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 &ldots;

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 &ldots; "

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

_______________________________________________________