanner recorded these accounts, they began by saying,
One of the oddest doctrines that Joseph Smith taught was that a Gentile must literally have his blood changed so that he is actually of the seed of Abraham.(21)
Odd, indeed, Mr. Tanner. It is even odder that we should find this cultic belief at the very heart of our own denominations. We might wonder where the Mormons got such an idea. As odd as their belief is, though, it is not so very different from the Blood Doctrine's claims for blood.
It is the author's opinion that both the Blood Indoctrinators and Joseph Smith found their inspiration for their beliefs about blood from the same source; standard Nineteenth Century, wild-eyed, superstitious wives' tales. The Mormon Church, in order to survive, has had to be quick to forget today what it said yesterday. Until the early part of the Twentieth Century, they dogmatically taught that there were natives living on Moon, for example. The Fundamentalist churches are somewhat unique, in that they long for the Nineteenth Century (not the First Century, as they would like to believe). Therefore, the most conservative of the Fundamentalist churches have some very odd beliefs.
Studying the beliefs of Fundamentalism is like stepping into a time capsule. This will become obvious in the section dealing with science, for they pretend that the medical knowledge of a man who studied medicine nearly a century ago (Dr. DeHaan) is still perfectly valid. They still preach (even plagiarize) these century-old medical opinions.
THE ARGUMENT OF SCIENCE
II. They Are Wrong Because They Think That Science Agrees With ThemThere is not one ounce of the Gospel in the first clause of verse 11, "The life of the flesh is in the blood." That is scientific; that is physical altogether, a great biological truth, that my life is in my blood.(31)
--Dr. Harold Sightler
It is the author's opinion that if the Blood Indoctrinators understood genetics, they would not try to incorporate science into their doctrine. The author also believes that these people do not understand genetics because they find science too boring to have done well at it in school. This presents a dilemma; explaining why they are wrong requires an explanation of genetics, but they can't pay attention long enough for that explanation.
Additionally, some people become impatient when science does not say what they want it to say; at that point, they claim that science does not matter. Yet, they were happy to quote what they thought scientists said when it agreed with them. This presents the problem of correcting wrong thoughts about science. The Blood Indoctrinators can say anything they want, then claim that science supports their claim, and any attempt to show the truth will be angrily rejected.
The author will present the required information, in hopes that the ignorant will be willing to learn (and the educated will not lose interest).
Science cannot contradict Scripture, because both science and Scripture are based on truth. Science also cannot, generally, prove Scripture, because science cannot explain the supernatural. Science is useful because it explains general truths; it does not even bother examining one-time events. This means that science is generally true; in specific cases, there may be deviations or even exceptions. Science is an observation of consistent laws. Scripture is generally an historical account of specific events. The best that science can do to prove Scripture is to find indirect evidence that specific events must have occurred.
Several people have wondered why a section on science is included in this book. When science is introduced into a religious discussion, both scientists and theologians get nervous. Most of the people who have read this book skip this scientific study. They say that they cannot understand the scientific aspect discussed. That is unfortunate, since science helps us to appreciate our world. Several people even argue that this book should not depend on science. It does not.
Science is discussed in this book for only one reason. The Blood Indoctrinators claim that science makes certain claims. They are the ones claiming that science proves their position. The author happens to know that science is being mis-represented by the Blood Indoctrinators. They have fabricated their own data, either by distorting actual scientific claims or by creating scientific claims. The Blood Indoctrinators should be exposed for doing this. This section only exists to compare the Blood Doctrine's "scientific" claims with actual scientific claims.
A. They are wrong about blood's origins.
1. They believe that all human blood comes from the male parent alone
Dr. Harold Sightler:
You get your blood component from your father. That mobile unit we call the blood comes from the male genes.(32)
Dr. M.R. DeHaan:
It is now definitely known that the blood which flows in an unborn babe's arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the foetus. Yet it is only after the sperm has entered the ovum and a foetus begins to develop that blood appears.(33)
The Blood Indoctrinators claim that Jesus inherited all His blood from God the Father alone, but He inherited His body from His mother. The body of Jesus made Him human, but His blood made Him divine. Christ's blood is divine because it came directly from God the Father, but His body is human, because it came from Mary. Humanity is mortal and sinful due to their inheritance of both human flesh and human blood.
Because the divinity of Christ and the depravity of man depends on the inheritance of blood, the Blood Indoctrinators are under pressure to prove that Jesus did not inherit human blood. They have chosen to use science as proof; there is no Scriptural proof showing who contributes what body parts. They do this because they mistakenly believe that science has shown that all people get all their blood from only their father. The critical error here is that blood does not come from only the father; the mother contributes at least as much to the child's blood as does the father. Doctor Sightler is only half right in the above quote; you get your blood from the male AND female genes of your parents.
There is more knowledge of the genetics of human blood than about any other human tissue.(34) Yet, there are certain basic truths about inheritence that are known about all tissues.
The human body is made up of many cells. Almost every cell contains instructions that tell the cell how to build and repair itself. These instructions are written using molecules, and are bundled in a little ball, called the nucleus. The molecules are called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). The nuclei in every cell of the body are alike, yet the cells are different. This is because each cell only uses those instructions from the nucleus that it needs to perform its functions. A heart cell does not build all the parts of a brain cell, even though both types of cells have similar nuclei.
It takes more than one gene to build a tissue. No single gene produces the blood. Rather, the body has many genes that direct the formation of blood. The genes that produce human blood are scattered across all 23 pairs of human chromosomes. They direct certain cells to become various types of blood cells.
Before a child can be conceived, there must be sperm from the man to unite with the egg of the woman. The sperm contains only half the genes needed to build a human being. The woman's egg contains the other half. Every tissue and every genetic trait of those tissues is determined in an instant, when the sperm and the egg combine. About half the genes for blood come from the man, and about half come from the woman. Therefore, human blood comes from genes given by both the mother and the father to the child.
Blood is made of many parts (components). These parts have certain features (traits) that vary depending on the traits of the parents. All the blood components in the child are a combination of both parent's genes. Almost all the traits are a mix from both parents, although some traits come from only one parent. Those traits will be discussed later. One important group of blood components are the blood group antigens. An antigen is any substance that when introduced into a living body will cause an immune-defense reaction. This would include a wide variety of objects, most of which are not otherwise associated with the human body (e.g. oil and pollen). Not everyone reacts the same way to the antigens. This reaction is a trait.
A blood group antigen is a special type of antigen. It is a protein from the surface of red blood cells. A blood group antigen could be thought of as a construction pattern on the surface of the blood cell. There are many types of proteins, and all cells are made out of them. There are many ways to put these proteins together when building a cell from them (based on the instructions from the DNA). When the proteins from the surface of red blood cells is put into people, it may cause an antibody reaction in some of them, depending on the person's inherited blood traits.
Everybody has proteins in their blood that will cause a reaction in someone else; therefore, everyone has a blood antigen in their blood. The classification of blood types is based on the blood antigens inherent in an individual. When a person reacts to the blood of a blood transfusion, it is an example of the receiver's immune system reacting to the antigens in the donor's blood. The donor's blood does not, of course, cause such a reaction in the donor.
Everyone inherits their blood antigens from both parents. The types of proteins that make up the walls of the red blood cells are built from a combination of instructions from both parents. This proves that a child inherits his blood from both of his parents. One antigen, which most people will recognize, is the Rh factor. The following illustrates the contribution that both parents play in the inheritance of blood by showing how the Rh blood type is passed to children from both parents.
Each parent, the mother and the father, has blood that is either Rh positive or Rh negative. According to the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), "A person inherits one Rh gene from each parent."(35) Because the child receives an Rh gene from both parents, there are three possible combinations of the parental Rh genes in the child (++, --, +-). If the father or mother contributes for the trait, the child will have Rh+ blood, either from a single (+-) or a double (++) dose. Only if both parents do not contribute for the trait can the child be Rh- (--). Whether the child is Rh+ or Rh- depends on the Rh gene contribution of both parents. It is the net effect of these contributions that determines the Rh category for that child. Thus, both parents provide a portion of the child's blood, and one proof is that both parents contribute genetic information for the child's Rh blood type.
Although the Rh inheritance was used in this example, this dual endowment is true of the more than 350 identified blood group antigens,(36) and it is true of most of other components that make up human blood. No blood actually passes from either parent. Instead, the genetic information for blood formation passes from both parents. The Rh blood group is only one of many examples of the mother contributing to the child's blood inheritance.
The following chart, derived from a chart published by the AABB(37), lists blood group locus assignments to chromosomes (i.e., it tells which chromosomes have which blood group genes). The gene at each genetic system locus is responsible for its respective antigen. The author modified the AABB chart by adding a list of traits associated with these blood groups. He also listed the parent who contributes the respective chromosomes for the male child's blood (it differs slightly for the female child). Two AABB hematological researchers then checked this chart for accuracy.
Chromosome
Genetic System Locus
Contributing Parent
Common Traits
1
Rh, Fy, Sc, Rd
Mother and Father
Rh+ or Rh-
2
Jk
Mother and Father
4
MNSs
Mother and Father
6
Ch, Rg
Mother and Father
9
ABO
Mother and Father
Type A, B, O or AB blood
X
Xg, Xk
Mother
Xg+ or Xg-
An even more interesting case than the Rh inheritance is that of the blood components contributed from the X-chromosome. This chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes. All of the encyclopedias and technical manuals consulted by the author unanimously agree that a male receives his only X-chromosome from his mother.(38) Therefore, a male child receives the blood group traits located on the X-chromosome from his mother alone.
The X-chromosome contributes the Xg gene, for example. Unlike the case of the Rh gene contribution, the Xg gene can only be contributed to the sons by the mother. The X-chromosome provides the only cases where both parents do not contribute to the child's blood, and it is not the father who is the contributor. Since the chromosomes are the factors that cause blood to form, we must say that if sin is passed from the male's contribution to blood, alone, then the "sin gene" (yes, the idea of a sin gene is nonsense, but the Blood Indoctrinators force us to consider this) must be on the Y-chromosome. The Y-chromosome is the only chromosome that the mother does not contribute to her child. The consequence of that would be that women would be sin-free, since they do not have a Y-chromosome.
Another example of the mother's unique donation of parental blood is seen in the gene that directs the formation of blood clotting components, which is located on the X-chromosome. If the mother does not have the gene for blood clotting on both of her X-chromosomes, she may have a son who will have a major type of hemophilia, no matter how normal the father's blood may be. There is another type of hemophilia that affects daughters, for which the genetic lack is from both parents. In either event, blood clotting is inherited through the X-chromosome, and a male child gets his only X-chromosome from his mother. In other words, if the Blood Indoctrinators are correct that normal inheritance determined the formation of the Lord's body, then Jesus' mother had to contribute to His blood. Otherwise, He would have been a hemophiliac, and, therefore, ceremonially unclean.
These facts sound the death knell to the opinion that Christ was sinless because the child only receives his blood from his father and Jesus did not have a human father. It does not mean that the conception of Christ's body was produced by normal processes. In fact, it emphasizes that the conception of Christ's body was unlike any other conception. We do not know that there was either egg or sperm involved in Christ's conception, but the end result was a fully human body. His body was an ordinary human body, but His conception was supernatural. The Blood Indoctrinators try to naturalize a supernatural process.
Perhaps some of the Blood Indoctrinators made this point in order to refute the Catholic claim that it was Mary's blood in Christ's body that redeemed the world. After all, the idea that sin is passed through an inherited material substance is fairly unique in American Christianity, so it seems unlikely that this belief would arise strictly from Christian principles.(39) It is common for the Catholics to try to prove that Mary is a co-redeemer. At least one Catholic publication claims that Christ's blood came from Mary's veins.(40) Dr. DeHaan even used the Blood Doctrine to attack the motive of the Immaculate Conception.(41) Therefore, it makes more sense that the Blood Indoctrinators were reacting against Catholicism instead of trying to show the mechanism of Christ's sinless nature. Why couldn't they just say so, if that were so?
The mother contributes to her son's blood, in the same way that the father contributes to his son's blood. If sin is in blood, and sin is passed to the child because that child inherits his father's blood, then sin is also passed to the child because that child inherits his mother's blood. If the Blood Indoctrinators are right, that Jesus was virgin-born to keep Him from inheriting the sin in Joseph's veins, then Jesus would still have been a sinner, since He would have inherited the sin in Mary's veins. Jesus could not have been sinless simply because He did not have an Earthly father. It is more likely that Christ's spiritual nature did not come from His body. Perhaps we humans place too much emphasis on the body as the essence of our being. Even though Christ's conception was supernatural, this does not mean that His body was "divine" (if the idea of a divine body even has meaning in this context); after all, man's body originally formed from a supernatural act, and it was not divine, even if it was immortal.
Christ's divinity had nothing to do with His material substance; He would have been divine no matter what body He had. Furthermore, His conception was a sign, and there is no biblical mention that this sign made Him divine. Both the Catholics and the Blood Indoctrinators are wrong, and for the same reason; spiritual attributes are not carried by physical substances. Such a belief is the basis for magic, another Gnostic trait.
2. They believe they are right because they have a straw man to attack, i.e., "The mother's blood does not flow through the umbilical cord."
Dr. M. R. DeHaan
How wonderfully God prepared for the virgin birth of His Son. When He created woman He made her so that no blood would be able to pass from her to her offspring. In order to produce a sinless man who would yet be the son of Adam, God provided a way whereby that man would have a human body derived from Adam but have blood from a separate source.(42)
When these Blood Indoctrinators hear that science has proven that blood does not pass from mother to child through the umbilical cord, they claim that science had proven that children do not inherit their blood from their mother.(43) Yet, if asked when a child inherits his bodily traits, they say that it is at conception. One of the traits that the child inherits at conception is the nature of his blood. However, the umbilical cord doesn't form until many days after conception, as an extension of the germ layers making up the embryo's body. Therefore, the umbilical cord argument is irrelevant to inheritance. The child has already "inherited his blood" from both of his parents by the time the umbilical cord forms. Even if the Blood Indoctrinators were right, that sin is only in blood, the fact that blood does not flow through the umbilical cord is not sufficient to keep a person from inheriting his mother's blood. The Blood Indoctrinators will need to find a means for Christ's sinless nature other than the non-flow of blood through the umbilical cord.
Doctor DeHaan, in many of his writings, constantly displayed inaccurate ideas that were scientifically naive. This may have been a result of his attempt to combine his old ideas with new scientific knowledge. Regarding human generation, it was believed until the Sixteenth Century that the fetus formed out of his parent's blood. The invention of the microscope enabled people to learn that there is no blood involved in conception. Dr. DeHaan appears to have combined the idea that a child forms from his parent's blood with a fallacy that was common 150 years ago.
During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, there were two theories about the process of conception. Anton van Leeuwenhoek had established in 1677 that sperm from the male enters the female during intercourse. It was unknown what the sperm did. Some thought that it was merely a contaminant, but that belief was weakened by experiments in which the sperm was filtered out of the seminal fluid. Two major, opposing beliefs arose about the sperm and the egg. One group claimed that the sperm contained a "homunculus," a miniature human, which took up residency in the egg.(44)
One investigator even sketched a drawing of the homunculus, based on his observations with a microscope. The Homunculists believed that the egg was an inert structure, a housing waiting for the sperm to occupy it. The egg was analogous to barren-yet-fertile earth, while the sperm was the seed that absorbed nutrition from the earth.
The other group, called Ovists, believed that the egg contained a tiny human, whose growth was triggered by the introduction of sperm. Both of these groups, then, believed in theories of preformation, the belief that the human body is pre-formed and merely grows in size in the womb. Both theories of preformation are quite wrong, but if Dr. DeHaan was a preformationist, it would explain his teachings about the blood and human inheritance of blood.
Doctor DeHaan apparently believed a moderated form of the preformation theory--in fact, that was what was taught in the late Nineteenth Century. It was believed that each organ arose from a specific gene. Due to a sloppiness in terminology, there is a tendency even today to imply that the characteristics of each organ arises from a specific gene. Dr. DeHaan's belief seems to have been that blood comes from a single gene contributed by the male parent. Perhaps he also thought that genes were passed through the blood. However, the egg contains half of the genes required to produce a human body, and it is alive and active. The sperm supplies the other half of the genes needed. It takes several genes to produce each of our tissues. The genes required for the formation of blood are spread across several chromosomes.
B. They are wrong about blood's life-giving power, i.e., "Life requires blood."
Dr. M.R. DeHaan:
Life, that mysterious something which scientists have never yet been able to define or fathom, is said by God to be in the blood of the flesh, so that there can be no life without the blood...
The Word of God is a living Word, wholly distinct from all other books for just one reason, namely, that it contains blood circulating through every page and in every verse...
Without the blood the Bible would be like any other book and of no more value, for the Bible plainly teaches that the life is in the blood...
Remember that the life is in the blood, and so if man must die it is because there is death in the blood...
Then man sinned... and HE DIED... Since life is in the blood, when man died, something happened to the blood...
Since life is in the blood, all flesh is lifeless without blood.(45)
Dr. Jack Hyles:
It [the Bible] says He breathed into man the what? Breath of life. All right. What did Leviticus 17:11a say life is? "For the life of the flesh is in the &ldots;" what? Blood. So when Adam and Eve received the breath of life--that very moment when God breathed that breath of life into them he had to put blood in their bodies. Why? Because the life of the flesh is in the blood. So what did God do? He breathed into Adam the breath of life, but the Bible says the breath of life is caused by the blood so God put blood into their bodies and breathed into them the breath of life because the life of the flesh is in the blood.
...when Adam and Eve sinned, what happened to their blood? Death came to it. Sin affected the blood of Adam and Eve. Why? Because the life of the flesh is in the blood. If their blood was exactly the same blood that they had before they sinned, then they never would have died, but death came into their blood. It had to or they wouldn't have died!
... If something could be done to my blood to take the curse of sin out, my body would live forever.(46)
These people say that man lives because life is in his blood, and dies because death is in his blood. According to them, a living man has both death and life in his blood. Yet, we have several times taken the blood of a corpse and placed it into a man's body to keep him alive.(47), (48)
How can a man be kept alive with the "lifeless" blood of a corpse? If there were yet life in the corpse's blood, the corpse would still be alive. If there is not life in the corpse's blood, no one could live on it. Which can the Blood Indoctrinators choose? Perhaps people do not live due to a thing called "Life" in their blood. Perhaps the Bible only means that it is the action of the blood that supports the life of the body. That would explain how a dead man's blood could still keep us alive. Blood is the life of the flesh, but this does not mean there is something supernatural that gives blood this power.
If this is so, then it may be possible to sustain the life of the body without blood. As it turns out, we can live for a time without having blood.
The author was flipping through a modern chemistry text and saw an interesting paragraph on fluorine compounds:
Inconceivable as it may seem, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that animals (including humans) can survive after having had their blood largely, or even totally, replaced by such compounds dissolved in a salt solution. For example, "bloodless" rats, with their blood replaced by perfluorotri-n-butylamine, can live up to 5 hours in an atmosphere containing 50 percent oxygen... (49)
While the author does not claim that humans are simply animals, that doesn't change the facts of the case. Several humans have lived after their blood was removed. Some people had their blood drained out, and left out under special conditions, and then replaced an hour later. Some had it temporarily replaced with a blood substitute. In any event, there was no blood in their body, and they still lived. Yet, the Blood Indoctrinators insist that life exists only in blood. Although artificial blood would not yet make a good permanent replacement, the fact that we can live even a minute without our blood, or a known "elixir of life", shows that we do not live because of something unique, called "life," in our blood.
