AN ESSAY BY A. H. BROUGHTON
The following essay is by a dear Christian brother from Wales, A. H. Broughton. My father corresponded with him in the 1970s and 1980s. Bro. Broughton mailed this study to Dad in the form of a little pamphlet and had asked for it to be returned once Dad had finished reading it, as copies were limited. In a previous post I referred to this pamphlet because I had stumbled across a letter dated February, 1978 that Dad wrote to Broughton. Here is a portion:
. . . .I have some rather bad news. I hope you will forgive me, but your last correspondence was lost—how I cannot fathom for the life of me. I had read the article—the sequel to your pamphlet on Matthew 28:19—to a friend on a Saturday evening. After I finished it, I put it back in the envelope with your letter, and placed it with the other articles so I could take them to school to make copies. I have never seen it since. I searched the house—my desk four times, my files, my bookcases, all drawers in all cabinets, inside all furniture, even my office at school on the outside chance that some way I had left it there—but not a trace. Where or how it disappeared would baffle Sherlock Holmes.
I am truly sorry. If you can obtain another copy by some means, I will personally retype it and make all the copies you want, never fear. I hope you do not think me superstitious, but I honestly feel that the powers of darkness are sometimes directly responsible for these mishaps. It is certain that they do not want certain truths to be revealed. This particular article was one of your best, I thought.
Well, Great News! I found the booklet! Wanting to find the original source I searched for Bro. Broughton via the internet. I doubt if he is still living but I did find reference to his article/pamphlet on The Nazarene Circular Letter No. 212 March/April 2005. I had intended on scanning the document that I have but since I found it already on the internet, I will copy from that. I feel justified in doing so since my copy states that it is free to anyone who wants a copy.
The final spear-thrust
Summary
It is generally thought that our Lord was pierced by the Roman spear after He had died. The purpose of this pamphlet is to show that He did not die by hanging (impaled on a stake), but by the spear-thrust and the immediately subsequent blood out-pouring, followed by the great cry.
It is written that without the out-pouring of blood (Gr. aimatekcheO. Hebrews 9, 22) there is no remission of sins. This means the life-blood. Our Lord poured out His soul unto death, not after death. Isaiah 53:12. This was the blood of the New Covenant shed for many for the remission of sins.
Chapter One will present some words which, although written by Matthew, do not appear in the AV. It will also produce the evidence of the authenticity of those words, and will explain how the words came to be excluded from some manuscripts.
Chapter Two will prove that there is a serious error in the rendering of John 19:34 in the A.V, R.V, R.S.V. etc.
Chapter Three will present the correct translation of a word in Isaiah 53:5.
These three chapters, then, will each deal with a single passage or word of Scripture. Together they combine to prove the truth set out in the second paragraph above.
Chapter Four will present and answer some objections.
Chapter one – The excluded words.
Some words, written by Matthew, have been excluded from some Greek texts at Matthew 27:49. The words are as under: “and another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood” The R.S.V. places these words in a marginal reading. If we insert them into the context the whole reads:
Verse 46 – “about the ninth hour… some of the bystanders… said: ‘This man is calling Elijah.’ And one of them at once ran, and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said: ‘Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.’ And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood. And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.”
The Textual Proof. The two earliest manuscripts in our possession are known as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They were written in the fourth century. All other manuscripts were written in the next and later centuries.
Both those early manuscripts contain the ‘Excluded Words.’ The words have not been added since the first writing of the mss. Now the Vatican Ms. is generally considered to be the most reliable of all. (See e.g. F. Kenyon: ‘Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,’ page 204), and when that ms. is supported by one of the other good mss. there is very strong evidence indeed for the reading. Certainly Sinaiticus is a good ms. Tischendorf thought it to be the most reliable of all. The ‘Excluded Words’ are also found in other good mss. (See Objection Two in Chapter Four).
English Translations. There are three English versions which include the ‘Excluded Words’ in the text, – Concordant, New World Translation and Fenton.
Westcott and Hort, being undecided, placed the ‘Excluded Words’ within brackets in their Greek edition. Accordingly the following translations include the ‘Excluded Words’ in the text, but within brackets: Moffatt, Twentieth Century. The following place the words as an alternative reading: R.V, A.S.V, R.S.V, Emphatic Diaglott and Cunnington (Adelphi NT 1919).
