Taking a person out from under the blood

Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.

Some message churches are known to "take people out from under the blood" if they have left the church or have done something that warrants excommunication. We have been asked whether this practice has any basis in scripture.

Is this scriptural?

The phrase "under the blood" is found nowhere in the Bible. We believe it is a general reference to the blood of the Passover Lamb in Exodus 12:23:

When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.

Those that participated in the Passover were "under the blood", so to speak, and were therefore protected from death.

In the New Testament, "sprinkling by his blood" reflects the language of Numbers 19 and the red heifer purification rites (Exod. 24:4–8; Heb. 9:13–21; 10:22, 29). For Christians, the blood of Christ on the cross covers our sins and brings us salvation.

There is no passage in the New Testament that talks about taking a person out from under the blood, and so we must conclude that the concept is not Biblical.

So what are they talking about?

William Branham equated being "born again" with being "under the blood". But he also went beyond that when he stated:

Believers stays under the Blood.' That's right. It's the only place to stay of safety.

This seems to infer that a Christian could take themselves "out from under the blood" which also has no basis in scripture.

William Branham also stated that being under the blood required a person to be in William Branham's message:

We are come together to get in the Message.' And the Message is Christ, He is the Word. That's right. We're to get into It, get beneath It. Yes, sir. That's what we're supposed to do. He was not responsible for any persons out from under the blood...

This is clearly false teaching. When we are "sprinkled by the blood", the Bible is referring to the blood of Christ.

The Bible as an idol

William Branham stated that the Bible was "God in print form. You're no more than your word. God is no more than His Word.". He also referred to it as "the dripping, Bloody Word... the Word of God bleeding Blood."

But this is an incorrect view of the Bible. What does the Bible say about itself?

1 Tim. 3:16-17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Rom. 15:4 - For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

"Bibliolatry", literally means making the Bible an idol. Many argue that bibliolatry takes place whenever faith in the Bible is placed over faith in Christ.

Charles Spurgeon acknowledged this when he said:

...you can make an idol of your Bible by using the mere words as a substitute for God’s voice to you. The book is to help you to remember God, but if you stick in the mere letter, and get not to God at all, you misuse the sacred word.

We may make the house of God an idol temple. We may make the Bible itself a mere idol. We may dispossess the heart of love by almost welcoming the spirit of fear. And the message of William Branham is filled with fear.

William Branham's view of the Bible was not correct. When the Bible says in John 1:1 that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," it is not stating that the Bible was in the beginning.

You cannot limit God to what he has revealed to us about himself in the Bible.

The Bible did not bleed for me. Jesus did. The Bible is not "God in print" but it is the revelation to me of who God is.

Biblical references

In 1 Corinthians 5:5, Paul instructs the church to:

hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

And in 1 Timothy 1:19-20, we see a similar phrase:

...holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.  Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

The language “to hand over to Satan” is only found in these two passages as an act of expulsion from a religious community.

What do these passages mean?

Gordon Fee states the following in respect of 1 Cor. 5:5:

Most likely, the language means to turn the person back out into Satan’s sphere. In contrast to the gathered community of believers who experience the Spirit and power of the Lord Jesus in edifying gifts and loving concern for one another, this man is to be put back out into the world, where Satan and his “principalities and powers” still hold sway over people’s lives to destroy them.

Some people see the language of the "destruction of the flesh" to mean that Paul is expecting the man to die. However, there are a number of problems with this.

First, the emphasis lies not on “the destruction of the flesh,” but on the final purpose clause, “that the spirit might be saved on the day of the Lord.” The former phrase, therefore, must be seen as part of the remedial process; otherwise the interpretation seems doomed to fail. It is especially difficult to see how an expected result of death can be understood as redemptive.

Second, nowhere else does Paul express death in terms of “destruction of the flesh.” If the phrase were by itself, without the following purpose clause, a case for death could clearly be made; but the phrase is not by itself. Here it stands in contrast to the saving of “the spirit”; and it is simply foreign to Paul’s usage for the “flesh/spirit” contrast to refer to the body as doomed to destruction but the “spirit” (inner, real person?) as destined for salvation.

Third, the relationship with 1 Cor. 11:30–32 is not as comparable as one might be led to believe. There Paul is making a judgment after the fact, as it were—indeed, after two facts. They are destroying the Table; and some of them are sickly, or have even died. Paul, by inspiration of the Spirit, prophetically tells them that these two “facts” are related in a consequential way. But that is far from “excommunicating” for the very purpose that the man might suffer physically unto death.