Nor is the above article the only record of bloodless life found by the author. In 1984, the author saw pictures of bloodless rats featured in a science journal. In 1990, he found the technical proceedings from a meeting of the AABB, in which the healthiness of bloodless rats was discussed.(50) One stunning photograph in that book showed two rats, one with artificial blood and one with natural blood, in a test chamber after an experiment. The chamber had been filled with a 50-50 mixture of carbon monoxide and oxygen, and the reactions of the rats in the chamber were observed. The rat with natural blood was dead within five minutes of breathing the toxic atmosphere. The rat with artificial blood was still walking in the chamber, next to the dead rat, and still breathing the normally-lethal atmosphere. This experiment demonstrated the ability of artificial blood to completely take over the oxygen-carrying function of blood, since any natural blood in the rats was rendered useless by the carbon monoxide. There was nothing in the artificial blood except what man put in it, and Life was not on the list of ingredients. The "phlogiston theory" of blood is disproved.
If sin is in the blood, and we could live forever if we had sinless blood, then we would live forever if we eliminated all our blood and replaced it with a blood substitute. We could kill the cells in our bodies that produce blood, flush out our bodies with artificial blood, and live hours or days or years without a drop of natural blood in our bodies. That would permanently remove both our blood and the supposed sin in it. We have the technology to do that. But we would still die eventually, because death and life and sin are not substances, but are descriptions of activities. Dr. DeHaan says that scientists cannot "define nor fathom" what life is. That's because life is not in the scientists' realm; it is a metaphor, the realm of philosophers. It takes more than perfect blood to bestow life on an individual.
We cannot eliminate sin simply by eliminating our blood, because sin is not in blood. We do not eliminate life simply by eliminating blood, because life is not in blood. They are metaphorical and cannot have any power on us of themselves. There is no sin in blood, and we don't die or live based on the moral qualities of our blood. Blood does not have inherent moral qualities. There is no substance called, "Life." The idea that is being preached by Dr. Hyles, Curtis Hutson, Bob Gray of Texas and many others is Gnosticism.
Doctor Harold Sightler, in his sermon, "Three Facts About the Blood," made a profound statement on this.
If your blood is healthy and normal, you don't have to worry about infection, nor about dying. Unless you are killed some other way, you are not going to die if your blood is healthy.(51) (author's emphasis)
Imagine that! "Unless you are killed some other way, you are not going to die if your blood is healthy!" That is not wrong, because it says nothing. He might as well say, "Unless you are killed some other way, you are not going to die if you don't get in an aircraft crash." A person will never die if he avoids aircraft &ldots; unless he dies some other way. Neither will a person die if his blood is healthy &ldots; unless he dies some other way. The Blood Doctrine is filled with--and supported by--such logical nonsense.
It should not be necessary to point out that one can die with healthy, normal, circulating blood. The author was a volunteer fireman/emergency responder; he saw people with healthy, normal circulating blood die. The first dead man the author ever touched was full of blood that was still healthy and alive and even warm. If that young man had not bounced on his head across a freeway at 90 mph, his healthy, living blood might have done him some good. There are also infections that do not cause a change in the blood, such as pneumonia and some forms of tuberculosis. One can even have healthy blood and cancer at the same time!
There is another interesting implication in the Blood Indoctrinator's reasoning. Blood Indoctrinators are largely anti-abortionists (as is the author). They belong to a group that claims that human life begins at conception. However, they also require blood to be in the body before there can be life in the body. The breath of life is only in the blood, you see. Yet, there is no blood in the human body for more than two weeks after its conception! This is illustrated in the following figures. Figure 1 illustrates the relative sizes of some human cells, including the sperm and egg cells. It should be obvious that not even a single blood cell could fit in the volume of a sperm cell; remember, though, blood isn't made from just a single cell, but many cells together. Figure 2 describes the process of formation and growth of the human from the time of its conception. Again, it should be obvious that during the time when the developing human body consists of only a few identical cells, there can't be any blood present within it, because blood is composed of many types of cells. Figures 3 and 4 graph the time of development for types of cells critical to blood formation. Figure 4 is a common chart found in several technical medical texts; I scanned this chart from Dr. Maxwell M. Wintrobe's, Clinical Hematology(52).
The human body, including the blood that will be in that body, begins with the sex cells of the parents. The sex cells do not contain any tissues, not even blood. The blood, like all the other tissues, will be manufactured by the new body, based on the information supplied by the chromosomes in that new body. It will be almost three weeks (19 days) after conception before the most primitive blood cells form. The chromosomes are the blueprint for the construction of the new human body, including the blood. They are supplied by the sex cells of the parents; that is the role that the sex cells play.
Figure 1. Relative Sizes of Human Cells
Figure 2. The Time of Bloodless Human Life
Figure 3. Age When Blood Forms
Figure 4. Locations and Times of Blood Component Formation
Figure 5. Blood Cell Differentiation History
The male sex cell is called the sperm cell, and it contains half of the chromosomes (23) that are in an ordinary human cell. The other half of the chromosomes must be supplied for a normal human to form, and they are supplied by the female sex cell, called the egg cell. The uniting of the sperm and the egg produces a single cell with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. Therefore, at conception the human body consists of a single cell with half of its chromosomes from the father and half from the mother.
The logical deduction from that last fact is that at conception, there are no organs or tissues, such as the blood or the heart. Human blood consists of three major types of cells; erythrocytes (red blood cells), leukocytes (white blood cells) and thrombocytes (platelets). Within those categories are sub-types of cells: for example, granulocytes, monocytes and lymphocytes are cells classified as leukocytes. Even those sub-types can be sub-divided into more types of cells. A quick count shows that if the new human body had one cell of only the types mentioned so far, there would need to be five cells in the new human body. As there is only one cell immediately after conception, it is obvious that there is no blood in that new body.
The combination of the egg and sperm forms a very large cell called the zygote. Immediately after the sperm and the egg unite into a single unit, it begins to divide into smaller cells. After three days the single cell has become a solid ball of 16 cells, called a morula. The overall mass has not increased, even though the number of cells has. The solid morula begins to form a hollow center, at which time the morula becomes a blastula. The blastula is almost a symmetrical, hollow ball, except for a cluster of cells on one side. That group of cells is called the inner cell mass. It will eventually become the fetus, while the rest of the blastula will become part of the placenta.
These cells are identical to each other. In fact, experiments have indicated that any of those cells could be induced into becoming any of the types of cells in the human body. They can be moved to any position in the blastula without causing abnormalities. In fact, if some of the cells are separated from the blastula, they can form a second blastula; that makes identical twins. It has been a mystery for many decades as to why one cell, identical to all the others, will become a liver or stomach cell, while another will become a bone or blood cell. Once a cell converts from the generic state into a specific type of cell, through a process called "differentiation," they are no longer interchangeable.
While the embryonic body has been undergoing these changes, it has been gradually moving down one of the mother's fallopian tubes towards the uterus. The uterus has been preparing at the same time to receive the blastula. For a few days, the blastula floats freely in the uterus, but toward the end of the first week it sticks to the uterine wall. By this time it has greatly increased in mass and its cell number measures in the hundreds. Obviously, the logic given earlier, showing that blood could not be in the zygote, no longer applies. However, empirical evidence shows that there is still no hint of blood in the new body.
After the blastula sticks to the uterine wall, it etches its way deeper into the surface of the uterus, cutting across capillaries; this is the first contact with blood made by the new human body. Soon the embryo is in a pool of his mother's blood, which helps keep him alive until his heart can develop and begin pumping blood. The membrane that will allow the child to receive nourishment from his mother's bloodstream without allowing the entry of the mother's blood into the child begins to form at this stage. Until then, the mother and child are in direct contact with the same blood.
Soon after the blastula has burrowed into the uterine wall, it begins to develop a yolk sac. The yolk sac forms from some of the cells of the inner cell mass. Special cells appear inside this sac, forming clusters called islands. These cells are able to reproduce themselves as well as give rise to all the types of blood cells in a human. They are called (with some variation) totipotent stem cells. The totipotent stem cell had been hypothesized for decades, but an announcement of its discovery was made in November of 1991 by SyStemix Inc. Like the cells in the early blastula, they are identical, but they will differentiate into narrower categories of cells, called (again, with some variation) pluripotent stem cells. These will then differentiate into specific families of blood cells. See Figure 5 for a schematic representation of this process. This is the origin of human blood; first yolk sac, then stem cells, then blood cells. The human yolk sac does not form until after the blastula has implanted itself into the uterine wall.
Even though all of the cells that make up human blood come from the stem cells, they do not all appear at the same time. As mentioned, the first blood cells to form are the stem cells or hemocytoblasts, also known as the colony-forming unit (CFU). The first stem cells form colonies when the new body is two weeks old.(52) Erythrocytes (red blood cells), the cells that most people have in mind when they talk about blood, begin forming at 19 days.(53) For the rest of the pregnancy, and even after birth, the embryonic blood is still maturing into what we think of as blood. This was illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.
These are commonly-available facts, at least in schools with even a modest medical program. There is nothing resembling blood in the human body for about two weeks after conception. Yet, Fundamentalists are embarrassingly careless about what they say about inheritance and blood formation. For example, Sword of the LORD reported on an informational exhibit presented by Alternatives to Abortion Ministries. The Sword printed, without comment, the following quote from a mother of three who had visited the exhibit:
I didn't know their hearts were beating on their own from the moment of conception... I would have felt differently about my babies from the beginning if I had known that fact when I was pregnant... A woman considering an abortion would have to realize she'd be murdering her baby if she heard that fact.(54)
It is impossible for a person's heart to beat from the moment of his conception; he doesn't have a heart at conception! At conception, the human body is composed of only a single cell; it has no organs whatsoever--no heart, no lungs, no nerves, no intestines and no blood. It takes several weeks for those organs to form. For the Blood Indoctrinators to remain consistent, they must either abandon the idea that life begins at conception, or that life requires blood. They only hurt their credibility by dogmatically clinging to both.
Compare the weeks-long process of human blood formation with the account given by Dr. DeHaan:
... think of the egg of a hen. An unfertilized egg is simply an ovum on a much larger scale than the human ovum. You may incubate this unfertilized hen's egg, but it will never develop &ldots; But let that egg be fertilized by the introduction of the male sperm and incubation will bring to light the presence of LIFE IN AN EMBRYO. After a few hours it visibly develops. In a little while red streaks occur, denoting the presence of BLOOD. And life is in the blood according to Scripture...(55) (author's emphasis)
A woman's egg cell is quite different from a hen's egg cell. The major difference, in this case, is that avian eggs have a proportionally-large quantity of yolk already in the egg, whereas mammalian eggs have almost none. Before blood can form, there must be a yolk sac. Birds have a two-week head start on humans because of this. However, the Blood Indoctrinators, who did no research on this matter beyond what Dr. DeHaan claims, do not know these things. This is how they produce much of their sermon material; they find someone's sermons and illustrations to copy, and never check the facts. The author is condemned because he did check the facts, and found that the Blood Indoctrinators are wrong.
These Blood Indoctrinators don't have a shred of proof for their claims, yet they use them to support their doctrine. Doctors DeHaan and Hyles inferred these things, taking the Scriptures to a ridiculous extreme. How does Dr. Hyles know that he would live forever if his blood were "sinless"? What does that mean, anyway? What is sinless blood? Sin is an action, not a thing; it can't be in blood! Sinful and sinless blood exists only in the creative minds of Blood Indoctrinators.
Here is what Bro. Hyles and Dr. DeHaan said about the breath of God:
So when Adam and Eve received the breath of life--that very moment when God breathed that breath of life into them he had to put blood in their bodies.(56)
The breath of God put something in man that made him ALIVE. That something was blood. It must have been. It could be nothing else: for we have already shown that the life of the flesh is in the blood and so when life was added by the breath of God, He imparted blood to that lump of clay...(57)
This is quite different from the simple belief that God made blood in Adam's body at the same time and in the same way that He made the rest of the body. Some Blood Indoctrinators claim that blood is the vessel that contains the breath of life (i.e., blood contains a special substance that is Life), while others seem to think that the breath of life is blood. Obviously, these people consider there to be an irreplaceable something that is magical or supernatural in blood. Dr. DeHaan even said that although Adam's body was made of the ground, human blood is a special, separate gift from God.(58)
Despite Dr. DeHaan's claim that blood had to be in man's body before man could be alive, Bro. Hyles tells us that "His [Jesus'] resurrection body didn't have any blood in it. Neither will yours."(59) This contradiction of principles shows that even Blood Indoctrinators have the evidence that we do not have to have blood to be alive. A Blood Indoctrinator may protest that Christ's resurrected body was not made of flesh, to which one could respond that the Bible is not made of flesh, either, but they claim that it must have a flow of blood in it to be alive.
The Blood Indoctrinators claim that medical science has made certain claims. This book has shown that the claims of the Blood Indoctrinators is not supported by medical science. Furthermore, the Blood Indoctrinator's claims never were supported by medical science. The Blood Indoctrinators have deceived many people by their use of science. When the author has proven to them that they misused science, they have retorted that science cannot disprove the Bible. Some have told the author that they think this point is unimportant. However, if it's important enough for Fundamentalists to use science from the pulpit when supporting their claims (the quotes on the Blood Indoctrinator's supposed medical authority came from the Blood Indoctrinator's sermons), then it is important enough to object to basic scientific errors in what they are saying. It is wrong to use an illustration when the illustration is in error. Science may be wrong about blood, or it may be irrelevant to Christ's blood, but at least its claims should be fairly reported.
A more disturbing point is that these men distorted science apparently to prove an old, heretical belief. What these men preach is not new, as they would tell you. However, they would try to convince you that their odd beliefs are Biblical, when, in fact, they are cultic.
THE ARGUMENT OF SCRIPTURE
III. They are wrong because they think that Scripture agrees with themDear Brother Alexander:
Rather than writing a lengthy letter, I'm enclosing several articles &ldots;
You will see in Paisley's article that he backs up all of his statements with Scripture. You will see the same in our article...(60)
The Scriptures must be examined, in any area of doctrinal importance, and what cannot find support directly from them must not be considered as doctrine. If this principle is not followed, our theology will become filled with the whims of men being taught as doctrine, for which Jesus criticized the Pharisees (Matthew 15:9). Since the Blood Indoctrinators will even, if need be, excommunicate those who preach contrary to them, there must be very strong support in their favor, or else they should not be so dogmatic. It is not enough that the Blood Indoctrinators can provide some verses to support their arguments, since that is easy enough that all the cults associated with Christianity have always done it, and they produce contradictory doctrines. Instead, the Blood Indoctrinators must show that their beliefs are consistent with the claims of their authorities, one of those authorities being the Bible. If there is a reasonable alternative to their arguments, they should carefully consider the level of dogmatism that they practice in preaching their beliefs.
As implied in earlier sections of this book, the Blood Doctrine is actually a blend of two sets of beliefs. The first set of beliefs concerns the origin of Christ's blood; it is similar to Gnosticism. It claims that an aspect of a material body has an inherent moral character, and that for Christ to be sinless, He had to abstain from this component of the human body. The second set concerns the fate of Christ's blood; it is in character with the theology of Socinianism. It claims that Christ collected all the blood that He shed during his night of trial and execution, and took that blood to Heaven.
Not much has been written in this book about the second set of beliefs concerning Christ's blood. This is partly because it is not so grossly obvious that the second set of beliefs contains errors, as it is for the first set. A more important reason is that the second set of beliefs usually are discussed in a different context than those with which this book dealt in the other sections. The first set can be fought on the battlegrounds of science, history and biblical passages, since these are used to defend the first set of beliefs. The second set is rarely fought outside the context of theology/philosophy. It is nearly impossible to provide an obvious proof that a complicated philosophical belief is incorrect, especially when that belief makes no experimentally-testable claims (that is, scientific claims).
It is the human condition to be vain in one's denominational philosophies. It has been nearly impossible to alter, let alone overcome, the conviction of the Blood Indoctrinators that Christ inherited God the Father's blood, despite the incredible body of facts against such a belief, and the meager, error-filled arguments that are used to support it. That such a battle exists leaves little hope for a reasonable discussion with the Blood Indoctrinators of their belief that Christ took His shed blood to Heaven when He arose. The Blood Indoctrinator is not interested in the truth of his beliefs; he is interested in having an esoteric belief and a few arguments to support it. He feels that since he has an explanation for his belief that his belief must be correct.
The author met a Fundamental, Independent Baptist, named Doug Crawford, who claims that the only figures of speech in the Bible are similes (a simile has a structure like the following: "My beloved is like a rose"). That man believes that if the words "like" or "as" are not used in a verse, then the verse must be interpreted literally. That eliminates metaphor (structure like, "My beloved is a rose"; Deuteronomy 24:6, Proverbs 5:15, Matthew 16:12, 26:26, 28, John 6:32, 7:38, 10:7, 9, 14, Acts 20:29), irony (structure like, "Is my beloved a hateful weed?" Genesis 2:22, Job 38:21), hyperbole (structure like, "I would rather have my heart ripped out than to lose my beloved"; Job 31:22, Psalm 137:5, 6), anthropomorphism (structure like, "My rose was planted by the hand of God"; Job 40:9), and personification (structure like, "Love is a gardener, watering my rose"; Proverbs 3:15-18, 8:1-36).
He goes so far as to say that Jesus Christ did not have human blood, but lamb's blood, for the Bible says that the saints made their robes white in the blood of the lamb (Revelation 7:14). At least he is consistent, so long as he also claims that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Another possible shortcoming in his argument would be the use of the Old Testament types as analogy; the Bible says that they were analogies, but he claims that only verses with the words "like" or "as" are figurative. The Old Testament analogies do not have those words.
Doug is not ignorant; he earned a Bachelor's Degree from Tennessee Temple. He is respected in his church, sometimes even teaching the pastor's Sunday School class. He is the type of person who may confront you if you bring this book into a Fundamentalist church, for every church has someone like him. It is left to the reader to decide whether that man or this author has the more reasonable understanding of Scripture. This book takes the position that normal figures of speech were used throughout the Bible, and that understanding Scripture requires understanding something of the figures of speech used. As the reader can see in the case of Doug, one will end up with very strange beliefs if one does not accept the existence of figures of speech in the Bible.
Another of Doug's beliefs is that the King James Bible is unassailable. The only way that God's Word could be "preserved to every generation" is for God to have wrested His word from the heathen Greek and put it into Christian English (French or Swahili wouldn't have been good enough) as soon as possible. If the King James were the only Bible in existence, then God's Word would be preserved. If there were no perfect English translation available to the common English-speaking man, then God's Word would not be preserved, no matter how many other languages have the Bible, no matter how many forgotten attics may have a King James translation. Indeed, God's Word is preserved solely because there is an accurate English translation, and despite the fact that many languages do not have a Bible. Nor is it a question of the King James being the best; the King James Version is perfect, and pointing out a weakness in the translation is an attack on God and should be treated as such. If a man merely refers to the Greek or Hebrew, it is reason to be suspicious of him, and he had better not dare to suggest that a Greek word might have been better translated other than the way that the King James translators translated it.
If the King James Bible is not the perfectly preserved Word of God, then God's Word has not been preserved! The King James Version must be the preserved Word of God, for it is in the language that we speak. Truly, God has favored the English-speaking man above all other peoples! No one has a right to criticize the work of the King James translators, since no one has the skills--er, the leading of the Holy Ghost--that those translators had, even though some of them did not have a church preference, and probably none of them were Baptists. The King James Bible is not the work of man, but of the very moving of God, although that should make a person wonder why it took 50 of the best-educated men in Europe to do the job, and why they disagreed, argued and compromised in reaching their final product. We should also wonder why the New Testament does not quote Old Testament verses exactly as they appeared in the Old Testament; it looks like even God does not require a jot-for-jot preservation of the Bible.