How did the ‘Excluded Words’ come to be abandoned? It is seldom possible to ascertain when and by whom a spurious passage was introduced into the sacred text, and it is also seldom possible to ascertain by whom and when a genuine Scripture was excluded from the text. In the case of the ‘Excluded Words’ of Matthew 27:49, we do have some definite information. The information is supplied by Westcott and Hort in their ‘Introduction to the New Testament’ (Notes on Particular Texts}, as follows:
In a letter partially preserved in Syriac (ap. Petr. jun in Assemani B.O. ii 81) he (Severus) mentions the reading (i.e. the ‘Excluded Words’ — A.H.B.) as having been vigorously debated at Constantinople in connection with the matter of the patriarch Macedonius, when the magnificently-written copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel said to have been discovered in Cyprus with the body of St. Barnabas in the reign of Zeno (? A.D. 477) was consulted and found not to contain the sentence in question. The ‘magnificent’ copy of St. Matthew… was doubtless of quite recent origin, the discovery having been opportunely made by Anthemius, bishop of Salamis when he was vindicating the independence of Cyprus against the patriarch of Antioch, Peter the Fuller. The opposite view to the reading is implied in a sarcastic statement of the Chronicle of Victor Tununensis (in Canis – Basu Lect. Ant. i 326) that: “at Constantinople the holy Gospels were by command of the Emperor Anastasias censured and corrected, as having been composed by unlettered (idiotis) evangelists”
Re-instating the ‘Excluded Words’ we have a vivid, graphic, and poignant narrative. Impaled on a stake, accursed in order to take away the Curse of the Law, the Messiah becomes our Passover Sacrifice by the sudden plunge of the weapon, causing the agonised shout and the shedding of blood of atonement from the Living Sacrifice.
Chapter two – John 19:34.
According to the AV, RV, & RSV, it was after He was dead that the Roman soldier pierced with his lance the side of our Lord. Now all three versions are in error here. That, of course, is an astounding charge to make. We must therefore examine the matter and see if the charge is true.
We shall not need to be Greek scholars: it will not be necessary to write or quote a single word in Greek. We are, perhaps, in a position similar to that of a jury at a trial. The jurors are not Queen’s Counsel; they are ordinary men and women who may not know anything of the law on the subject of the accusation. What they are required to do is to listen to the accusation and the questioning and the summing-up and then to pass judgment. It is they, ordinary people, who pass judgment, and not the judge. He may pass sentence after the Jury have made their judgment.
The first evidence to which we shall listen is that of Dr. G. B. Winer, a recognised authority on the grammar of New Testament Greek, and I quote from the translation of his Treatise, which was written in German, the eighth English edition – translation by Dr. Moulton. This evidence is of a general nature. Winer, then, says:
“The New Testament grammarians and commentators have been chargeable with the grossest mistakes in regard to the tenses of the verb” – Treatise on NT Greek pt. III sec XL (1).
Is that accusation true? It is certainly a wide-sweeping charge to make. We must examine the matter, therefore. (Of course, when Winer wrote his Treatise in 1855 neither the R.V. nor the R.S.V, with which we shall be dealing, had been made, so his remarks were directed to the A.V, to Tischendorf’s N.T. and to the German and other translations that were available to him. We shall find, however, that his accusation of ‘grossest mistakes’ will apply to the R.V. and R.S.V. as well as to the A.V.).
In passing we may note that the A.V., R.V. and R.S.V. do not agree among themselves in the matter of the Greek tenses. Furthermore, not one of them is consistent in the translation of the Greek tenses. The proof of this assertion will appear during the course of this Enquiry.
We have heard the serious charge made against the New Testament translators. Let us pause a moment to listen to the charge of another recognised authority on New Testament Greek. That scholar is Bertholdt. And his charge is against the inspired writers themselves! He wrote:
“It is well-known that in the use of the tenses, the New Testament writers were very little bound by the laws of grammar” – Bertholdt: Einleit VI 3151.
We shall see, before we have ended this Enquiry, that the case is far different, and that it is the translators, not the writers of the inspired text, who have ignored the laws of grammar.
The Submission. I submit that the text of John 19, 34 should read: “but one of the soldiers with a spear had pierced his side…” and not “but one of the soldiers pierced …”
The difference is as between the use of the pluperfect (had pierced) and the past (pierced). In other words, did the piercing occur at that point in the narrative, or had it occurred at a previous time? This is what we shall ascertain.