Fourth, the further instruction in verse 11, that they are not to associate with this man, not even to eat with him, implies that no immediate death is expected.

Finally, to these same Corinthians who have been too harsh on a brother who needed correction (2 Cor. 2:5–11), he argues that “punishment by the majority is sufficient” and that they should now restore him. This reveals how Paul thinks the community should treat offenders, who previously had to experience some form of “punishment” (see also Gal. 6:1; 2 Thess. 3:14–15).

With some degree of confidence, therefore, we may put aside the idea that Paul intended that the man should die. What Paul was desiring by having this man put outside the believing community was the destruction of what was “carnal” in him, so that he might be “saved”

The intent of this action, therefore, is the man’s salvation. He is not being “turned over to Satan for destruction,” an idea that is quite foreign both to Paul and the rest of the NT, but is being excluded from the Christian community with its life in the Spirit. The inevitable consequence is that he is back out in Satan’s domain, where, Paul hopes, his “flesh” may be destroyed so that he may be saved on the day of the Lord.

...Lest one too quickly start a process of excommunication that finally eliminates us all, a few observations about the text in general are in order.

First, in this text church discipline is not the affair of one or a few. Even though Paul as an apostle pronounced the sentence prophetically, the sin itself was known by all and had contaminated the whole; so the action was to be the affair of all.

Second, the ultimate reason for such discipline is remedial, not judgmental. For such to take place, one needs an especially loving, redemptive community, where the power of the Lord Jesus is a regular part of corporate life.

Third, according to the rest of the passage, the problem was truly affecting the life of the whole community. Probably discipline of this kind should be reserved for such “contaminating” sins.

Finally, the great problem with such discipline in most Christian communities in the Western world is that one can simply go down the street to another church. Not only does that say something about the fragmented condition of the church at large, but it also says something about those who would quickly welcome one who is under discipline in another community.

Perhaps it should be added that if one were to be so disciplined in our day, too often the person could “take it or leave it” as far as the church is concerned—and that probably says more about the condition of the church itself than about the person who is dissociated. Maybe the most significant thing we can learn from such a text is how far many of us are removed from a view of the church in which the dynamic of the Spirit was so real that exclusion could be a genuinely redemptive action.

Quotes of William Branham

The blood made a separation. The one that really believed come under the blood; the ones that didn't believe stayed from under the blood. And that's the same way it is today. Believers stays under the Blood. That's right. It's the only place to stay of safety.

I don't believe in this here Baptist teaching of—of Eternal security. I believe it in a way, but I believe you're secure as long as you're in the Church. But you get out of the… out from under the Blood of Jesus Christ, you're not secure. I'm secure from the rain as long as I'm in here.

And you wait, if the Lord willing, tomorrow night, I want to show you a mystery that's been going all the time right here in this meeting. I doubt very much whether you've ever seen it or not (See?), what's—what's took place. It's been something that's laid right here before you, and I've watched each night for us—for it to rise, or somebody to say, "I see it." See? Don't turn it away, please. I ask you if you're not a Christian, if you're—you're not under the Blood, if you're not borned again, filled with the Holy Spirit, if you've never made a public confession of—of Jesus Christ by being baptized in His Name to witness His death, burial, and resurrection, that you have accepted, the water's ready.

We're not to come together to talk about the Message. We are come together to get in the Message. And the Message is Christ, He is the Word. That's right. We're to get into It, get beneath It. Yes, sir. That's what we're supposed to do. He was not responsible for any persons out from under the blood, not one; no matter who he was, he was not responsible. All had to take not only himself, but his whole family. They're only safe when the—the token was displayed.

Now, we know that, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Therefore, God and His Word is the selfsame thing. It's God in print form. You're no more than your word. God is no more than His Word.

Because, you have to stand and be married to a perfect Son of God, and you must be a perfect Bride. So how can you do it through anything else but the perfect Word of God, which is, "The Waters of separation, that washes us from our sins"? Amen. That's right. The Blood of Jesus Christ, think of It, the dripping, Bloody Word. Amen. The Blood, the—the Word of God bleeding Blood, to wash the Bride in. Amen. Yes, sir. She stands perfect, virgin, unadulterated. She never sinned, in the first place. Amen. She was trapped into it. See?

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines

Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us