That man is not alone in his religious opinions. The traditional, old-fashioned, Fundamentalist church often espouses such values. They believe that the King James is the standard against which all Bibles of any language should be criticized. Other languages can only aspire to the superiority of the King James. They may not think of it in those terms, and they may actually say that the King James is the Bible for the English-speaking man just as the Greek is the Bible for the Grecians, but they really mean that the Christian world should revolve around the English translation. They believe that English is specially inspired for the English-speaking peoples, a new creation for us. The Greek must be abandoned because it is not God's Word to us, but God's Word to the Greeks. God's will for one's life depends on the single language that one speaks; everyone speaks only one language, don't they? Notice that these people become upset when one goes back to the Greek. Pastor Zahn from Arizona was one who inspired the author to write the above paragraphs, for Pastor Zahn actually makes some of those arguments to defend the King James Bible.
If you point out to these people that there was not always a Bible available for English-speaking peoples, they will counter that we cannot know that. In fact, they will assert that there must have been an English Bible from the time that people began speaking in English, but that this early perfect Bible was so mightily repressed that there is no direct evidence of it today. One might wonder why, then, did England go into such turmoil over Wiclif's imperfect English translation, and why did people risk their lives and property to possess it, when there was a perfect English translation already in existence? Why would people risk so much to step backward? The only rational answer is that the Wiclif Bible, as imperfect as it was, was the best available to those people. No one claimed that Ruckmanites or Fundamentalists or Blood Indoctrinators are rational people, though.
Sword of the LORD is correct on this issue; the King James translation is the work of men translating the passages given by God, and is no better than any translation in that regard. No preacher blesses the paper and ink to turn it into a divine book, and no translator wrote by divine ex cathedra. Unfortunately, at this point Sword of the LORD seems to be in the minority, since most of the people that the author has met have taken the more fanciful route. Pastor Zahn actually argues that it is impossible for an ordinary person to make dependable translations from the Greek texts. He claims that no one can know what the King James translators said or thought as they did their work; we are simply forced to trust their judgement.
Actually, there are probably two main reasons why these people don't like for others to study the Greek texts. There is a danger that we will notice that some of the points that the clergy makes, using the Greek as proof, are wrong. This is not limited to the study of Greek; if your pastor uses the Bible in his sermons, read one or two verses past where he stops reading. There are occasions where those extra verses will invalidate the entire sermon.
There is also the knowledge that is required for the translation of Greek, just as there is for any language. It requires work, some education, some familiarity with the nature of languages and a sense of judgement. This is contrary to the Fundamentalist's claim that the Bible is an open book and education only gets in the way of knowing God's will. A real Christian education, they say, avoids scholarly study, but devotes itself to insights gained on the field. Obviously, one doesn't learn Greek by preaching to drunks, so Greek must not be useful in practical situations.
Pastor Zahn should not be singled out; the same sort of nonsense can be heard in most of the conservative Christian pulpits in Albuquerque. At least Pastor Zahn will occasionally sprinkle a few Greek words through his sermons, if only as interesting trivia. Yet, if such an opinion of biblical interpretation is so widely held by Fundamentalists, how can it be possible to study the Bible to any depth with them? There are many Fundamentalists who become angry when someone suggests that better translations than the King James are possible, but their anger is without good reason. Evangelicism, including Fundamentalism, is driven by as much zeal as possible with as little thought or reason as possible. That's fanaticism. This book takes the position that if the source texts used by the King James translators is examined, it will provide insight to God's meaning in His Word, even if the source texts contradict the accepted English translation. The King James translators had the same belief; that's why the King James Bible came into existence.
This last section deals with the theology and philosophy that is used to support the Blood Doctrine. Both the first set and the second set of beliefs are addressed here. The King James Version of the Bible is used throughout, as that is the author's preferred English translation. There is not much Greek used; it is not necessary to use much Greek to prove the Blood Indoctrinators wrong. However, there is a little of the Greek texts discussed. This should not intimidate the reader; if it bothers him, he should simply ignore any reference to Greek. The Greek used in this book is so general and non-critical to showing the truth of the matter that even the issue of which Greek text to use is moot. Greek is used here to emphasize the point being made in English, to prove beyond doubt that the author's view is correct. Only occasionally is it vital to use the Greek, and then it is because a Blood Indoctrinator claims that the Greek supports his view. The author only asks that if the reader is going to ignore the author's references to Greek that the reader also ignore the Blood Indoctrinators when they use Greek to support their view of Scripture. That's right; Blood Indoctrinator's believe that they are the only dependable Greek scholars.
The Blood Indoctrinators claim that Scripture supports their beliefs. The author claims that Scripture contradicts their beliefs. We trust that Scripture is consistent. Therefore, someone has made an interpretational error. The evidence for making the judgement of who has made such an error, and the author's argument against the Blood Indoctrinators, is the subject of this section.
A. Jesus was not the only one called the seed of the woman.
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Dr. M.R. DeHaan:
ONLY Jesus is called the Seed of the woman, because He was born of a woman and thus His blood was without the sin of Adam.(61)
Apart from Genesis 3:15, where God rather indirectly calls Jesus the seed of a woman, Jesus is never again called the seed of the woman in any of the remaining 275 occurrences of the word "seed," so far as the author has determined. A similar phrase is in Galatians 4:4 (" ...God sent forth his Son, made of a woman..."), but Jesus is never again referred to as the seed of a woman. However, the Bible frequently uses the term "seed of a woman," or its equivalent, after Genesis 3:15 to refer to humanity. That term, along with "born of a woman," simply indicates human generation. A good example of this is 1 Samuel 2:20, 21:
And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the LORD. And they went unto their own home. {21} And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters.
Notice that the Scriptures actually skip forward in time (by at least nine months) to show that the LORD gave Elkanah "seed of this woman." The seed of this woman was not Jesus, but three sons and two daughters. See also Genesis 4:25; 16:10; 24:60, Leviticus 12:2, Numbers 5:28, Ruth 4:12, Job 14:1, 15:14, 25:4, Isaiah 57:3, Matthew 11:11, Hebrews 11:11 and Revelation 12:17 for other places where ordinary (or even diabolical) men are said to be the seed of women or born of women. Jesus was not the only person called "the seed of the woman."
It is very important to realize that Jesus is also said to be born of man's seed. Acts 13:23 says,
Of this man's seed hath God according to <his> promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus...
and Romans 1:3 adds,
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...
Jesus is also said to be born of a man's seed in John 7:42, 2 Timothy 2:8 and Hebrews 2:16.
That upsets the entire argument and goal of the Blood Indoctrinators. The Blood Doctrine cannot exist in its modern form if Jesus was born of a man's seed, for all of those born of man's seed are supposed to be sinners. That was supposed to be the reason for the virgin birth, according to the Blood Doctrine. Remember the group of "Baptists" who could not understand how Jesus could be sinless if He "took flesh" of His mother. The author does not mean, of course, that Jesus wasn't virgin-born. However the belief challenged here, that having a body of normal matter would make Jesus a sinner, is wrong, and the Blood Indoctrinators have made an obvious error in espousing their belief. As indicated in the introduction, the Blood Indoctrinators are very imaginative, and they rely more on that imagination than on facts. Hebrews 2:14 conclusively states that Jesus did not have a supernatural body, but a body just like any other Jew! There is no record in Scripture of any body formed by God that was divine; was Adam's body divine? Of course not. We should not think, then, that Christ's body, which was fashioned to make Him in the form of a servant, was divine.
Consider the following quotation (author's emphasis in the following):
Probably the earliest allusion to Mary in Christian literature is the phrase "born of a woman" in the Letter of Paul to the Galatians (4:4) &ldots; As parallels such as the Old Testament Book of Job (14:1) and the Gospel account of Matthew (11:11) suggest, the phrase is a Hebraic way of speaking about the essential humanity of a person. When applied to Jesus, therefore, "born of woman" was intended to assert that he was a real man, in opposition to the attempt--later seen in various systems of Gnosticism, a 2nd-Century dualistic religion--to deny that he had a completely human life; he was said by some Gnostics to have passed through the body of Mary as light passes through a window. It seems unwarranted to read anything further into the phrase, as though "born of woman" necessarily implied "but not of a man and a woman." Thus, the phrase made Mary the sign or the guarantee that the Son of God had truly been born as a man.(62)
This claim by the Blood Indoctrinators is one of the most baseless statements they make. All of the other claims could have been mistakes, but it seems unimaginable that anyone could make this kind of mistake, especially a preacher. It clearly contradicts Scripture. Even a quick examination of any concordance would show that many people besides Jesus were called the seed of a woman. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet, because it is overwhelming, the Blood Indoctrinator, instead of admitting that an essential point of their Doctrine is in error, will sulk and pout and try to find fault with some minor point mentioned by the author. The author has already seen this.
The Blood Indoctrinators' error was made because they need to show that sin passes ONLY through the male. Jesus had to be born of a woman, not of a man. The Blood Indoctrinators are wrong because sin is not a substance; it is an action. Sin is not passed through blood, for it's what you do, not what you have, that makes you a sinner. Sin does not come from only the male, and it does not come through the body at all. See the section below on Romans 5:12.
B. Life does not require blood.
Leviticus 17:11
For 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.
Dr. Harold Sightler:
You can see my frame, you can see my flesh, you can hear my voice--but you cannot see my life. The life that I am is in five quarts of blood that circulate through my body...(63)
This verse may tell us where life is, but how does one know what life is? See Deuteronomy 20:19:
When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an ax against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field <is> man's <life>) to employ <them> in the siege:
If Leviticus says that Life is in the blood, then Deuteronomy says that our Life is a tree! That means that trees are in our blood!
The point is, the Bible uses these expressions regularly as figures of speech. To those of you who feel that is an heretical notion, explain how Deuteronomy 20:19 makes sense if it is fully literal. And, if life can be metaphorically symbolized by trees in Deuteronomy, why can't it be metaphorically symbolized by blood in Leviticus? Both passages have similar contexts, and make the most straightforward sense metaphorically. The Bible simply means that blood stands for life.
There are some beliefs that are held by all people of all religions. One such belief is the sanctity of blood. Every religion in the world has attached to blood a sense of awe. We may have an arm cut off, we may lose our legs, we may have almost any part of our body completely removed, and we may still live. Blood is different because an injury that otherwise would not be life-threatening suddenly is, because that injury allows too much loss of blood. A casual observer on any battlefield may see that. Perhaps that is why this is a universal belief; war is a universal fact.
However, this does not mean that blood is life, or that life is caused by blood, or that we have to have blood to live. It simply means that blood is so important to life, in the general sense, that it can be equated with life. Water is also life, because where there is no water, there is no life. This fact about water is even more true than about blood, or even air. There are forms of life that don't have blood, can't live exposed to the atmosphere, but nothing performs life's functions without water. Because water is so important to life, we may say that water is life.
Dr. Harold Sightler:
The Bible tells me the life of my flesh is not in my heartbeat, nor my pulse beat, nor my heart as an organ, nor my kidney, nor my liver, nor whatever it might be, but in the blood.(64)
The blood is all-important here, and any mention of it triggers the strongest feelings of devotion from the Blood Indoctrinators. Yet, Dr. Sightler is wrong, because in Proverbs 14:30 the Bible says,
A sound heart <is> the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.
The phrase in this verse has almost the exact wording that is found in Leviticus, except that instead of the life of the flesh being in blood, it is said to be the heart. So, not only are trees Life, but our hearts are Life, too. At no time does the Bible say that blood is Life, as it does for trees and hearts. The Bible says that life is in blood. Since Life is in the blood, and Life is trees and hearts, there must be trees and hearts in the blood! That is, of course, nonsense, because it is not that Life actually is trees or hearts, but that these are significant in supporting our life. Leviticus 17:11 is not meant to be taken literally when it says that life is in the blood.
C. Mary could have touched Jesus when He appeared to her after His resurrection--He was not on His way to the Holies in Heaven with His blood.
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and <to> my God, and your God.
Dr. Jack Hyles:
When Jesus was raised from the dead, He saw Mary Magdalene.... He said, 'Don't touch me. Touch me not!' Why? Because nobody could touch the high priest from the time he took that blood from the altar and walked to that mercy seat. If anybody did touch him, the sacrifice was invalid.... Why couldn't Mary Magdalene touch Jesus? Because He was on His way with the blood to Heaven to sprinkle His blood on the heavenly mercy seat in the presence of Jehovah God Himself in the heavenly tabernacle not made with hands. Mary could not touch Him.(65)
When Jesus was taken to be crucified, many terrible things were done to Him. Weakened from His night of agony, Jesus was also horribly beaten with a Roman scourge. Strips of His flesh were ripped off, and His body was left a tattered mess. His beard was ripped out. Finally, He gave up the ghost on Calvary's hill. Even after all that He suffered, His body was even further afflicted by a Roman guard who pierced His side with a spear. Jesus' body was then put into a tomb, that the sign of Jonah might be fulfilled.
On the third day, Jesus arose from the dead. Now, here's something that doesn't contradict Scripture: only what was buried was resurrected. Only what was buried fulfilled the sign of Jonah, who was in the belly of the great fish for three days. Only what was buried was under guard by the Roman soldiers. Only what was buried was sought by the women and His disciples. Only what was buried could fulfill Psalm 16:10 and Jesus' prophecy that He would be buried and on the third day rise again.
When these Blood Indoctrinators tell us that Jesus went out of the tomb and collected His unburied blood and took this still-living blood to Heaven, they are indulging in their imagination, for the Bible does not give such a witness. They claim that His perfect body could not die, because it held His perfect blood. His blood could not decay because it was sinless. They ask us to trust the indestructibility of His blood as the reason that He could collect His blood on the third day. They never mention all of the flesh that He left scattered across Jerusalem after He was scourged and beaten and had His beard ripped out, yet that flesh was as sinless as His blood. Did Jesus also collect His flesh? Did it decay? Or, is His flesh still lying around Jerusalem? The Blood Indoctrinators added to the Bible the account of Christ collecting His blood because they just know it had to have happened that way.
Doctor Curtis Hutson asked the question,
If we can accept the fact that His body and bones did not corrupt, why can't we accept the same about His blood?(66)
The answer is simple, Dr. Hutson: His blood was never buried. As if that weren't enough (which it should be), His blood was never resurrected and it was never collected.
There is also a question that should be asked of Dr. Hutson. He said,
Some argue that the blood of Christ is no different than the blood of any other human being(67)
Apparently, Dr. Hutson believes that Christ's blood was different from normal human blood. Yet, he must believe that Christ had a body that was no different than any other human being, for 1 John 4:1-3 and Hebrews 2:14 say so. If we can believe that His body was like any other human's, why can't we believe that about His blood, especially when the Scriptures say so? Scripture never gives an account of the resurrection of Christ's blood.
The Blood Indoctrinators are claiming that Jesus was willing to risk the Salvation of everyone from all time, just to encourage Mary. Suppose they were right, and Mary had touched Him? Humans have always had the option to disobey God's commands. No "force field" would have restrained Mary; if her free-will to obey wasn't available to her, why the command from Jesus? If she did not have the option of touching Him, He would not have needed to have said anything. And, if Mary had disobeyed, and the Blood Indoctrinators were right, this would have made His sacrifice invalid, and there could not be any more sacrifice. We would all be lost. Yet, Jesus was willing to risk this just to give Mary a comforting word. That sounds reckless.
The Blood Indoctrinator's account also makes it sound as though Jesus wasn't paying attention to His work, for He interrupted such a sacred duty to have a word with Mary. The Blood Doctrine's strongest argument is that the Old Testament types required Christ to collect His blood and take it to Heaven. Did any Old Testament high priest stop on his way to the Holies to talk with a grieving woman along the way? Weren't sacred duties kept free from all interruptions? In fact, the priests in Jerusalem at the time of its fall to Roman armies continued their duties even as the city fell, ignoring the soldiers who walked up to them and killed them. The idea that Jesus was going to the Heavenly Altar to present His blood becomes increasingly absurd the more you realize what the Blood Indoctrinators are telling us.
The Blood Indoctrinators claim that something al must have happened after Jesus left Mary, for several people were permitted to touched Jesus a week or more after Jesus had forbidden Mary. The Bible doesn't say that anything happened, but there is a mystery concerning Christ's command against Mary's touch, and later invitation for others to touch Him. The Blood Indoctrinators take the argument of silence, claiming that between the time that Mary saw Him, and the time that He was held that evening, Christ gathered His blood, entered Heaven, made atonement for all time, and returned to Earth. They think that no other explanation can explain the mystery, and that this fulfills the types as nothing else can.
There is, at the least, a problem with their scenario. By comparing the accounts of Matthew 28 and John 20, it is seen that almost no time, if any time, passed between Jesus' command to Mary and the time when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary held Jesus by His feet. The Blood Indoctrinators do not mention this incident when they discuss Jesus' command to Mary. They usually skip over references showing that Jesus was touched the same day that Mary first saw Him, and begin citing the references showing that He was touched a week after His resurrection (when Jesus invited Thomas to thrust his hand into Christ's side). Doctor Paisley, for example, said,
Mary could not touch Him.
Wait a minute. He came back a little while later when the disciples were in the upper room. Thomas came in and... Jesus said, "Reach hither thy finger..."
There is a week missing between Dr. Paisley's two sentences, a week that Scripture says began by two women grasping Jesus by His feet. The author has never known of a Blood Indoctrinator to mention that two women held Jesus' feet within minutes of Jesus' command for Mary not to touch Him. They need to put as much time as possible between Christ's command to Mary and the time when Christ was touched.
Figure 6. Resurrection Chronology
Figure 6 diagrams the major events that occurred in Matthew 28:1-9 and John 20:1-17. John 20:1-17 says that Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre of Jesus very early, while it was still dark. She found that His grave was open, and ran to Peter and the other disciple. Those disciples inspected Christ's grave and left. After they left, Mary stood by the tomb, weeping. Jesus came to her, but He forbade her to touch Him. Instead of touching Him, she was to tell the disciples that she had seen Him and that He would ascend to God. The next verse in John simply says that Mary Magdalene told the disciples that she had seen Jesus. Later that evening, Jesus appeared to the disciples, and He showed them his hands and side and breathed on them.
John gives only a cursory indication of the passage of time and even of the people present. There were certainly lapses of time between the events that John recorded (What events transpired between the command to Mary and the time that Mary saw the disciples?)
Matthew 28:1-9 says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the sepulchre as the day began to dawn. They found an angel by the open tomb. The angel told the women to "go quickly" to the disciples, which the women did, running to obey. As they were going to the disciples, Jesus appeared to them, and they held His feet. This account leaves out the early morning visit to the tomb by the two Apostles, and Jesus' command for Mary not to touch Him, but it includes an account of Jesus being held by the two women on the morning of the day of Christ's resurrection. Only one woman is mentioned in John as being at the tomb, although both might have been there. Note that Mary said, "We don't know where they took His body."
The author has walked across modern Jerusalem; the city is about the same size as American neighborhoods or towns, and it is larger today than it was when Mary and Mary ran across it. It could not have taken very long for a Jewish woman to run to the disciples. If the Blood Indoctrinators are right, then Jesus presented His blood in the Holies between the time that Mary saw Jesus at the sepulchre, and the time that the women saw Him as they ran for His disciples. If Jesus could do His work as the High Priest in those few minutes, an hour being too leisurely an amount of time, why couldn't He have done it before appearing to Mary and forbidding her touch?
There is considerable difficulty in reconciling the two Gospel views. John says that Mary was in grief just before she saw Jesus for the first time after His resurrection. Matthew says that the women were running "with great joy" when Jesus appeared to them. Perhaps the women were running only several minutes after Jesus had appeared to Mary by the tomb. It is only a guess when we describe the sequence of events, since the Gospel accounts are not concerned with all those details. One may wonder why Jesus appeared to the women a second time, when He had yet to appear to the Apostles for the first time. It may be that Mary and Mary had gathered a small group of people when Jesus appeared, and His appearing then would confirm the women's witness; we can only guess. Note that Jesus said, "All hail" when only two women were present. It may be that Jesus only appeared one time, but the Gospel accounts make it look like He appeared two times.
