by Drew

A common practice in the prophetic movement is to “plead the blood” of Christ over a region. It is said that bringing a geographical area “under the blood” will bring God’s blessing or avert God’s wrath for that specific area. Is this biblical?

Lou Engle interviewed Mike Bickle on this very subject a while back. You can download the interview here. You get Lou interviewing Mike and then the infamous Shawn “I-just-made-it-up” Bolz in the same show. Woot! But that’s for another post.

Keep in mind that this post is not about abortion and I do not in any way endorse it. This would miss the point entirely. We should instead be asking ourselves, “Can we misapply Scripture and make up doctrines in order to advance an agenda?” It doesn’t matter how noble the purpose seems, nothing justifies treating God’s word this way. Abortion is a vehicle in this case, it’s an emotional hot-button and a common banner that Mike and Lou use to unite under.

Mike: I see a huge ax, the ax of God. I mean A-X of God. The sword of the Lord being raised above the nations of the earth. And the Lord is saying, ‘You cannot kill my little ones without me answering in blood.’

We have time, but we don’t know how much time. I mean we may have six months, we may have six or seven years. We don’t know, but we got time to turn this thing around or that axe is coming down.

If we do our part, there will be pockets of mercy everywhere. Even if we don’t turn everybody, the Lord will see our efforts of joining with His heart and that is noble. It’s important to God. And we are going to make a difference. We can get mercy for regions of the earth. I want America to be a whole region that gets mercy.

Um, scriptural support for the new doctrines of “pockets of mercy,” or are we just supposed to eat that up because it sounds good? There is nowhere in Scripture one could refer to that supports such a doctrine. As usual, I’m open to suggestions.

Also notice the language and where the emphasis is. We have time, we’ve got to turn this thing around, the Lord will see our efforts, we can get mercy for regions. It is positively rife with the sovereignty of man.

Here is where the idea of blood is introduced. Pay attention, because this becomes important.

Lou: Intercessors, we need to plead the blood of Jesus over this nation, what are your thoughts Mike?

Mike: Shedding blood always, 100% of the time results in shedding blood from heaven, God will let blood be shed. Now if we take these geographic areas and get them under the shed blood of Jesus, then we don’t have to shed new blood. If we can repent and claim the blood of Jesus, that bloodshed of the Son of God will be sufficient. But nonetheless, it always has to be bloodshed for bloodshed. But we can cut the thing off because a man died for us already, He died for the earth. And so if we can get people to repent and claim that blood, then blood doesn’t have to be shed in that region.

If you’re going to introduce another new doctrine, at least give it some support. There is no such reference given by Bickle. Keith pointed out that Mike could be referring to Numbers 35:16-34. I think Keith’s right, but it still leaves me with this question for Mike: “When did we revert back to Mosaic Covenant?”

It sounds biblical to say that shedding of blood always results in shedding blood from heaven, but you cannot demonstrate that this retribution will happen before the final judgment. Look at the example of Cain. He shed his brothers blood. He was not killed and, in fact, God forbid anyone else from killing him. All you need is one example to the contrary to negate Mike’s “100%” claim. Think of the worst mass murderers. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler. Surely there should be some retribution for their blood-letting if Mike is right. But there isn’t at this time. The point is that we cannot expect some kind of tit-for-tat judgment this side of heaven.

Again there is an almost taunting emphasis in Mike’s portrayal of our human responsibility to do this thing. We are the ones who get people to repent so that blood won’t be shed in that region. Of course, what do we expect from Mike, who’s in the past referred to himself as a “Finney-guy” as if it was something to be proud of?

Now to me, a Calvinist, one of the most painful parts of this paragraph is “If we can repent and claim the blood of Jesus, that bloodshed of the Son of God will be sufficient.” Come on! “Will be?!” This is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world! If we can get under his blood, then it will be sufficient? Even a rank Arminian would have my back. If he “died for all” then there’s no if about it. His blood is sufficient and does not depend on whether or not we accept it as such. And since when is it biblical to repent for the sins of others?

Mike: If we think that the slavery that produced 600,000 deaths, if we think that’s bad (and it is, it’s really bad), what is millions and millions of abortions going to look like when it’s time to answer it on the earth? In our nation? Except we get in the gap and get the blood of Jesus to cover it instead of our blood to cover it.

Lou: I was listening recently to Senator Sam Brownback. He said since 1973, America opened the door when it legalized that throne of iniquity that legalizes evil by law in 1973. He said from that point on it exploded in the nations. And he said that since ‘73 there’s been a billion abortions worldwide.

Mike: A billion?

Lou: A billion abortions worldwide.

Mike: Oh I hope not. I hope he’s wrong.

Lou: Well that’s what he said.

Mike: Oh I hope that’s not true… This is terrifying! A billion. I mean, oh my goodness. You just struck… lightning just hit my heart just now when you said that.

At this point, it would be safe to say that Mike freaked out a little. I can understand why he would. I mean, if he really believes this stuff, that God will exact blood-shed for blood-shed quantitatively in geographic areas proportional to the number of abortions that region has performed, he should be scared.

God did require blood for the remission of sins. But the only blood that counts is the blood of his son. A son who, in God’s mind, was slain before the foundation of the world. This teaching by Mike Bickle minimizes the work of Jesus to the point where it’s almost an afterthought.

“Pleading the blood” as it referred to does not equal “preaching the Gospel” as we understand it. That’s what they would like us to believe. “Pleading the blood” involves repenting of the sins of others and praying that the power of God would go forth to save people. Not necessarily by the preaching of the word (like Scripture dictates) but thru mighty “signs and wonders.”

Keith put it this way as we were discussing this post:

…they are treating the sacrifice of Christ as though it is some mystical rabbit’s foot. When they say “plead the blood” they are essentially invoking some kind of incantation that is supposed to turn the wrath of God. This is very different than true intercession.

I couldn’t agree more.

Instead of worrying about “pleading the blood” maybe a clear Gospel presentation would be in order. A clear explanation of our utter deadness in sin and how we’ve offended a Holy God. Unlike what Mike said, we can’t get people to repent. But we can tell them the truth and allow for the work of the Holy Spirit. It’s too bad Mike has demonstrated that he really has no regard for the atonement. Instead it’s up to us.

Someone once said that while we should always be apalled by sin, we should never be shocked by it. Abortion is wrong and by all means, within your rights as a citizen, oppose it. But you don’t need extra-biblical doctrines like “pockets of mercy” or “pleading the blood” to do it. You don’t need to minimize the work of Christ or strip God of his sovereignty in salvation to do it. See how quickly some fanciful imagination of a man can strike at the very heart of the Gospel.