Why did Jesus command Mary not to touch Him? The Blood Indoctrinators have produced a unique reason, that Jesus was on His way to the Holies to present His blood, and, since He must remain undefiled, forbade Mary's touch. However, the author cannot find any place in Scripture that says that the high priest could not be touched on his way to the holies. In fact, the author cannot find any reference to such a practice anywhere outside of modern Fundamentalist's claims.
The reference dealing with the touching of the sin offering is in Leviticus 6:17-30. There is no certainty about the requirements of the law, whether those who ate of the sacrifices merely had to be clean, or had to be clean and consecrated, or whether these verses referred only to the instruments used to eat the sin offering.(68) It may also be that the verses mean that the holy flesh would make holy what it should touch, in contrast to the unclean thing that would make unclean whatever it happened to touch.(69) In any event, it is the sacrifice, not the priest, that is kept from being touched (many Jews would, at any one time, be able to touch the priest).
Another reference to the effect of touching the sacrifice is in Haggai 2:11-13. It appears from this passage that the holy flesh would not cause an ordinary object to become holy, but an unclean object would cause everything that it touched to become unclean.(70) Once again, a large number of people and objects at any one time would be ceremonially-clean, and could touch the sacrifice. Nothing is said about touching the priest.
It appears that the Blood Indoctrinators were playing hocus-pocus with Scripture, again, to fit the requirements of their Doctrine with Scripture. It is significant that the Blood Indoctrinators do not make any effort to substantiate their claim that the high priest could not be touched before entering the holies; they simply state it as a known fact. The author has read several statements from the Blood Indoctrinators saying that the high priest could not be touched before entering the holies, but he has never read any cross references for this.
That still leaves the problem of Christ's command to Mary. Why would Christ tell her not to touch Him, especially since He let her grasp His feet only a short time later that day? According to the footnote in Zodhiates' KJV Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, Jesus actually said to Mary, "do not continue touching me." Doctor Zodhiates believes that this is the correct translation of this verse because the Greek verb that is used here, a{/ptou (haptou), is the present imperative of a{/ptw (hapto), instead of the aorist imperative, a{/psou (hapsou). Jesus was telling Mary to let go of Him.
The author doesn't know how valid that claim may be, although Dr. Zodhiates' native tongue is Greek and he has spent over 40 years studying Koine Greek, and other well-educated researchers verify the conclusion arrived at by Dr. Zodhiates' and the author has not found any linguistic authority who disputes this opinion of Dr. Zodhiates.(71) Oliver B. Greene, a respected Baptist, verify it, as do Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Albert Barnes and Arthur Pink. Furthermore, the best Greek-English lexicon the author can find, William Bauer's Greek-English lexicon, says that the phrase used in John 20:17, "aptou," is the more forceful, "stop clinging to me!"(72) (emphasis in original). If the author seems ridiculously reticent in accepting Dr. Zodhiates' explanation, it is because he wants to point out the absurdity of some Fundamentalists' dogmatism toward the King James Bible. Remember, these Fundamentalists are appalled by someone who points out a weakness in the King James translation, and that is what Dr. Zodhiates has done. The author has been attacked for attempting to prove his point by interpreting the Greek when he does not have a degree in Greek. He hopes that by showing that it is ridiculous not to accept the alternate interpretation that he will avoid such accusations.
Moreover, there have been a lot of comments written for this verse by godly men, and they don't make the shocking claim of Dr. Zodhiates. So far, the reference works examined by the author (which includes Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Albert Barnes, Arthur Pink, Oliver Greene and Zodhiates), spanning over 250 years, agree that Jesus was only telling Mary that she must not be so familiar with Him now (though she could be in Heaven), but must quickly tell the disciples that He had risen. Even Jamison, Fausset and Brown, who generally agree with the Blood Doctrine, consent to this interpretation. None of them even hint that Christ was keeping a ceremonial cleanness by forbidding Mary's touch.
Jesus may have been telling Mary that she could be with Him constantly in Heaven when He said, "I am not yet ascended to my Father." Notice that He did not say "I am not yet ascended to the Holies," as though the reason that Mary could not touch Him is that Christ needed to be with His Father before she could do that, and not that He needed to present His blood on the Heavenly Altar. That is the common opinion of the commentators. It is not the opinion taught by the Blood Indoctrinators.
Arthur Pink produced interesting notes on this matter. Those who depend on types to prove the Blood Doctrine should find this instructional:
And when was it that Christ entered Heaven by virtue of the merits of His own blood? Almost all of the commentators take the reference here as being to His ascension. But this we deem to be a mistake, and one from which erroneous conclusions of a most serious nature have been drawn. The writer is fully satisfied that what is affirmed in this verse took place immediately after Christ, on the cross, triumphantly cried "It is finished." Some of our reasons for believing this we give below.
[1. To maintain the type, Christ had to enter Heaven immediately after His sacrifice.] "His resurrection was the antitype of Aaron's return from the holy of holies unto the people..."
[2. Aaron's laying aside his robes of glory, and putting on of linen garments, was more like Christ's abasement at the cross than was Christ's glorious ascension.
[3. Aaron's offering was not accepted when he entered into the Holies, but when he sprinkled the blood; if the antitype of this was not until Christ's ascension, then God waited forty days before He approved of it. (The same can be said if He waited three days.)
[4. The time when the high priest was within the holies was a time of fear for those outside (for fear that he would not satisfy God). This was similar to the emotional state of the apostles during the time that Christ was in the grave. The apostles had a different outlook after Christ's ascension.
[5. The rending of the veil was God's sign of approval upon His Son's words of "It is finished."
[When Christ "once entered heaven," it referred to the first of His double types; He was the antitype of Aaron and Melchizedek. Proof that Christ entered Heaven at His death is found by comparing His words and those of the thief in Luke 23:43 with Paul's letter in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (which shows that Paradise is interchangeable with the third heaven).](73)
(emphasis is the author's, and brackets denote his paraphrasing).
These are good points. Why aren't they mentioned by Fundamentalists, the way that Dr. DeHaan is still quoted? It is because these points contradict what the Blood Indoctrinators want to believe! Blood Indoctrinators aren't even considering opposing points. They make up their minds and no amount of proof can change their opinions. If they are shown a passage of Scripture that clearly contradicts what they claim, they will ignore it in favor of another passage that could be interpreted as they wish. This indicates that they don't have a way to decide the truth of an argument based on its own merits.
Notice also that Mr. Pink mentioned that Christ triumphantly cried, "It is finished" after His work on the cross and before His entry into Heaven. The Blood Indoctrinators rarely, if ever, allow this phrase to be mentioned in their churches. They certainly resent the famous Christian song that includes that phrase. The reason they give for this is that they don't believe that Christ's work was finished when He died; He still had to enter the Holy of Holies with His blood and perform the work of the Great High Priest! They give a disappointingly anticlimactic reason for why Christ said it, such as Christ only meant that His crucifiction was finished. They believe that in no way could Christ have meant that atonement or redemption was finished.
One young man, who is now a preacher of a church in Indiana, once gave his proof that Christ's work of redemption was not finished at the cross. Scripture says that Christ sits at the right hand of the Father and ever intercedes for us. Therefore, our redemption is constantly being won by Christ. This is a fairly common argument given by the Blood Indoctrinators. John Owen's commentary of 1680, which was included in the Goold collection of 1855, addressed this argument. According to Mr. Owen, the sacrifice was based on the general principle that suffering must be involved, since Hebrews 9:25 and 26 says that for Christ to be offered often, He must have suffered often. Therefore, the offering of Christ can be inferred to have ended with the ending of Christ's suffering. Furthermore, Scripture says that Christ was once offered. Christ's offering was an action that occurred at one time, and then stopped. According to 1 Peter 2:24, Christ's offering was only while He was on the cross. Notice that Mr. Owen presented this argument to counter the Socinian's argument that Christ's offering was only in Heaven and not on Earth.(74)
One Baptist distinctive is that only what is explicitly found in the Bible can be considered to be doctrine. Other beliefs may be held which are not explicitly stated, but these could not be considered to be certainly true. The author believes that Goliath was nine feet tall; but, maybe he was seven or twelve. New knowledge can prove the author wrong, and still agree with Scripture. The author's belief about Goliath's height is not doctrine beyond what the Bible explicitly states.
The Bible never explicitly says that Christ took His blood into Heaven. When the Blood Indoctrinators try to prove their point, they use analogies and infer from those things. That type of reasoning depends on the net effect of many weak arguments, and easily results in error. One can remain consistent with Scripture without believing their points. Their method is used by various cults to prove that the Bible supports their views, and we think we can disprove the cults' arguments.
Despite the insistence of the Blood Indoctrinators, what they believe may be wrong if they made a reasoning error in either premise or conclusion. Doctrine is immune from this because it is based on what is explicitly written (we trust that our premise--the Bible--is correct, and we eliminate errors in conclusions by relying on explicitness). This book disproves the Blood Doctrine's premises and conclusions.
D. Christ did not have God the Father's blood.
Acts 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.
Dr. Sightler:
The blood of Christ: particular blood, unusual blood. No other person has ever borne that kind of blood.... The blood in the veins of my Lord was not the blood of Mary nor Joseph, but the blood of God in that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost of God.... the male genes involved in the birth of our Lord were the Holy Spirit of God. And the blood in the veins of our Lord was the blood of God.(75)
Dr. M.R. DeHaan:
Jesus could have a human body, but He was not a sinner like you and me because He was born of woman by the Holy Spirit.... The Holy Spirit contributed the blood of Jesus.... It is divine blood.(76)
The Blood Doctrine states that Jesus Christ had the blood of God the Father in His veins. The Blood Indoctrinators tried to prove that by using medicine (cf. "The Argument of Science," II. A.). They also try to prove it by using this verse. For them to prove their point, they must prove that "the church of God" means "of God the Father," instead of "God the Son." There is not enough information in this verse to prove it, and there aren't any other verses that they can use. As a matter of fact, Scripture contradicts the Blood Doctrine's claim. The Bible says in John 4:24:
God <is> a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship <him> in spirit and in truth.
and in Luke 24:39:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Simply put, God's body--including the Holy Spirit--does not have blood. Although Jesus was a third of the Trinity, His body was an ordinary human body. It is only because Jesus became God in the flesh that Acts 20:28 can say that the church of God has been redeemed by His blood. If Jesus had not become a man, no part of the Trinity would have blood. He only had blood because human bodies have blood. The blood in Jesus could not have been either God the Father's or God the Holy Ghost's blood, because neither have a physical body nor blood (note: What is the one American religion that claims that God has a physical body? Hint--it was named in The Argument of History). Jesus' body was not divine, and His blood was not divine, for there is no such thing as a divine body of flesh and blood. According to Hebrews 2:14:
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers (--have in common) of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise (--in like manner) took part of (µ--took part in) the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Arthur Pink says that the wording in this verse emphasizes that Jesus took what was not normally of His nature, that is, flesh and blood.(77) If Christ's body did not have human flesh and human blood, He could not have taken our place in the Judgment of God. Only someone who was fully like us, but without sin, could take our place, and we have a human body and human blood.
Doctor DeHaan, of course, did not interpret Hebrews 2:14 to say that Jesus had human flesh and blood. Instead, Dr. DeHaan claimed that when the Bible says that Christ "likewise took part of the same," the Greek word used for "took part," µ (meteschen), means that He "took part but not all."(78) Dr. DeHaan claims that Christ took of the flesh of man, but not of the blood of man. That is not what the author's Greek lexicons say that this word means. One says that µ means "to be partaker of, to share in, 1 Cor. ix. 10, 12, x. 17, 21, 30; Heb. ii.14, v. 13, vii. 13."(79) Walter Bauer's Greek-English lexicon (the B-A-G), considered one of the best available, says that µ (meteschen tone awtone) means,
he shared the same things (i.e. flesh and blood) Hb 2:14.(80)
In fact, even dictionaries of modern Greek say that µ means, "share." There is nothing in this verse to indicate that anything common to men was left out of Christ's body, or, if there were, what that element might be.
The B-A-G, when describing the words in Hebrews 2:14, leaves the reader with the impression that this verse can only mean that Jesus had a body just like any other human body, including human flesh and human blood. The author cannot find any support for, but only contradiction of, Dr. DeHaan's claim. Did he make up the meaning for this Greek word in order to give support to his Doctrine? Probably not completely; Dr. DeHaan cited the source of his lexical knowledge as being the definitions in the margins of his Bible. Dr. DeHaan took the definitions given there, added a twist to suit the needs of his teachings and produced a definition for these words that is unique and, so far as the author can tell, incorrect.
The word used to describe Christ's relation to men, µ (meteschen), is different from the word used to describe man's relation to man, (kekoinownehkay). According to the lexicons and various commentators, both words mean "to share in," but , so far as the author can determine, means that each shares all the same things equally. The other word, µ, means that all share in a common thing, but there is something unique that may not be shared. The idea seems to be that all men are equal, and Christ became one of them, but He brought an extra trait to the human trait that He shared with men. The orthodox view, of course, says that Christ brought His divine nature to the nature of men. It is not, as Dr. DeHaan proposed, that Christ did not share in an aspect of humanity, but that humanity did not share in an aspect of Christ. There is no reason to believe that Hebrews 2:14 means that Christ shared any less than the full body given to humanity, including human blood.
Matthew Poole commented on Hebrews 2:14 that,
... the Spirit having proved the children and brethren sanctified by Christ to be men, proceeds to prove, that the Sanctifier of them was of the same nature with themselves; and so confirms what he asserted, ver. 11, that they were of one: forasmuch as those were chosen, born of God, and given to him, adopted into his sonship and heirship, and by this, as well as by their humanity, derived jointly with his own from Adam, his brethren, [kekoinownehkay], these having it in common. The word imports the reality, integrity, unity, and community they all have of the human nature; they are all truly, only, and fully men, and every individual person hath this humanity. These flesh and bones metonymically set out the whole human nature, though the body only literally be expressed by it, a body subject to many infirmities.
God the Son himself [paraplesios], had the next and nearest correspondent condition with theirs, even the same as to the kind of it, as like as blood is to blood, properly and truly, only freed from our sinful infirmities, as ver. 17; chap. iv. 15; this word diminisheth him not, but showeth his identity: µ [meteskay], took part, he became a partner with the children, and took their nature. It is not the same word as before, [kekoinownehkay], as the Marcionites and Manichees corrupt it, as if he had this nature only in common with them, making him only man. But, being God, besides his Divine nature, &c., to it he took the human &ldots; By his incarnation he is of one nature with all the human race, and so is the Head of them: and by his dying for them all the human race are made salvable, which angels are not...(81)
When the early church fought Gnosticism, they made the point that Jesus had a fully human body, but He was still fully divine in that body. In fact, the reason that these passages are in the Bible is because the writers were battling Gnosticism, themselves. That means that parts of the Bible were written with the intention of countering the beliefs now held by the Blood Indoctrinators. The Gnostics believed that anyone with a human body had to be a sinner, since all matter is sinful. The Bible says that sin is not from the body, but from the will. Incidentally, the idea that Christ's blood was divine is a Roman Catholic doctrine ("The blood of Jesus is divine blood and bears the life of God in itself."(82)), according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia.
Most people are informed enough to know that Acts 20:28 is a direct reference to Jesus Christ. The verse is not saying that God had blood, and that God shed His blood, but that Jesus shed His blood to purchase the Church of God. The verse never says "the blood of God," but "the Church of God." This confusion of the reference of the word "he" is common in Scripture (e.g., Isaiah 7:12, 13). It was the Church of God and the blood of Christ that is spoken of in this verse.
The Blood Indoctrinators make the translation from Jesus being the reason for blood being connected to the godhead to the godhead being the reason for blood existing in Christ. This is further emphasized when one considers that this verse might not have originally said, "the Church of God," but, "the Church of the Lord."
This is one of three passages in the New Testament in regard to which there has been a long controversy among critics, which is not yet determined. The controversy is, whether is this the correct and genuine reading. The other two passages are, 1 Ti. iii. 16, and 1 Jn. v. 7. The MSS. and versions here exhibit three readings: the church OF GOD ( ); the church OF THE LORD ( ); and the church of THE LORD and GOD ( ). The Latin Vulgate reads it God. The Syriac, the Lord. The Arabic, the Lord God. The Ethiopic, the Christian family of God. The reading which now occurs in our text is found in no ancient MSS. except the Vatican Codex, and occurs nowhere among the writings of the fathers except in Athanasius, in regard to whom also there is a various reading...
It may be remarked, that a change from Lord to God might easily be made in the transcribing, for in ancient MSS. the words are not written at length, but are abbreviated. Thus, the name Christ () is written ; the name God () is written ; the name Lord () is written ; and a mistake, therefore, of a single letter would lead to the variations observable in the manuscripts.(83)
Dr. Barnes' argument is very scholarly; to many Fundamentalists, that means that it reeks of humanism and Satanism (the author is not exaggerating). Granting, for a minute, the Fundamentalist's objection to the use of textual criticism, there is still a problem left for them. When a Fundamentalist battles a cult, one of the first points made is that one verse cannot be used to support a doctrine. The Jehovah Witnesses can "prove" that Jesus was merely an angel, the first created, and most JW's know a lot more Scripture than most Fundamentalists. The Mormons can "prove" that Jesus witnessed to His people in America before returning to Heaven. Now, the Blood Indoctrinators "prove" that Jesus had God's blood, using Acts 20:28 as their most clear argument. They either ignore or abuse Hebrews 2:14, a verse that frankly contradicts their assertion. Hebrews probably includes that verse because the author of Hebrews was attacking the very same argument now propagated by the Blood Indoctrinators.
Whether Acts 20:28 now has the same wording that it had when the Holy Ghost gave it, or not, the meaning only changes if one assumes that our current wording of it means that the blood of God the Father purchased His church. If that is not the meaning that one wishes to impose on this verse, then it does not matter whether the verse says "the Church of God" or "the Church of the Lord," for it would likely be understood that both wordings refer to the same person, namely, Jesus Christ, and not God the Father. Jesus, who is part of the godhead, purchased His church with His blood. The author proposes that it is because a change in wording eliminates any chance for confusion by the Blood Indoctrinators that they abhor textual criticism, and not because there is any assault on the power of God to preserve His Scriptures in their original state. One sign of this is that when a Fundamentalist attacks the modern translations, he invariably complains that modern versions all use the corrupted Roman Catholic texts instead of the pure Protestant Textus Receptus (the concept of the corrupt tree and the good tree). However, the same Fundamentalist will then ignore a translation that supports his arguments, but can only be found in a Vatican codex, an example of which was given by Reverend Barnes.
E. Eve's sin, as well as Adam's, was passed to mankind.
Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Dr. Curtis Hutson:
If Christ had not been the virgin-born Son of God, He would have been a sinner...
Yes, we all inherited the sin nature from Adam. But when Jesus was born, He was born of a virgin without an earthly father. Thus He did not inherit this sin from Adam... Since Jesus was born of a virgin, without an earthly father, He did not inherit the sin nature.(84)
When a Blood Indoctrinator sees this verse, he claims it as proof that sin only came from Adam, not Eve. Adam was the man and Eve was the woman, you remember. Because of this belief, they make statements such as this one by Dr. DeHaan:
Eve's sin does not affect us, although Eve sinned before Adam did. It was the SIN OF ADAM which brought death upon the whole race because it is ADAM'S SEED.(85)
It is for this belief that the Blood Indoctrinator makes the error discussed in the section concerning Genesis 3:15. Supposedly, the first time that Romans 5:12 mentions "man," it means only the male ancestor, but the next time it means people in general. Sin entered by man, meaning the male, and passed upon all men, meaning male and female.
Conservative Christian have for many years countered the efforts of the feminist groups to produce a gender-neutral pronoun by saying that when the sex is general or unknown, the individual is referred to with the masculine pronoun. That was the rule taught to the author in Bible college. His English teacher said that despite the Equal Rights group, it is still proper to refer to a person of unknown sex as "he." Now some Fundamentalists claim that this verse says that sin came from one man, so it means that Adam's sin, but not Eve's sin, is in our blood!
Scripture indicates that when it makes a general reference to the first man, it includes the first woman in its meaning. Two verses that show this are Matthew 19:5,
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
and Genesis 5:1, 2,
... In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; {2} Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Therefore, the "one man" of Romans 5:12 logically refers to Adam and Eve. God made them from one flesh, and the wife is one flesh with her husband. Since it refers to both, it cannot mean that sin is passed from one parent alone. If Romans 5:12 means male and female when it says "by one man," then sin did not come from just Adam. Sin came from Adam and Eve, who were one. The Blood Indoctrinators do not have a basis for their claim that only Adam's sin, and not Eve's, affects us.
Albert Barnes makes five points on this verse:
1) "man" is a generic term for humans.
2) The name "Adam" was given to both the male and female (Gen. 5:1, 2)
3) It is usual to speak of the man first when a man and a woman are involved, since the man has a superior rank and authority.
4) The comparison of Paul was between the latter Adam, Jesus, and the first Adam; Jesus was a male, so sin is spoken of as coming from the male.
5) The effects of the woman's sin was not complete without the man's sin.(86)
The comments listed under Genesis 3:15, that only Jesus was spoken of in Scripture as being of man's seed, is also valid here. If we are sinners because we are born of Adam's seed, then Christ is a sinner, too, for the Bible five times says that He was born of man's seed. The Blood Indoctrinators have a problem.
Sin is not a substance that is inherited. There was nothing physically given to us, in the blood or elsewhere, that makes us a sinner. Sin is an action or deed (Romans 4:15, 1 John 3:4). It is not a substance. We inherited death from Adam because that is our legal property. Our parents earned that, and we inherited the deed to it. Death passed upon all men, for all have done a certain thing; all have sinned. The Blood Indoctrinators think death is upon all men, for all possess a certain thing; all have sin. Mentally, they have twisted Scripture by subtly changing words.
F. Christ could not have fulfilled the analogies of the Old Testament by taking His blood into Heaven.
Hebrews 9:8, 9
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: {9} Which <was> a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Dr. Jack Hyles:
Jesus is our passover, and in order for Him to be our passover, the blood must be applied! He's our atonement, and in order for Him to be our atonement, the blood must be applied by the high priest on the mercy seat. He is our Lord's Supper, not only His death in the broken body, but His resurrection in the blood. He is the One Who cleanses our sins as a leper is cleansed, and even in the cleansing of the leper, there are two birds, not one. One bird won't do. One bird must die, and another bird must take the blood into the sky, representing Jesus going to the presence of the Father and sprinkling His blood on the heavenly mercy seat.
One of the Blood Doctrine's strongest arguments for the location of Christ's blood is that the Old Testament types (analogies) required Christ, as the great High Priest, to carry His blood to the Mercy Seat in Heaven. It is not disputed that the Old Testament ceremonies were types or analogies showing the plan of Salvation, and man's need of Salvation. The dispute is, what, particularly, did each element of the analogies signify, and what must Christ have done to fulfill the analogies? That last question, "What must Christ have done to fulfill the analogies?" is most important. The Blood Indoctrinators insist that whatever else Christ must have done, He must have taken His blood into Heaven. Remember, they need to prove that.
At this point, the author has found that he can make the entire matter of what happened to Christ's blood very easy for the Blood Indoctrinators. They insist that Christ's blood had to be taken to Heaven for the analogy of the Old Testament sin-offerings to be fulfilled by Christ. Christ was our lamb, and the blood of The Lamb had to be applied to the Mercy Seat for our sins to be forgiven. If this were the only paragraph in this section, if all these other pages were blank, this next statement should be enough for the Blood Indoctrinators to abandon their crusade: THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB NEVER WENT INTO THE HOLY OF HOLIES. The blood that was sprinkled on the mercy seat was that of a bull (for the sin of the priest) and a goat (for the sin of the people). How many times have the Blood Indoctrinators compared Christ's blood to that of the sacrificial bull? Are they not guilty of blasphemy?
The reader may search the 188 occurrences of the word "lamb," or the 97 occurrences of the word "ram," that are in the Bible. The closest that the lamb's blood got to the mercy seat was when all of it was sprinkled at the foot of the altar outside the tabernacle. The same can be said of the ram. Could there be some symbolism in the Old Testament priest's sprinkling of ALL the lamb's blood at the foot of the altar that was outside the tabernacle? If so, might it not be that this signified that Christ shed and left all His blood at the foot of the cross, taking none of it to Heaven? Revelation 7:14 is often given as a proof that Christ took His blood to Heaven, but wait a minute! That verse says that the saints washed their robes white in the blood of the Lamb, and all of the blood of the lamb was always left at the altar where the lamb was slain.
To be consistent, the Blood Indoctrinator must now concede defeat. Christ was not our bull, and He certainly was not our goat (an animal that represented stubbornness). He was however, a scapegoat for us, but the scapegoat's blood never entered the holies, either. The Blood Indoctrinators don't make a distinction between the blood of these different animals, although it was clearly quite important to the ceremonies. All that they care about is that blood arrived inside the holies. Imagine how different we would be if we said, "Christ our Bull," instead of "Christ our Lamb!" What a different world it would be if we said that Christ was the "Goat of God," instead of the "Lamb of God."
Of course the ever-imaginative and stubborn Blood Indoctrinator will produce something to excuse his clinging to his belief. Pastor Singletary of Manzano Baptist Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, claims that the argument of the Lamb's blood is not of concern to him, since Moses also lifted a serpent on a post to symbolize Christ. He does not say why the Old Testament priest, who had the blood of the lamb right there, begging to be used in an analogy, still poured all of the lamb's blood at the foot of the altar outside the tabernacle. He doesn't explain how the blood of The Lamb entered the Holy of Holies when the blood of the lamb could not even enter the tabernacle.
Not only do we not need to believe that Christ had to take His blood to Heaven to fulfill the Old Testament types, but we must believe that He could not be keeping the types if He had. It would have broken the Old Testament analogy for the Lamb of God to have taken His blood into the Holies in Heaven. If an Old Testament priest had taken lamb's blood instead of bull's blood, he would have been in violation of God's command. The Blood Indoctrinator's don't care about that; they need blood, no matter how little or from what animal, to take into the holies. To a reasonable person, their argument is dead. It does not even matter that, contrary to the Blood Doctrine, the sin offering did not have to be bloody (Leviticus 5:11). The Blood Indoctrinator's argument is finished, even without that last fact.
There are more proofs that the Blood Indoctrinators are wrong, and some interesting facts associated with that. Perhaps the first point that should be made now is that a person can easily become pedantic in his interpretation of an analogy. Because they were analogies, one would expect that the reality bears some relationship to the figure, although not necessarily a perfect likeness in every point. The central point of an analogy is the only one that is certainly expressed in the true. No one, whether Blood Indoctrinator or Jew, knows what all the ceremonies particularly signified, or even why one object was fashioned in one way and not in another. Those who dogmatically pretend to know such minutia are vain.
It is not even certain why there were seven of some things, or forty of another; we claim that numerology (which is witchcraft) is significant in Christianity, but it is only a guess. The author does not know of anyone whose life or attitude has been changed for the better once they knew a reason for God's instructions in those small points. Indeed, most of the analogies seem to bear little importance beyond the time that they were used. Their inclusion seems more to have been of the necessities of a human fulfilling the rest of the analogies, rather than being analogously-significant, themselves. They have become trivia questions, knowledge held by the post-initiate for no purpose other than to signify that one is a post-initiate. No one knows if their interpretation of all those rituals and paraphernalia is correct, and, if it is, what it means to us.
Despite the use of the Old Testament analogies by the Blood Indoctrinators, there are many ceremonies about which little is said. This could be because it is hard to find a specific meaning for all the ceremonies. The Blood Indoctrinators have assigned a meaning for a few of the ceremonies, when it is convenient for their explanations. There are probably more unexplained ceremonies than explained. Certainly the Blood Indoctrinators are not the only people to have produced an explanation for the ceremonies, and those explanations don't necessarily agree at all with the explanations of the Blood Indoctrinators.
It does not benefit our understanding of Scripture to point to an Old Testament type and claim that it must mean this or that, and then defend the explanation by saying, "What else could it mean?" Only in the interpretation of prophecy do we again find such arrogant chaos in our churches. The reason for the boasting on both accounts is the same; it is the glory of God to hide a matter, but the honor of kings to search them out (Proverbs 25:10). As He did with gold, God has well-hid His meaning, and men want the power and prestige given them by knowing the answer. Some preachers are selling deeds to ores of iron pyrite.
Two important questions, which are critical links in the debate of the fate of Christ's blood, are "What blood did Christ take to Heaven?" and "When did He take that blood?" The Blood Doctrine should satisfactorily answer these two questions before they assume that they have the correct interpretations of the Old Testament analogies. Otherwise, their interpretation should be considered questionable. There are many other critical links in the Blood Doctrine, but it is sufficient to ask these two questions when initially testing the Blood Doctrine's claims.
The matter of when Christ took His blood to Heaven was addressed in the discussion of John 20:12. As was proven there, the Blood Indoctrinators do not have Scriptural support for a time when Christ took His blood to Heaven. They may guess and claim, but if they claim that Scripture proves their guess, they are deceiving their people, if not themselves.
The best guess found by the author came from Matthew Poole. He believed that as soon as Jesus breathed out His spirit, He appeared before God with His blood. He was correct, in that the Old Testament priest did not wait three days, or even three minutes, before he took the sacrificial blood into the holies. Even that claim, though, is not proven, but deduced. Jesus may have appeared immediately before the Father, but the Scripture never says that He took any of His shed blood with Him. Surely, had some of His blood disappeared at that moment, someone would have been startled enough to write about it. Surely, such an important event would have been ratified by the witness of the Holy Ghost. Matthew Poole, incidentally, was not at all a Baptist. The author would be grateful to anyone who could tell him about Matthew Poole, beyond the commentary that he wrote.
When the Old Testament high priest performed the annual ritual of the sin offering, he killed a sacrificial animal on an altar that was located outside the tabernacle. The priest collected the blood of that animal as the blood flowed from a slit in the animal's neck. Almost all the blood was then poured at the foot of the altar (Leviticus 4:34), except for a little bit that the priest would carry inside the tabernacle. After the priest had washed his flesh, and put on linen garments, he took that little bit of sacrificial blood into the tabernacle. He sprinkled the blood on another, smaller altar that was located inside the holies. He then went inside the holy of holies, and sprinkled the blood seven times on the mercy seat, and seven times in front of the mercy seat. Notice that only a little blood ever entered the Holies. The blood was not collected in a bucket and hauled into the temple and left, contrary to the Blood Indoctrinator's claim. They want to believe that every drop of His blood is on the Mercy Seat in Heaven, perhaps in a "golden chalice." That's un-Scriptural. There was just a little blood sprinkled in the Holies.
That was not the only sin offering ritual, however. The sin offering was made as often as necessary, and there were different rituals for different groups of people. One ritual was for the kings, another for the common people, another for the priests and another for the nation. The only time that anyone went into the holy of holies, however, was once a year, when the high priest took in the blood of the bull, to sprinkle it on and before the mercy seat. At all times, most of the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar outside. Sometimes all of the sin offering blood was poured there, such as when the sacrificial animal was a lamb.
Now comes the question of "What blood did Christ take to Heaven?" The Blood Indoctrinators believe that Christ collected all of the blood that He shed on the cross, and, after His resurrection, took it into the Holy of Holies that is in Heaven. He put His blood on the Mercy Seat in Heaven, perhaps in a bowl or a cup, where it remains today. Even today, it is pleading, perhaps with an audible voice, for the salvation of those who trust in its power to save them from sin. As was previously mentioned, that scenario contradicts the Old Testament record of events. This account by the Blood Indoctrinators is mostly imagination, and in contradiction with the Old Testament record of the priest's duties.
One problem with the Blood Indoctrinators present scheme is that it required Christ's blood to lay on the ground for three days before it was presented in Heaven. Never did a priest take the blood, once it fell to the earth, and carry it into the holy of holies. The idea that he would is absurd, and completely out of the nature of the requirements of sanctity given for the sacrifice. Yet, the Blood Indoctrinators say that when Christ picked up His blood from the ground where it lay, He was fulfilling a type of the Old Testament priest. If Christ did not take to Heaven the blood that He shed (and left) on Calvary when He died, what blood did He take? In the Old Testament, the priest collected the blood as it was shed; the Scriptural account makes it sound unlikely that someone did this as Christ was dying.
Another problem is that the Blood Indoctrinators are very close to producing another member of the godhead. It is no longer Christ who saves us; it is His blood. The difference may seem slight, but it is not. Would we think a woman normal who ignored her wounded child in favor of the blood that he left on a sidewalk? The blood is an extension of the individual; by itself, it does not have any significance. It is only in connection with the person from whom the blood came that it has any significance.
As mentioned earlier, the author neither defends nor refutes John MacArthur's claims for the blood of Christ, mostly because the author does not care what Dr. MacArthur said about Christ's blood. However, when Dr. Hyles was attacking Dr. MacArthur's claim, one method that he used is very interesting. Doctor Hyles said,
Do you know what that doctrine is that we're saved by His death only? It is nothing but Roman Catholic doctrine. It is crucifix stuff.(87)
Doctor Hyles, did you know that the idea that Christ's blood should be venerated, or worshiped, is thoroughly Catholic? It also has an interesting pagan equivalent. According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology,
The allusions of Christ at the Last Supper to the blood of the New Covenant and to the Paschal Lamb, added to the fact that the apostles associate the blood with the passion and death of Christ, gave rise to the idea that the precious blood is a part of the sacred humanity and is hypostatically [i.e., essentially] united with the second Person of the Trinity. It is argued that this view goes back to Ignatius of Antioch. This idea grew in the Middle Ages into a cult of veneration.(88)
and, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia,
Relics of the Precious Blood (not hypostatically united) were venerated at Mantria as early as 553, at Weingarten since 1090, and at Bruges since 1158...
The greatest epoch in the history of the special devotion began early in the 19th century, which witnessed the remarkable missionary activity of St. Gasper del Bufalo in the Papal States and the founding of the Society of the Precious Blood &ldots;
The devotion received its most explicit and official approval from John XXIII (called "Pope of the Precious Blood") in 1960.(89)
That phrase, "hypostatically united," means, "The blood that was an essential part of Christ's being." The Catholics claim to have some of His blood on a spear, in a bottle and in various other places. All the rest of His blood He took into Heaven. It is not a secret, to those who live in a Roman Catholic community, that the Roman Catholics venerate objects, especially those supposed to be from Christ's body. Thus, they pray to the "sacred heart of Jesus," instead of praying directly to Jesus. There are Blood Indoctrinators who believe that we should pray to the blood of Christ, that it will enable the Holy Spirit to work in our lives.
The idea that the wound of a divine body gives rise to another divine body that is independently worthy of worship is found in Greek mythology. The chiefest of the Greek gods, Zeus, was said to have had a headache one day. Hephaestus, according to Pindar, struck Zeus' head with an axe, and Hesiod wrote that Athena stepped into existence from there. This is not so different from claiming that the wounds of Christ produced talking blood, to which we should now pray or give reverence.
G. Christ did not enter Heaven with His blood.
Hebrews 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>.
Dr. Jack Hyles:
Why was the resurrection necessary? Because the high priest, Jesus, had to be raised from the dead so He could become our high priest and take the blood into the holy of holies.(90)
The Blood Indoctrinators claim that Christ entered Heaven with His blood, and quote Hebrews 9:12 to prove it. Yet, this verse does not say that He entered with His blood; it says that He entered by His blood. This is an enormous difference. It is the difference between proving the Blood Indoctrinators claim for the destination of Christ's blood, and discrediting those who use it for this purpose.
The words "by" and "with" are prepositions; they show the relationships of objects in space, time, use or origin. "By" can be used in either the instrumental (the instrument used by Christ to entered Heaven) or the locative (the location as Christ entered Heaven) sense, and so can "with." The Blood Indoctrinators claim that the word "by" is being used locatively in this verse, that is, that the verse shows the location of Christ's blood as He entered Heaven. That would exclude the use of the word "by" in the instrumental sense. The reader should ask himself two questions; "What is the evidence showing the way that the word 'by' should be understood?" and "What is the significance of each use of the word 'by'?"
The most favorable interpretation for the Blood Indoctrinators is by assuming that they are right that the word "by" should be used in the locative sense in this verse. However, when "by" is locative, it only means that the objects are near each other or beside each other for at least a short time. It does not mean that they accompany each other. If Christ entered Heaven near His blood, it would not mean that His blood was taken to Heaven. It would mean that His blood was along the path, somewhere, that Christ took to reach Heaven. Christ would have entered Heaven by His blood in the same way that you might enter your house by your mailbox. Therefore, the best possible interpretation of the English word used in this verse does not give the Blood Indoctrinators justification for saying that Christ took His blood into Heaven.
The other meaning of "by" indicates that Christ's blood was the reason or cause for Christ entering Heaven. This is the same meaning indicated when someone says, "I am saved by the power of God." It is due to that agent that another event took place. This seems to the author to be the most likely use of the word "by" in Hebrews 9:12. It does not violate a reasonable interpretation of this verse; it agrees with common English usage; the other meaning of this word does not seem to agree with the context of the verse. As long as it is agreed that the reasonable English translation of this word is "by," there is little room for doubt about the meaning for this verse.
If the word "with" had been used by the translators, then this verse could either mean that Christ accompanied His blood into Heaven, or it could mean that Christ used His blood to enter Heaven. The meaning becomes ambiguous. For 600 years, English translators have used the word "by" to convey the meaning of this verse. In recent years, though, they have been translating this verse so that it either could or must mean that Christ took His blood into Heaven. We Fundamentalists make much mention of the corrupted Bibles being published today. We recognize that heresy is taught by the elimination or alteration of important words in these corrupted Bibles. Yet, look who agrees with the Blood Indoctrinators. It's not the old English translations, but only the modern, corrupted texts!
Wiclif 1380,
nether bi blood of goot buckis or of calues: but bi his owne blood entrid oonys in to holi thingis that weren founden bi an euerlastynge redempcioun[.]
Tyndale 1534,
nether by the bloud of gotes and calves: but by his awne bloud we entred once for all into the holy place, and founde eternall redemcion.
Cranmer 1539,
nether by the bloud of goates and calues: but by hys awne bloude he entred in once into the holy place, and founde eternall redemcion.
Geneva 1557,
Nether by the bloude of goates and calues: but by his owne bloude entred in once into the Holy place and purchased eternal redemption for us.
Rheims 1582,
neither by the bloud of goates or of calues, but by his ovvne bloud entered in once into the Holies, eternal redemption being found.
Authorised 1611,
Neither by the blood of Goates and Calues: but by his owne blood hee entred in once into the Holy place, hauing obtained eternall redemption for us.
RSV,
he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking s not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
s Greek through
Phillips,
It was not with goats or calve's blood but with his own blood that he entered once for all into the holy of holies, having won for us men eternal reconciliation with God.
N. E. B.,
the blood of his sacrifice is his own blood, not the blood of goats and calves; and thus he has entered the sanctuary once and for all and secured an eternal deliverance.
When there is a question about a copy or a translation's meaning or accuracy, the reasonable thing to do is to look at the text from which the copy or translation was made. In the case of this verse, that generally means looking at one or another Greek text (although Wiclif made his translation from the Church of Rome's Latin Vulgate(91)). For the Blood Indoctrinators to be correct about this word being used locatively, the verse must say that Christ entered Heaven with (accompanied by) His blood. It definitely does not. The word used is ("dia," meaning "pass through [the middle]," "the instrument that causes an occurrence" or "the reason that something happens"), not µ ("meta," meaning "in the company of" or "assist or help"), or ("soon," meaning "to travel with or accompany," or "to go together"). The Holy Ghost was particular on that point; He could have made the matter at least doubtful enough to give the Blood Indoctrinators room to insert their meaning into the phrase. His choice of wording absolutely eliminates that possibility. The Blood Indoctrinators do not have any basis for using this verse to support the Blood Doctrine. It requires a willful misrepresentation of fact to translate this in their favor.
If "by" is used instrumentally, it means that Christ used His blood as the means for entering Heaven. It would not mean that His blood was necessarily anywhere near Him. It only means that the blood gave Christ the power or authority to enter the holy place, where He could plead for our Salvation. When we go to a stadium or a theater, there is someone who collects our tickets to let us in. We enter by the authority of the ticket. The ticket does not enter; it only allows us to enter. This is the usage that makes the most sense in this verse. Notice the comments made by Albert Barnes in Hebrews 9:12:
It was by, or by means of... The meaning is, that it was in virtue of his own blood, or by means of that... the consideration on which he pleads for the pardon of his people, is the blood which he shed on Calvary. Having made the atonement, he now pleads the merit of it as a reason why sinners should be saved... It is not of course meant that he literally bore his own blood into heaven... or that he literally sprinkled it on the mercy-seat... [Christ's shed blood] is now the ground of his pleading...(92)
Albert Barnes lived and died over a century ago. Yet, the Blood Indoctrinators want us to believe that the faith of the fathers demands that Christ took His blood into Heaven. They say that only Modernistic Liberals deny the Blood Doctrine's teachings. Well, here's another Modernistic Liberal, Arthur Pink:
...It was by virtue of the blood of these animals that Aaron entered so as to be accepted with God. The reference here is not directly to what the high priest brought with him into the holiest--or the "incense" too had been mentioned--but to the title which the sacrifices gave him to approach unto the Holy One of Israel...(93)
An interesting point about Mr. Pink's comments is that they show that a person can believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament analogies without literally taking His blood into Heaven. Furthermore, it shows that a Fundamentalist preacher can hold such a belief. The Blood Indoctrinators would very much like to forget these things.
John Owen made the very interesting observation that,
It is a vain speculation, contrary to the analogy of faith, and destructive of the true nature of the oblation of Christ, and inconsistent with the dignity of his person, that he should carry with him into heaven a part of that material blood which was shed for us on the earth. This some have invented, to maintain a comparison in that wherein is none intended. The design of the apostle is only to declare by virtue of what he entered as a priest into the holy place. And this was by virtue of his own blood when it was shed, when he offered himself unto God.(94)
The reader may detect an insistence in Mr. Owen's statement, regarding the time and place of Christ's sacrifice. Mr. Owen had, for three pages previous to the one on which this comment appeared, made several strong arguments against Socinianism (Socinianism had a strong influence on the formation of English Unitarianism). It was their belief that Christ's sacrifice was only in Heaven, and not on Earth. They believed that the blood that Christ shed on the cross had no effect for our Salvation, but only Christ's offering in Heaven. By coincidence, these are the same teachings of the Blood Doctrine.
The Blood Indoctrinators have given stinging opinions about people who say such things as Mr. Owen said about Christ's blood. The Blood Indoctrinators claim that those who don't believe that Christ took His blood to Heaven treat Christ's blood with contempt. However, Mr. Owen felt very strongly about the holiness of Christ's blood:
The ruin of Christian religion lies in the slight thoughts of men about the blood of Christ; and pernicious errors do abound in opposition unto the true nature of the sacrifice which he made thereby.(95)
Most people would consider a 300 year-old comment to be anything-but new. Yet, Dr. Paisley says,
Into the pulpit of the churches there has come a new breed of men who sail under the flag of evangelicalism and some of whom even dare to hoist the flag of fundamentalism... They preach on the necessity of being washed in the Saviour's blood in order to get to Heaven &ldots; Then they tell their congregations that they have been to college, have met up with scholars and the majority evangelical scholarly view is that the blood of Christ ran into the sand.(96)
Doctor Paisley wrote his comments after 1983, since he criticized Professor Pat in that same article. Note also that Dr. Paisley attacks the idea that Christ's blood ran into the sand, even though 1) Luke 22:44 says that when Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemene, His sweat became as great drops of blood falling to the earth, and 2) the instructions for the analogy of Christ's offering (e.g., Exodus 29:12) required "all the blood" to be poured at the foot of the altar upon which the sacrificial animal was offered. All of the lamb's blood was to be poured at the foot of the altar outside the tabernacle. All of the blood of the bull and goat was also poured there, except for that little bit that was taken into the Holy of Holies. Doctor Hyles made the comment that
...If that blood had just been left at the altar, not a single Jew would have had one sin forgiven. It's not the blood at the foot of the altar; it's the blood on the mercy seat.(97)
The author believes that Dr. Hyles is wrong when he says that "not one sin" was forgiven based on the blood at the foot of the altar; why have a sin offering all year round when the only one that mattered was the annual sin offering? The Blood Indoctrinators have placed exclusive interest in the offering in the Holies, to the exclusion of the offering outside the Holies. Mr. Owen's primary argument against Socinianism was that Christ had to make his offering for our sin on the Earth, not in Heaven.
There were many typical sacrifices, which nothing belonging unto went beyond their suffering. Such were all the expiatory sacrifices, or sacrifices to make atonement, whose blood was not carried into the sanctuary &ldots; And these sacrifices were types of the sacrifice of Christ, as our apostle testifies, chap. vii. 27, "Who needeth not daily" ( µ) "to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." Had he intended only the sacrifice of the high priest, he could not have said that he was to offer it µ, "daily," when he was to do so only , "yearly," chap. x. 1. It is therefore , or "daily sacrifice," that he intends, and this was not carried on beyond suffering.
...But there was nothing of these sacrifices carried into the holy place, nor any representation made of them therein &ldots; Wherefore, if the sacrifice of Christ answered unto them, as the apostle teacheth us that it did, he offered it in his suffering, his death, and blood-shedding only. After this he entered as our high priest into the holy place not made with hands, to appear in the presence of God for us...(98)
We see here that a very educated, godly man, the epitome of what Fundamentalism was supposed to take us to, uses the Bible to prove that the daily offerings, as opposed to the yearly, typified Christ's atoning sacrifice of Himself. Furthermore, this also shows that Christ could not have taken His blood into Heaven, since that would have broken the type. Notice that it is when this old-fashioned Christian attacks a Satanic denomination that he finds himself exactly attacking the teachings of the Blood Doctrine.
Doctor Paisley should be careful how he attacks the "majority scholarly view," since it is this compromised view that supports him, and since he probably did at least a little bit of work to earn his title. It is self-defeating, if not hypocritical, for a man with a doctorate to condemn scholarship, unless he renounces his education. The author also notes that Fundamentalists become quite agitated when a new translation leaves out the word "blood" in some reference, but they don't seem at all disturbed by the obvious change in meaning of the above verse. For 600 years the Bible has said that Christ entered "bi" His blood, the only reasonable meaning being that He entered by the power or authority of it. Now, for no apparent reason, someone changes "bi" to "with," and not even the Fundamentalists object. Is there a conspiracy here? The editors of the Revised Standard Version at least hinted that they did not put the original meaning in their translation; their footnote says that the word that they translated to mean "taking &ldots; his own blood" actually meant, "through." The average reader, though, probably would only be confused if he tried to substitute "through" for "taking" in this verse.
Hebrews 10:19 says that we have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." The Bible says that Jesus entered the Holies by His blood, which is the same way that we enter the Holies! This is obviously figurative, since none of us have actually entered Heaven before our deaths. If Jesus took His blood to Heaven in Hebrews 9:12, then we must take His blood to Heaven in Hebrews 10:19. The Blood Indoctrinators know that they don't have a drop of Christ's blood to show anyone, so they become al here, pretending a deep mystery, that in their SOUL they possess the blood of Jesus. Since we can't see that, we can't disprove it; be suspicious of a religion that relies on tricks of faith, since too many deadly cults rely on that to keep their members. The Bible says that our hearts are washed with His blood, but it doesn't say that His blood is in us. The Blood Indoctrinator cannot accept that we don't need a magic substance to be seen by God and that Christ's sacrifice was all that mattered.
What did Abraham or Moses or Job possess that could give them an audience with God? The blood of Christ (and, therefore, the blood of God) did not yet exist. They only had faith in a sacrifice that would take place. All we need is faith in a sacrifice that did take place. None of us need to have Christ's blood to have an audience with God, and, for the Scriptures to be consistent, Christ did not carry His blood into Heaven. The Blood Indoctrinators are trying to pawn a degenerate religion on us.
There is another aspect of this verse to consider. The last phrase of verse 12 is usually translated to say that Christ entered the holy place "having obtained eternal redemption." This phrase means that
Christ entered into the heavenly sanctuary "after He had secured" an eternal redemption. The securing of our eternal redemption took place at the cross and was followed by His entry into heaven.(99)
Those of the Blood Doctrine tell us that Christ had to present His blood on the Mercy Seat in Heaven before we could be redeemed. Dr. Hyles tells new converts,
...after 72 hours, He rose again &ldots; Why did He rise? He rose because He had to take His blood to the presence of our God... how did He give us eternal redemption? By being the High Priest. &ldots; the blood had to be applied in the presence of God...(100)
... If that blood had just been left at the altar, not a single Jew would have had one sin forgiven. It's not the blood at the foot of the altar; it's the blood on the mercy seat.(101)
Yet, Hebrews 9:12 says we were redeemed before Christ entered the Holies and after He was crucified. The work of redemption was completed on the cross (John 19:28, 30 "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst &ldots; When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished &ldots;") Hebrews says we were secured before He entered; Blood Indoctrinators say that it was after.
It should be noted here that when the author has presented John 19:28-30 to the Blood Indoctrinators, they indicate that they don't think that Christ meant that His work of redemption was finished, but that His work on Earth was finished. In other words, "all things were not now accomplished, but awaited their completion in Heaven." If Christ was on the cross to take man's place in God's judgement, it would make the most sense that when Christ said, "It is finished," that He was referring to His substitutionary work. If His work was not done on the cross, but in Heaven, then the cross was merely a stepping-stone in the plan of Salvation. The Gnostics believed that Christ's crucifiction was not in itself redeeming, but merely an illustration or teaching tool to show how man should reach the unknown God, or that the cross was the instrument that enabled Christ to return to the unknown God. What an odd coincidence.
Christ entered the Holies before His Resurrection, and our eternal redemption was secured before He entered the Holies. The Resurrection was the sign to us of that securing. The Blood Indoctrinators say that the blood had to be in the Holies in Heaven; the Bible says that our eternal redemption was secured before Christ even entered the Holies. The Bible's explicit explanation of this is more important than any interpretation of Old Testament types, particularly types that only exist in the minds of Blood Indoctrinators.
Mr. Owen commented on this in his attacks on Socinianism:
[There is no reason to believe that Scripture uses the past tense in Hebrews 9:12, but means the continuing present, except] the false hypothesis of our adversaries, that Christ offered not himself until his entrance into heaven, which they judge sufficient to oppose unto the clearest testimonies to the contrary. For whereas the words of the apostle signify directly that the Lord Christ first obtained eternal redemption, and then entered into heaven, or the holy place not made with hands, they will have his intention to be the direct contrary,--that he first entered into heaven, and then obtained eternal redemption; for that offering of himself which they suppose was consequential unto his entrance into the holy place.(102)
H. Mt. Sion is not Heaven.
Hebrews 12:18, 20-24
For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, {20} (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: {21} And so terrible was the sight, <that> Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) {22} But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, {23} To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, {24} And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than <that of> Abel.
Dr. Ian Paisley:
In this passage there are revealed the sevenfold realities of Heaven. The "ands" indicate the divisions of the text, forming a pointer to each one of the seven &ldots; There is no doubt about the reality of all the above.
"Oh yes there is," says this new breed of preachers.
All that are mentioned above are real except the blood. God places it at the apex. They displace it altogether. There is no blood in Heaven, they affirm...(103)
The rebuttal to Dr. Paisley can be found by looking at the whole passage. Instead of cutting Hebrews 12:22-24 from its surroundings, one should include verses 18-21. It becomes clear that this passage was contrasting Mount Sion with Mount Sinai. Like many Fundamentalists, Dr. Paisley claims that Mount Sion is Heaven. What is the contrast of Heaven? It is Hell, of course.
What is the contrast of Mount Sion in this passage? It is Mount Sinai. What is at the apex of things on Mount Sion, according to Dr. Paisley? The blood of sprinkling is on Mount Sion, he claims. What was on Mount Sinai, according to the Bible? The Law was given on Mt. Sinai. God spoke to Moses out of Mount Sinai! If the blood is in Heaven, if Mt. Sion is Heaven, then God's Law is in Hell. Would God say that His Law is in Hell? Does it make sense that the perfection of God would be symbolized by Hell? Of course not!
Mount Sinai was the place where God gave His Law, the rule of perfect justice. By the Law of Justice, no flesh could live. It required perfection, but if a man kept it, he would live (Leviticus 18:5). This was symbolized by the command that no creature could touch the mountain and live, for the mount was holy. Instead of representing Hell, Mount Sinai represents the Law of God.
Hebrews was written to console the Jewish Christian, who was bemoaning his lost traditions. It did this by showing how much more the Christian has over the Jew. Instead of the fearfulness of the Law, we have many blessings from Salvation by Grace. Hebrews illustrates this by comparing Mt. Sion with Mt. Sinai. Since Mt. Sinai represents Salvation by Law, it would be logical for Mt. Sion to represent Salvation by Grace. Instead of representing Heaven, Mount Sion represents the Grace of God.
The Apostle Paul also thought that this was the case of these two mounts. In Galatians 4:22, Paul began a brief commentary on the matter, making the opinion subject to Divine Inspiration.
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. {23} But he <who was> of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman <was> by promise. {24} Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. {25} For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. {26} But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
What were the "two covenants" mentioned in Galatians? Paul told us in Romans that the Old Covenant was the Law, which was our school master to bring us to Christ. The New Covenant is the covenant of Grace. Clearly, Paul considered Mount Sinai to represent the Law (bondage), while Mount Sion (Jerusalem) represented Grace (free). Since it is suspected that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, it would not be unusual for this same sense to be used in Hebrews.
Doctor Paisley by-passed a problem in his reference when he categorically stated that the "ands" were connections of the sevenfold realities of Heaven. The verse says that we are come to mount Sion, AND unto the city of the living God. There is clearly a distinction between Mt. Sion and the city of the living God, which we take to be Heaven. Furthermore, verse 23 says that we not only have come to the saints, but that their names are written in Heaven. The structure of this sentence makes it appear that Heaven is a place distinct from the Mt. Sion, to which we have come. Since there is a distinction, they are not the same, and there is no need to believe that this verse means that Christ's blood is in Heaven when verse 24 lists it as one of the things to which we have come at Mt. Sion. Indeed, there is no need to believe that this passage lists the sevenfold realities of Heaven, an idea that seems to have been a human invention. As noted previously, Paul did not think that Mt. Sion was Heaven.
If "ye are come" speaks to us, who walk the Earth, then we have come to Mount Sion while we are on Earth. While one could argue that by faith, we are come to Heaven, the most straightforward explanation of this verse (for those without the need to prove that Christ's blood is in Heaven) is that we have come to these promises on Earth, and they are given to us while we are here. Much of what is mentioned in this passage happens to be in Heaven, at least some of the time. If we have come to Mt. Sion, as this verse says, it must mean Mt. Sion represents Salvation by Grace (we are not yet in Heaven). If Mt. Sion signifies Heaven, the Bible is wrong to say "ye have come," because we have not gone to Heaven.
Dr. Paisley, where does 1 John 5:8, 9 say the blood is a witness? Does it not say it is on Earth? There is no mention of the blood of Christ witnessing in Heaven.
This argument by Dr. Paisley is, oddly enough, another that was held by the Socinians. Mr. Owen commented that,
The Socinian expositor, who affects subtilty and curiosity, affirms, 'That by mount Sion, either heaven itself, or rather a spiritual mountain, whose roots are on the earth, and whose top reacheth unto heaven, from whence we may easily enter into heaven itself, is intended:' wherein he understood nothing himself of what he wrote; for it is not sense, nor to be understood. And the reason he gives, namely, 'That Sion in the Scripture is more frequently taken for heaven than the church,' is so far from truth, that he cannot give any one instance where it is so taken.(104)
I. Christ's blood was mortal.
1 Peter 1:18, 19
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, <as> silver and gold, from your vain conversation <received> by tradition from your fathers; {19} But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Dr. Ian Paisley:
The blood that coursed in the blood vessels of the holy incorruptible body of God Incarnate while He was on earth was as holy and uncorruptible as the flesh of the body itself.
When His precious blood was separated from His body it remained incorruptible, says the Scripture, in Peter's Epistle.(105)
The Bible contrasts Christ's blood against corruptible things. To a Blood Indoctrinator, that means that Christ's blood could never physically decay, for this would be corruption. If Christ's blood never decayed, it must exist somewhere in the form that it had while it was still in Christ's veins. The Roman Catholic denomination claims that it possesses samples of Christ's imperishable blood, even as much as a vial of it in one place. Non-Catholics who believe that Christ's blood was immortal do not accept the Roman Catholic's claim, but say that all of Christ's blood is in Heaven. These views are necessary results of the teaching that Christ's blood was not subject physical decay.
However, this verse does not have to be understood to mean that Christ's blood would never return to dust once it separated from His body. The verse contrasts Christ's blood to silver and gold. Whatever corruptibility silver and gold experience, Christ's blood does not. If the incorruptibility of Christ's blood means that it will never return to dust, then the corruptibility of silver and gold must mean that they will return to dust. Yet, it is not factual that silver and gold turn to dust. In fact, those two elements are the least likely candidates that Peter could have chosen if he had meant this kind of corruption.
Silver and gold almost always refer to durability, when the question is about durability. Usually, they are meant to convey a sense of value. Almost all of the 479 occurrences of silver and gold in the Bible are there because those two elements are valuable, not because they rot. Even when James 5:3 says that the silver and gold of the rich men is cankered (literally, is eaten, and their rust or poison would testify against them and eat their flesh), it doesn't mean that the silver and gold rot, but, rather, that the wickedness of the rich men who hoarded these things is so great that what they had hoarded would destroy them. The idea of treasures rotting or physically corrupting cannot be applied to silver and gold by themselves, but to other riches, such as grain, garments, oil, iron and other decaying materials.(106) Out of 479 contexts for silver and gold in the Bible, the Blood Indoctrinators have latched onto a meaning that was rarely, if ever, intended when discussing silver and gold.
The fact is that silver and gold do not make good representatives of things that decompose. Gold does not tarnish or corrode, it never oxidizes directly, and it is insoluble in nitric, hydrochloric and sulfuric acids.(107) Silver isn't much more reactive, although, unlike gold, it normally tarnishes. If Peter had been trying to illustrate physical corruption, he could have chosen much better materials, and would have had a hard time choosing worse. That should make the reader wonder if Peter was discussing physical decay.
The Greek word used in 1 Peter 1:18 for corruptible things, (fthartos), means, "perishable, subject to decay or destruction."(108) The King James translators, like all the major English translators before them, interpreted this word to mean "corruptible." They apparently believed that the context of this Greek word warranted the use of an English word that can indicate moral as well as physical decay. Silver and gold perish, not literally, but by transfer, theft or investment loss (Proverbs 23:5; 27:24). They are corruptible, not physically, but morally (Exodus 23:8, Deuteronomy 16:18, 19).
Furthermore, there was a need for us to be redeemed, and this need demanded more than outward riches. Verse 16 reiterated the command for us to be holy because God is holy. Verse 17 said that we should pass our time on Earth in fear because the Father judges all people according to their works. Finally, verse 18 reaches the climax by saying that we should maintain this holiness because we were not redeemed with such things as silver and gold, which have no value to God, the Just Judge, but with the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ. Silver and gold may bribe Earthly judges, and may give men great power while they are on Earth, but they could not have any influence in gaining our redemption.
There are other verses that state that Christ's body would not see corruption. These verses are not frequently cited when the Blood Indoctrinators discuss Christ's blood, even though these verses clearly are referring to physical decay. The reason for this neglect may be that these verses do not specifically mention Christ's blood.
Psalms 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see [corruption].
Matthew Poole explains the phrase concerning corruption in this verse this way;
To see corruption, or rottenness, i.e. to be corrupted or putrefied in the grave as the bodies of other are... the Hebrew word shochath, though sometimes by a metonymy it signifies the pit or place of corruption, yet properly and generally it signifies corruption... it is properly and literally true in Christ alone, although it may in a lower and metaphorical sense be applied to David...
Albert Barnes,
...the idea in the psalm is not that the person referred to would not go down to the grave, or would not die, but that he would not moulder back to dust in the grave, or that the change would not occur to him in the grave which does to those who lie long in the tomb. Peter and Paul both regard this as a distinct prophecy that the Messiah would be raised from the grave without returning to corruption, and they argue from the fact that David did return to corruption in the grave like other men, that the passage could not have referred mainly to himself, but that it had a proper fulfillment, and its highest fulfillment, in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Doctor Paisley said,
You cannot sprinkle blood that has congealed. You cannot sprinkle blood that has perished.(109)
You don't have to, Dr. Paisley. When the Roman guard pierced Christ's side with a spear, The Lamb's blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar upon which He was sacrificed, just like it was in Exodus and Leviticus.
Once again, the Blood Indoctrinators have taken a verse of Scripture and used it to support their Doctrine, even though that is not necessarily the best meaning of the verse. The Blood Indoctrinators took the silence of the Scriptures as proof of their beliefs; the Bible doesn't say that His blood decayed. Yet, would it be unusual for blood to decay? If not, then Scripture would not have recorded it, unless it was the subject of an incident.
On this last point, the author admits that there exists some lee-way in how one can interpret this passage. For example, Dr. Barnes said that the gold was a reference to the price of a slave. The point that the author wishes to make is mostly that one need not accept the Blood Indoctrinator's views in order to remain consistent with Scripture. Furthermore, one cannot maintain all of the Blood Doctrine's points and be Scripturally consistent. The author does not suppose that all Blood Indoctrinators accept all of these points, but, "If the shoe fits... "
CONCLUSION
This book has presented what the author believes is proof that there was no need, nor normal mechanism, for Christ to inherit other-than-human blood, either God the Father's, or something non-existent prior to the Incarnation. There is no need to interpret any passage of Scripture as saying that Christ had other-than-human blood, and there is good reason to believe that Scripture says that Christ had normal human blood. Furthermore, the Blood Indoctrinators are in serious error in almost every argument that they use in their attempt to prove that Christ had non-human blood, so much so that they bring justifiable reproach on the testimony of Fundamentalism. The Bible even condemns those who say that Christ's physical being was not made of human flesh and human blood (1 John 4:1-3, Hebrews 2:14).The author agrees that the Old Testament sacrifices were an analogy of Christ's crucifiction. This does not mean that Christ's crucifiction was mechanically identical to the Old Testament sacrifices. As before, there is no reason to believe, and good reason not to believe, that Christ took His blood to Heaven. As before, the Blood Indoctrinators have used a unique and questionable mode of biblical interpretation to prove their claims. Their errors in this matter are not so profoundly obvious as those of the origin of Christ's blood.
These beliefs of various Blood Indoctrinators have been recorded so that the reader may know the opponents to this author's arguments. The battle is no longer based on reason or Scripture, but on the whims of their imagination. They would criticize a Hindu, a Moslem, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness for so obstinately clinging to those beliefs. They understand that when the World refuses to even hear the Gospel, that the World is finding a refuge in lies. Despite that, they will not acknowledge their errors, they will not answer these challenges to their beliefs and some will not even allow themselves to know the arguments presented against their belief. Even if the Blood Indoctrinator is correct in his Doctrine, he is still a cult member, a fanatic, a man with only imaginary grounds for his dogmatic beliefs, and a coward who is afraid to face the truth. The author is not asking for tolerance; he is asking for fair judgement.
When the pastor of a church learns that the author does not hold the views common to Fundamentalism, he responds in a typical way. The arguments are repeated from church to church. They don't try to prove the author is wrong and they are right. Instead, they ask the author why he attends their services when he does not hold their beliefs about Christ's blood. They try to convince the author to keep his beliefs to himself. Obviously, they don't want to deal with the matter in an honest debate; they have control of their people's minds only by keeping the congregation ignorant.
The height of their arrogance comes as they tell the author, "If you tell someone what you believe, and they then believe as you do, you will be responsible for causing division in the body of Christ." They say that's why the author must keep quiet. Imagine the nerve of these people! It is better, they say, for us to silence, expel or impugn a brother than to permit a view that would cause turmoil, but might be correct, to become known. It is better to believe a lie and live in peace than to find the truth and risk division. The author has produced an honest argument; they have cowardly and dishonestly attempted to silence him without hearing his argument. For five years, the author has diligently examined every text concerning this matter that he could. Now these people say, "Keep quiet about what you found in your research," all because they are afraid of what the author might have said! They cannot imagine that perhaps they are wrong, or even that they don't know what they or the author is talking about. People like that are real scoundrels.
The Blood Indoctrinators teach a cult, a cult of the blood. It speaks in Heaven like a Fourth Member of the Godhead. It has Its own will, Its own Power. We are expected to call It in prayer, or even pray to It. It pleads for our Salvation, interceding between God and man. Some groups even claim that the blood of Christ controls the Holy Ghost! By claiming the blood, revivals can break out, and people will speak in tongues and be healed!(110) The belief leads naturally into Gnosticism Socinianism. Part of the Blood Doctrine is embraced by Roman Catholics, who venerate Christ's blood as being worthy of worship.(111) Most of the Blood Doctrine is only found in the beliefs of cults.
The author has produced far beyond what would have convinced a reasonable person. He has included more details than what most people are able to understand, and still the Blood Indoctrinators produce new objections to the obvious. If the author gave only simple points, the Blood Indoctrinators would claim that he hadn't done enough research. Now that he has produced this document, they claim that his studies relied on man's wisdom, not God's. Most Fundamentalist preachers are hopeless this way. They get these ideas from a fantasy world, in which God never allows evil to gain control of our religious artifacts, and Bibles leap out of fires (yes, that was meant figuratively--it indicates the nature, if not the specific beliefs, of Fundamentalist beliefs). They say the most amazing things in defense of their beliefs, and that includes subjects apart from the Blood Doctrine. It was when the author realized the extent of this that he decided to offer this booklet to the general public, so that they might be forewarned.
The Blood Indoctrinators use horribly warped facts from history, science and the Bible to justify their teaching, and they pretend to be authorities on these things. They attempt to delude Christians into believing that only Modernists reject their teachings, on the grounds that all Old-Fashioned, godly men believed as they do. Their beliefs are very similar to key elements of Gnosticism. There are many flaws in the most critical arguments they present. What can the Blood Indoctrinators say for themselves?
Perhaps the Blood Indoctrinators only grudgingly give a thorough explanation of their Doctrine because they are merely imitating what each other has said, and they feel uncomfortable with their ignorance. The Blood Doctrine is a quiet giant, rarely seen, rarely identified, insidious. Even when parts of it are seen, they may not be recognized for what they are.
To send your comments or questions to the author, write to:
Richard Alexander
richard.alexander@usa.net
LIST OF CREDITS
Janet Wolfe, proofreaderRay Mondragon, technical consultant, Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Inc.
Dr. Richard Davey, MD, technical consultant by correspondence, American Association of Blood Banks.
Dr. Jo Lynn Procter, MT(ASCP) SBB Med, technical consultant by correspondence, American Association of Blood Banks.
Gratitude is expressed to Joe Hicks for the use of his theological library. Many of the other resource materials were obtained from Zimmermann Library of University of New Mexico, or from Albuquerque Technical-Vocational Institute. Copies of some resource materials were donated to the author from Target, The Official Publication of Tim Lee Ministries, and from Utah Lighthouse Ministry.
Several doctors, at Lovelace Medical Center, Veteran's Administration Hospital, University of New Mexico Hospital and American Association of Blood Banks, assisted the author. It was the author's good fortune that his mother worked as a lab technician in various hematology research labs for the first few years of the writing of this book. Further assistance was given by members of various churches and synagogues, including the Waldensian Presbyterian Church, in Valdese, NC, and Adat Yeshua and Temple Albert in Albuquerque, NM. This assistance was usually an answer to the author's questions or a referral to other resource material. Some doctors, such as Dr. Cheryl Willman, donated books and pamphlets to the author for his use.
Many Fundamentalists also provided feedback on the material presented in this booklet, which was one reason that the author had a hard time finding a fundamental, Independent Baptist church that would let him join. Incredible as it may seem, some Fundamentalists admitted that the author was right in fact, but claimed that he was the wrong vessel for the task, and so was wrong in practice. All the opinions promoted as correct in this document are the author's alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those who provided assistance.
At various times, this document has been composed in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, DacEasy Word, ASCII text (using a text editor called "SLED"), PFS:Professional Write and WordStar, on a variety of IBM PC-compatible computers. The final preparation used Corel WordPerfect 7.0 for Windows 95. Graphics were prepared in Adobe Illustrator for Windows. Camera-ready copy was produced from a Hewlett-Packard LaserJet IIISi. Bible quotations were entered, except where noted otherwise, by using the King James Version of QuickVerse 2.0 Bible software, distributed by Parson's Technology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Note: Dewey Decimal Number provided when knownLC is the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number
ISBN is the International Standard Book Number
American Peoples Encyclopedia, The. Editor-in-Chief: Edward Humphrey. Grolier, Inc.: New York. Copyright © 1965."Artificial Blood Substitutes." Clinical Practice of Transfusion Medicine. Lawrence D. Petz, M.D. and Scott N. Swisher, M.D. Second Edition. 1560 Broadway, New York, NY 10036: Churchill Livingstone Inc. Copyright © 1989. WB 356 T77282. RM171.T683 1989. 615'.39. LC 88-35216. ISBN 0-443-08548-X.Barnes, Albert. 1847. Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testament. Robert Frew. PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-0837-9.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Revised and augmented from Walter Bauer's Fifth Edition. William Arndt. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 60637. Copyright © 1979. PA881.B38.1979 487'.4 LC: 78-14293. ISBN: 0-226-03932-3.
Berry, George Ricker, Ph.D. 1958. The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament. Zondervan Publishing House: 1415 Lake Drive, S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49506. October 1971. Copyright © 1961.
Blunt, John Henry. Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Bodies and Schools of Religious Thought. Longmans Green: London. 1892. BR.95.B6x.1892.
Bush, L. Russ. Baptists and the Bible. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Copyright © 1980. BS480.B83. 220.1'3 LC 80-11694. ISBN 0-8024-0466-9.
Cairns, Earle E. 1954. Christianity Through the Centuries. 1415 Lake Drive, SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506: The Zondervan Corporation. Copyright © 1981. BR145.2.C28 1981 270 LC 80-39597. ISBN 0-320-38360-9.
Carroll, Dr. J.M. 1931. "The Trail of Blood" &ldots;: Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries &ldots; or The History of Baptist Churches From the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day. 163 N. Ashland Avenue, Lexington, KY 40502: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. October 1986. Copyright © 1931.
Chang, Raymond. 1981. Chemistry. Third Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Copyright © 1988. LC 87-16330. ISBN 0-07-555235-3.
Clinical Hematology. 8th Ed. Maxwell Myer Wintrobe. Lea & Febiger: 600 Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Copyright © 1981. ISBN 0-8121-0718-7. LC 81-12395.
"Convenience Tops List of Abortion Reasons." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LIV, No. 1. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, August 28, 1992.
Cramp, J. M., D.D. 1871. Baptist History: Foundation of the Christian Church to the Present Time. Copy from the library of Dr. Richard C. Weeks. 224 Arcade Avenue, Watertown, WI 53094: Baptist Heritage Publications. Copyright © 1987.
Cruden, Alexander. 1737. Cruden's Unabridged Concordance to the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha. Baker Book House: PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49506. Copyright © 1963. LC 54-11084.
DeHaan, M. R. 1943. "The Chemistry of the Blood." The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation: Grand Rapids, MI 49506. December 1974. Copyright © 1971.
Encyclopedia Americana, The. 1829. International Edition. 30 Vol. Grolier, Inc.: Danbury, CT 06816. Copyright © 1990. AE5.E333 1990. LC 89-23780. ISBN 0-7172-0121-X(v.1).
Encyclopedia of Religion, The. Macmillan Publishing Company: 866 Third Avenue, NY, NY 10022. Copyright © 1987.
English Hexapla, The: Exhibiting the Six Important English Translations of the New Testament Scriptures, Wiclif M.CCC.LXXX, Tyndale M.D.XXXIV, Cranmer M.D.XXXIX, Genevan M.D.LVII, Anglo-Rhemish M.D.LXXXII, Authorised M.DC.XI. The Original Greek Text after Scholz with the various readings of the Textus Receptus and the Principal Constantinopolitan and Alexandrine Manuscripts, and a complete collation of Scholz's Text with Griesbach's Edition of M.DCCC.V.; preceded by a History of English Translations and Translators. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, Paternoster Row. 1848.
Geyer, Robert P., Ph.D. "Substitutes for Blood--Experimental and Practical Considerations." A Seminar on Blood Components: E Unum Pluribus, presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Blood Banks, Atlanta, GA, November 13, 1977. Annual Ed. Byron A. Myhre, M.D., Ph.D. Published by the American Association of Blood Banks: Washington, D.C. 20036. Copyright © 1977. ISBN 0-914404-29-6.
Greene, Oliver B. The Gospel According to John. Volume III (Chapters 15-21). The Gospel Hour, Inc., Oliver B. Greene, Director: Box 2024, Greenville, SC 29602. Copyright © 1966.
Greene, Oliver B. "Religious Thieves--The Dirtiest Gang This Side of Hell." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LIV, No. 22. The Sword of the LORD: Murfreesboro, TN 37133. October 28, 1988.
Groningen, G. Van, B.A., B.D., M.A.M.T.H. First Century Gnosticism: Its Origin and Motifs. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Copyright © 1967. BT, 1390, G75, 1967.
Hematology. William J. Williams. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Copyright © 1990. ISBN 0-07-070384-1. LC 89-13069.
Henry, Matthew. 1708. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., F.R.Hist.S. New One Volume Ed. Zondervan Publishing House: 1415 Lake Drive, S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49506. Copyright © 1961.
Hutson, Curtis, D.D. "The Three Appearings of Our Lord." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LVI, No. 26. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, December 21, 1990.
Hutson, Curtis, D.D. "John MacArthur on the Blood of Christ, Salvation and Soul Winning." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LIV, No. 1. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, January 8, 1988.
Hyles, Dr. Jack. The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hammond, Indiana: Hyles-Anderson Publishers. Copyright © 1992.
Laboratory Medicine. Don E. Ladig. The C. V. Mosby Company: 11830 Westline Industrial Drive, St. Louis, MS 63141. Copyright © 1982. ISBN 0-8016-3422-9. LC 81-14153.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.: 10 East 53rd Street, NY 10022. Copyright © 1975.
Moody, D. L. 1971. "The Blood of the New Testament--Matthew 26:28." The Best of D. L. Moody: Sixteen Sermons by the Great Evangelist. Wilbur M. Smith. Chicago: Moody Press, 1977. LC 75-143467. ISBN 0-8024-0495-2. p 55-65.
Moody, D. L. "The Blood of the New Testament." Target. Tim Lee. Vol 4, No. 1. PO Box 461674, Garland, TX 75046: Tim Lee Ministries of Garland, Texas, February 1989.
Moody, D. L. "The Blood In the New Testament." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LV, No. 5. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, March 3, 1989.
Murray, Andrew (1828-1917). The Blood of the Cross. Pittsburgh and Colfax Streets, Springdale, PA 15144: Whitaker House. Copyright © 1981. ISBN 0-88368-103-X.
New Encyclopædia Britannica, The. Fifteenth Ed. 30 Vol. Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1984.
Obolensky, Dmitri, M.A., Ph.D. The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism. Guildford, Surrey: Biddles Ltd. for Anthony C. Hall by permission of Cambridge University Press, 1972. BT, 1355, 02, 1972.
Owen, John. 1680. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Volume VI. Hebrews 8:1--10:39. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 1980 from the Goold edition published in 1855 by Johnstone & Hunter, London. ISBN 0-8010-6673.
Paisley, Ian, Dr. "Ten Impossibilities if the Blood of Christ Perished." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol. LIV, No. 22. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, October 28, 1988.
Pines, Maya. The New Human Genetics: How Gene Splicing Helps Researchers Fight Inherited Disease. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. September 1984. NIH Publication No. 84-662.
Pink, Arthur W. 1923. The Exposition of the Gospel of John. Three Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968.
Pink, Arthur W. 1954. An Exposition of Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1968. LC 54-11076.
Pons, Reverend John. 1937. A History of the Waldenses. Second Edition. Waldensian Presbyterian Church, Valdese, NC 28690. 1982.
Poole, Matthew. A Commentary on the Holy Bible. 137 Summit Street, PO Box 3473, Peabody, MA 01961-3473: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 0-917006-28-3.
Rienecker, Fritz. 1976. A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. 1415 Lake Drive, SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright © 1980.
Roberts, David. "In France, an ordeal by fire and a monster weapon called `Bad Neighbor.'" Smithsonian Magazine. 900 Jefferson Drive, Washington, DC 20560: Smithsonian Associates, May 1991. P 40-51.
Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages. Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1965. BT, 1315.2, R8, cop.2. LC 65-22422.
Sightler, Dr. Harold. "Three Facts About the Blood." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol. LII, No. 23. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, November 14, 1986.
Soltau, Henry W. c. 1850. The Tabernacle, The Priesthood, and The Offerings. Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 49506. Copyright © 1972. LC 72-88590. ISBN 0-8254-3703-2.
Stephens, Prescot. Waldensian Faith in the Middle Ages. W.J. Ray & Co. Ltd. Walsall. Waldensian Presbyterian Church, Valdese, NC 28690.
Stovall, Chas. B. 1945. Baptist History and Succession: How Baptist are peculiarly different from ALL other denominations as to origin, doctrines, teachings and succession. Bowling Green, KY: Order from Kentucky Mountains Baptist Schools, PO Box 315 Booneville, KY 31413 (sic--Booneville is 41314).
Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. Douglas M. Considine, P.E. Sixth Ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. Copyright © 1983. LC 82-4936. ISBN 0-442-25161-0.
Waldenses, The. 1978 Reprint of Original 1950 Issue. The American Waldensian Aid Society, 156 Fifth Avenue, NY 10010.
Waldensian Confession of Faith. 1100. Excerpt from History of the Ancient Christians, Jean Paul Perrin. 1619.
Whyte, H. A. Maxwell. 1959. The Power of the Blood. Pittsburgh and Colfax Streets, Springdale, PA 15144: Whitaker House. Copyright © 1973. ISBN 0-88368-027-0.
Widengren, Geo, Professor of the History and Psychology of Religion, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden. Mani and Manichaeism. Translation by Charles Kessler. General Editor: E. O. James. History of Religion Series. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Copyright © 1965. Copyright by George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd. BT, 1410, W513, 1965a. LC 65-22455.
Willis, Geoffrey Grimshaw. Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy. S.P.C.K., Northumberland Avenue, London, W.C.2. Copyright © 1950. BT, 1370, W55.
Wintrobe's Clinical Hematology. 9th Ed. G. Richard Lee. Lea & Febiger: Box 3024, 200 Chester Field Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355-9725. Copyright © 1993. ISBN 0-8121-1188-5. LC 90-6194.
World Book Encyclopedia, The. Nineteen Vol. Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation. Copyright © 1962.
Wycliffe Bible Commentary, The. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962. LC 62-20893. ISBN 0-8024-9695-4.
Zodhiates, Spiros, Th.D. The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. King James Version. AMG Publishers: Chattanooga, TN 37422. Copyright © 1984. ISBN 0-89957-572-2.
ENDNOTES
1. Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan. Copyright © 1954.2. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 4, 1986. "Why the Blood Saves." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Dr. Jack Hyles. Hyles-Anderson Publishers: Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. P 16.
3. The author was, of course, in attendance at this service. Doctor Jack Hyles was to have preached that night, so there were people from many churches there. Doctor Hyles was ill, so Dr. Gray (Dr. Bob Gray of Texas, not the one from Florida) took his place. Doctor Gray began preaching the Blood Doctrine, which annoyed the author enough, but then Dr. Gray began reciting from Dr. DeHaan. Had the author been unfamiliar with Dr. DeHaan's work (a problem circumvented by the present work), the author would never have known that what Dr. Gray said from the pulpit came from someone else.
It is a very serious charge brought by the author, but it was a very serious, very wrong thing that Dr. Gray did. Not only did he indoctrinate the people with the Blood Doctrine, but he legitimized what he said by quoting very accurately from someone else's work without giving credit to that other person. The author was asked by the preacher of Bella Vista Baptist Church not to attend that church any more, because the author denies that Christ had God's blood, and that Christ took His blood to Heaven. Doctor Gray was an instigator, in that he roused an ignorant, trusting crowd to be zealous for the Blood Doctrine, and to ostracize those who would speak the truth.
4. Hutson, Curtis, D.D. "John MacArthur on the Blood of Christ, Salvation and Soul Winning." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LIV, No. 1. The Sword of the LORD: Murfreesboro, TN 37133. January 8, 1988.
5. Hutson, Curtis, D.D. "John MacArthur on the Blood of Christ, Salvation and Soul Winning." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LIV, No. 1. The Sword of the LORD: Murfreesboro, TN 37133. January 8, 1988.
6. Incidentally, Dr. DeHaan made several serious, embarrassing mistakes in his book, even apart from the Blood Doctrine. His explanation for Joshua's long day is one example. Even so, he is considered a scientific authority. As such, the author, a lowly peon, is battling a great, educated man of God. This ad hominem is used by the Blood Indoctrinators to discredit the author.
7. From The Best of D.L. Moody by Wilbur M. Smith. Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Moody Press. Used by permission. Copyright © 1971. P 63.
8. Spurgeon, C.H. "The Blood of Sprinkling." February 28th, 1886. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1888.htm.
8. Cairns, Earle E. 1954. Christianity through the Centuries. Academie Books, Zondervan Publishing House; 1415 Lake Drive, SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506. Copyright © 1981. P 98.
9. Groningen, G. Van, B.A., B.D., M.A.M.T.H. First Century Gnosticism: Its Origin and Motifs. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Copyright © 1967. From the Introduction.
10. Roberts, David. "In France, an ordeal by fire and a monster weapon called `Bad Neighbor.'" Smithsonian Magazine. Smithsonian Associates: 900 Jefferson Drive, Washington, DC 20560. May 1991. Pp 42, 47.
11. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation: Grand Rapids, MI 49506. December 1974. P 30.
12. Hutson, Dr. Curtis. December 21, 1990. "The Three Appearings of Our Lord." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LVI, No. 26. The Sword of the LORD: Murfreesboro, TN 37133. December 21, 1990. P 1.
13. The New Encyclopædia Britannica. 1768. Fifteenth Edition. 30 Vol. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Chicago: William Benton, Publisher. Copyright © 1984. Micropædia Vol. IV. P 588a.
14. The New Encyclopædia Britannica. 1768. Fifteenth Edition. 30 Vol. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Chicago: William Benton, Publisher. Copyright © 1984. Macropædia Vol. 11. P 561d.
15. Cramp, J. M., D.D. 1871. Baptist History: Foundation of the Christian Church to the Present Time. Copy from the library of Dr. Richard C. Weeks. Baptist Heritage Publications: 224 Arcade Avenue, Watertown, WI 53094. Copyright © 1987. Pp 128-129.
16. Cramp, J. M., D.D. 1871. Baptist History: Foundation of the Christian Church to the Present Time. Copy from the library of Dr. Richard C. Weeks. Baptist Heritage Publications: 224 Arcade Avenue, Watertown, WI 53094. Copyright © 1987.
17. Blunt, John Henry. Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought. Longmans Green. London. 1892.
18. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation: Grand Rapids, MI 49506. December 1974. Pp 22-24.
19. Smith, Joseph. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Period I. Vol. III. Published by the Church. Deseret Book Co.: Salt Lake City, UT. 1978. P 380.
20. Young, Brigham. 1855. Journal of Discourses. Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 36, Islington. Vol. II. P 142.
21. Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Enlarged Edition. Modern Microfilm Company, Box 1884, Salt Lake City, UT 84110. 1972. P 562.
22. Greene, Oliver B. The Gospel According to John. Volume III (Chapters 15-21). The Gospel Hour, Inc., Oliver B. Greene, Director: Box 2024, Greenville, SC 29602. Copyright © 1966. Pp 338-339.
23. Greene, Oliver B. "Religious Thieves--The Dirtiest Gang This Side of Hell." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LIV, No. 22. The Sword of the LORD: Murfreesboro, TN 37133. October 28, 1988.
24. Hyles, Dr. Jack. The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers: Hammond, Indiana. Copyright © 1992. P 2.
25. Paisley, Ian, Dr. "Ten Impossibilities if the Blood of Christ Perished." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol. LIV, No. 22. The Sword of the LORD: Murfreesboro, TN 37133. October 28, 1988. Pp 8A, 9A.
26. Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, Michigan. Copyright © 1945.
27. Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan. Copyright © 1954.
28. Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan. Copyright © 1954.
29. Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan. Copyright © 1954.
30. Blunt, John Henry. Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Bodies and Schools of Religious Thought. London: Longmans Green, 1892. BR.95.B6x.1892.
31. Sightler, Dr. Harold. October 21, 1986. "Three Facts About the Blood." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LII, No. 23. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, November 14, 1986. P 1.
32. Sightler, Dr. Harold. October 21, 1986. "Three Facts About the Blood." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LII, No. 23. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, November 14, 1986. P 22.
33. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. P 30.
34. New Encyclopædia Britannica, The. Fifteenth Ed. 30 Vol. Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1984. Macropædia vol. 7, P 1001.
35. Blood. American Association of Blood Banks. P 129.
36. From a letter the author received from the AABB:
"Both parents provide the genetic information that determines a child's blood type. This is true of the more than 350 blood group antigens that have been identified."
37. Blood. American Association of Blood Banks. P 107.
38. This is logical, since a man has an XY sex chromosome pair. Only one sex chromosome can come from either parent, and the man must supply the Y chromosome (since the woman does not have one). That means the X chromosome must come from the woman. If the man supplies an X chromosome, the offspring will be female, since the father's X would combine with the mother's X. The XX sex chromosome set produces a female offspring.
39. Unlike the traditional Gnostic solution to Christ's sinless nature--that He did not have a material body--the Blood Doctrine has produced a novel solution, one patterned directly to oppose the Catholic teaching. They claim that Christ was sinless because He did not have blood of this material world, because He did not inherit blood from a human, because no blood comes from the mother, who was His only human parent. This takes Mary out of the picture (perhaps the primary aim) and still holds to their Gnostic belief that escape from the material world is necessary to be sinless. Is Catholicism a catalyst for the emergence of Gnosticism? We claim that Catholicism was born in ancient Babylon, the birthplace of Gnosticism. Talk about dualism!
40. "That Woman (Mary) is the mother alike of the Redeemer and of the redeemed. It was first from her veins that the blood was drawn which now lies scattered cheaply about, but which has ransomed the world." Handbook of the Legion of Mary, 1975 Edition. Concilium Legionis Mariae, Dublin, Ireland. P 144. Quote from Are Roman Catholics Christians? Chick Publications. 1981.
41. "Some have tried to answer the question, 'How could He be sinless and yet born of woman?' by making Mary the 'Immaculate Virgin.' That, however, does not answer the question of how JESUS was sinless." Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. P 33.
42. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. Pp 32, 33.
43. e.g., The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages by M. R. DeHaan. Pp 31-33.
44. New Encyclopædia Britannica, The. Fifteenth Ed. 30 Vol. Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1984. Macropædia vol. 8. P 808-809.
45. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. Pp 14, 13, 16, 17, 38.
46. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 11, 1986. "The Necessity of the Blood." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Dr. Jack Hyles. Hyles-Anderson Publishers, Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. P 30.
47. "Cadaver blood was used by Yudin and others in Russia in the 1930's and there were a few transfusions of cadaver blood in Chicago in 1936-38 before the advent of the modern blood bank . . ." Excerpt from a letter received by the author from Dr. Richard Davey, M.D. of the Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland.
48. Encyclopedia Americana. 1829. International Edition. Volume four. Grolier Incorporated: Danbury, CT 06816. Copyright © 1992. P 96.
49. Chang, Raymond. CHEMISTRY. Third Edition. Williams College. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Copyright © 1988. P 897.
50. A Seminar on Blood Components: E Unum Pluribus; Presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Blood Banks, Atlanta, Georgia, November 13, 1977. Copyright © 1977 by the American Association of Blood Banks. P 75.
51. Sightler, Dr. Harold. October 21, 1986. "Three Facts About the Blood." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LII, No. 23. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, November 14, 1986. P 20.
52. Wintrobe's Clinical Hematology. 9th Ed. G. Richard Lee. Lea & Febiger: Box 3024, 200 Chester Field Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355-9725. Copyright © 1993. ISBN 0-8121-1188-5. LC 90-6194.P 55.
53. Laboratory Medicine. Don E. Ladig. The C. V. Mosby Company: 11830 Westline Industrial Drive, St. Louis, MS 63141. Copyright © 1982. P 6.
54. Hematology. William J. Williams. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Copyright © 1990. P 100.
55. "Convenience Tops List of Abortion Reasons." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LIV, No. 1. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, August 28, 1992.
49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. Copyright © 1971. Pp 30, 31.
57. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 11, 1986. "The Necessity of the Blood." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers, Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. P 30.
58. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. Pp 16, 17.
59. DeHaan, Dr. M.R. 1947. "The Chemistry of the Blood." The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. P 17.
60. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 11, 1986. "The Necessity of the Blood." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers, Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. P 31.
61. Excerpt from a letter the author received from Sword of the LORD in reply to the author's initial challenge to them of the Blood Doctrine.
62. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. P 25.
63. The New Encyclopædia Britannica. 1768. Fifteenth Edition. 30 Vol. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Chicago: William Benton, Publisher. Copyright © 1984. Macropædia Vol. 11. P 561d.
64. Sightler, Dr. Harold. October 21, 1986. "Three Facts About the Blood." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LII, No. 23. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, November 14, 1986. P 1.
65. Sightler, Dr. Harold. October 21, 1986. "Three Facts About the Blood." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LII, No. 23. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, November 14, 1986. P 1.
66. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 4, 1986. "Why the Blood Saves." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers, Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. P 11.
67. Hutson, Curtis, D.D. "The Main Message of the Bible." SALVATION Crystal Clear. Copyright © 1991. P 50.
68. Hutson, Curtis, D.D. "The Main Message of the Bible." SALVATION Crystal Clear. Copyright © 1991. P 50.
69. Poole, Matthew. A Commentary on the Holy Bible. 137 Summit Street, PO Box 3473, Peabody, MA 01961-3473: Hendrickson Publishers.
70. Pusey, E. B. 1847. Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testament. Robert Frew. PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Baker Book House.
71. ibid.
72. Oliver B. Greene made a similar point in his comments on John 20:17. He even quotes a definition from Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, which said that the Greek word translated as "touch" in the King James Bible means "to grasp or cling." Mr. Greene had a lot more to say about that verse than space here permits, but it is sufficient to point out that he did not interpret this passage at all as the Blood Indoctrinators do.
73. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Revised and augmented from Walter Bauer's Fifth Edition. William Arndt. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 60637. Copyright © 1979.
74. An Exposition of Hebrews. Arthur W. Pink. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1954.
75. Owen, John. 1680. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Exercitation XXXI, Sect. 15-17. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 1980 from the Goold edition published in 1855 by Johnstone & Hunter, London. Pp 164-165.
76. Sightler, Dr. Harold. October 21, 1986. "Three Facts About the Blood." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LII, No. 23. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, November 14, 1986. P 22.
77. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. Pp 25, 34.
78. Pink, Arthur W. 1954. An Exposition of Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1968.
79. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. P 33.
80. Berry, George Ricker, Ph.D. 1958. The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament. 1415 Lake Drive, S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House. October 1971. Copyright © 1961.
81. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Revised and augmented from Walter Bauer's Fifth Edition. William Arndt. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 60637. Copyright © 1979.
82. Poole, Matthew. A Commentary on the Holy Bible. 137 Summit Street, PO Box 3473, Peabody, MA 01961-3473: Hendrickson Publishers.
83. Siebeneck, R. T. New Catholic Encyclopedia. "Precious Blood, I (Devotion to)." 1967 edition. Vol. 11. P 705.
84. Barnes, Albert. 1847. Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testament. Robert Frew. PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Baker Book House.
85. Hutson, Dr. Curtis. December 21, 1990. "The Three Appearings of Our Lord." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol LVI, No. 26. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, December 21, 1990. Pp 1, 14.
86. Taken from THE CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD by M. R. DeHaan. Copyright © 1943 by Zondervan Publishing House. Copyright renewed 1971 by Ruth Haaksma. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Zondervan Publishing House of the Zondervan Corporation, December 1974. P 25.
87. Barnes, Albert. 1847. Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testament. Robert Frew. PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Baker Book House.
88. Hyles, Dr. Jack. The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hammond, Indiana: Hyles-Anderson Publishers. Copyright © 1992. P 13.
89. Atkinson, James. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. "Precious Blood." Editor, Alan Richardson. 1983. P 460.
90. Rohling, J. H. New Catholic Encyclopedia. "Precious Blood, III (Devotion to)." 1967 edition. Pp 707-708.
91. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 4, 1986. "Why the Blood Saves." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers, Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. P 11.
92. Some Fundamental Baptists have claimed that there were two Vulgates. One was the famous Vulgate of the Roman Catholic Church and the other was a non-Catholic version. Wiclif, they claim, made his English translation from the non-Catholic Vulgate. However, a Roman Catholic defender, Henry Knighton, the canon of Leicester, made the following comments concerning Wiclif's translation,
The gospel, which Christ committed to the clergy and doctors of the Church, that they might sweetly dispense it to the laity, and weaker persons &ldots; this John Wiclif has translated out of Latin into the Anglican, not angelic language; whence, through him, it has been published, and disclosed more openly to laymen and women able to read, than it used to be to the most learned and intelligent of the clergy. And so the gospel pearl is cast abroad, and trodden underfoot of swine; and what was dear to clergy and laity is now rendered, as it were, the common jest of both; so that the gem of the Church becomes the derision of laymen, and that is now theirs for ever, which before was the special property of the clergy and doctors. (Excerpt of Knighton's De Eventibus, col. 2644, taken from The English Hexapla, published by Samuel Bagster and Sons).
This strongly indicates that the Roman Catholic Church used and respected the same Vulgate that Wiclif used to make his English translation. It should be noted that the argument against this comes from people who claim that the good Protestant versions of the Bible all came from the Textus Receptus, but all manner of heresy and perverted modern versions come from the versions used by the Roman Catholic Church. It appears that this empty argument by them is merely to justify their claims of superiority for the King James Version, of which they feel that the Wiclif was an ancestor (after all, Wiclif was the first spark of the greatest revival in history--that couldn't have come from a corrupted text, like the Catholic's Latin Vulgate is supposed to be). There are many other amazing claims that they make on the subject of interpretation, but there is not room nor need here to address them all.
93. Barnes, Albert. 1847. Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testament. Robert Frew. PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Baker Book House.
94. An Exposition of Hebrews. Arthur W. Pink. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1954.
95. Owen, John. 1855. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Volume VI. Hebrews 8:1--10:39. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 1980 from the Goold edition published in 1855 by Johnstone & Hunter, London.
96. ibid.
97. Paisley, Dr. Ian. "Ten Impossibilities if the Blood of Christ Perished." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol. LIV, No. 22. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, October 28, 1988. P 8A.
98. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 4, 1986. "Why the Blood Saves." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers, Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. Pp 16, 11.
99. Owen, John. 1680. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Exercitation XXXI. Section 1. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 1980 from the Goold edition published in 1855 by Johnstone & Hunter, London. P 166.
100. Taken from A LINGUISTIC KEY TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Fritz Rienecker. Copyright © 1976, 1980 by The Zondervan Corporation. Used by permission.
101. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 4, 1986. "Why the Blood Saves." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers, Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. P 16.
102. Hyles, Dr. Jack. June 4, 1986. "Why the Blood Saves." The Blood, the Book and the Body. Hyles-Anderson Publishers, Hammond, IN 46320. Copyright © 1992. P 11.
103. Owen, John. 1680. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Exercitation XXXI. Section 1. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 1980 from the Goold edition published in 1855 by Johnstone & Hunter, London. P 164.
104. Paisley, Dr. Ian. "Ten Impossibilities if the Blood of Christ Perished." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol. LIV, No. 22. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, October 28, 1988. P 9A.
105. Owen, John. 1680. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Chap. XII. Ver 22-24. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 1980 from the Goold edition published in 1855 by Johnstone & Hunter, London. P 331.
106. Paisley, Dr. Ian. "Ten Impossibilities if the Blood of Christ Perished." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol. LIV, No. 22. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, October 28, 1988. P 9A.
107. Barnes, Albert. 1847. Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testament. Robert Frew. PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49506: Baker Book House.
108. New Encyclopædia Britannica, The. Fifteenth Ed. 30 Vol. Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1984. Micropædia Vol. IV. Pp 603, 604.
109. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Revised and augmented from Walter Bauer's Fifth Edition. William Arndt. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 60637. Copyright © 1979.
110. Paisley, Dr. Ian. "Ten Impossibilities if the Blood of Christ Perished." Sword of the LORD. Curtis Hutson. Vol. LIV, No. 22. Murfreesboro, TN 37133: The Sword of the LORD, October 28, 1988. P 8A.
111. Whyte, H.A. Maxwell. 1959. The Power of the Blood. Seventh edition. Whitaker House, Pittsburgh and Colfax Streets, Springdale, PA 15144. Copyright © 1984.
112. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 edition, pp 707-708.
The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, 1983, p 460.