Next to deal more specifically with the text of John 19:34. First I will produce the statements of two acknowledged authorities on New Testament Greek, viz. Winer (already mentioned) and Saml. G. Green.
Winer says: “In narration the Aorist is used for the pluperfect.” Treatise pt III sec XL (5) (a)
Green says: “In narration, an Aorist that starts from a time already past may be translated by the Pluperfect” – Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek New Testament sec 364 (b)
We do not have to accept these assertions untested. So let us now put them to the test.
The Pluperfect Defined. This article is being written for those of us who left school a very long time ago, and many of us have forgotten the elements of English grammar. So first of all, let us read two definitions of the term ‘Pluperfect’. From Nuttall’s English Dictionary – “denoting an event that took place previous to another past event”. From Green’s Handbook (above referred to) – that which was completed at some past time, as – ‘it had been founded on the rock,’ and in Acts 14, 23: ‘on whom they had believed.’
The Aorist in John 19:34 and elsewhere. In our examination of the assertions which have been made let us, in order to simplify our study, confine ourselves to the consideration of one form of the Greek verb, viz. First Aorist tense, Indicative mood, Active Voice. It will not be necessary for us even to know what is meant by the ‘First Aorist’ or the ‘Indicative’ or the ‘Active Voice.’ Sufficient for us to notice that all the verbs hereafter marked IAIA are of the same tense and mood and voice, the 1 st A orist, I ndicative, A ctive. (The fact that the verbs I cite are truly ‘IAIA’ may be ascertained by those not conversant with Greek by reference to Bagster’s Analytical Greek Testament where every verb is analysed).
The Enquiry Begins. After all that lengthy prelude we may now begin to test the assertions of Winer and Green, and see if they are correct in saying that in narration the Aorist may sometimes be translated by the Pluperfect. Let us first take Mark 16:1 –
AV “when the Sabbath was past Mary had bought (IAIA) sweet spices”
RV “when the Sabbath was past Mary bought (IAIA) spices’
RSV ditto
Which is correct? The question is soon answered, for Luke 23:56 shows that the faithful few had bought and prepared the spices before the commencement of the Sabbath day. This proves that the A.V. in 8 this instance is correct, and the other two versions incorrect. It also proves the Rule that in narration the Aorist may sometimes be translated by the Pluperfect. Another example is found in Mark 3:16 – Here all three versions A.V., R.V. & R.S.V. agree in saying that Simon was surnamed (IAIA) Peter when he was appointed as an apostle. But in John 1:42 we read that Peter was given that surname immediately on his first introduction to Christ. This shows two things – that the three versions err in tense here, and that the rendering should have been in the Pluperfect, viz. “and Simon he had surnamed (IAIA) Peter.”
Matthew 28:2. The same three versions err also here. Neither the earthquake nor the rolling away of the stone occurred while the women were at the tomb. All this had happened previously, as the words of the angel imply when he said, “He is not here, for He was raised” verse 6 Marshall’s Interlinear. The facts prove that those versions should have read “an angel of the Lord, descending out of heaven and approaching had rolled away (IAIA) the stone” (Marshall’s Interlinear with pluperfect adjustment).
Matthew 14:3. In this example we find all three versions correct in using the pluperfect tense for the Greek ‘IAIA’ verb, thus – “for Herod had… bound (IAIA) him.” And here are some more passages where all three versions have correctly used the pluperfect for the Greek IAIA verb –
Luke 2:39 and when they had performed (IAIA) all things
Luke 7:1 when he had ended (IAIA) all his sayings
John 13:12 so after he had washed (IAIA) their feet
The R.S.V. correctly gives the pluperfect tense in the following passages:
John 11:30 Jesus was still in the place where Martha had met (IAIA) him
John 4:45 having seen all that he had done (IAIA)
John 4:46 Cana . . . where he had made (IAIA) the water wine
Matt. 26:48 now the betrayer had given (IAIA) them a sign
John 18:24 The versions present variant readings:
A.V. Now Annas had sent (IAIA) him bound unto Caiaphas
R.V. Annas therefore sent (IAIA) him bound unto Caiaphas
R.S.V. Annas then sent (IAIA) him bound to Caiaphas
The A.V. is correct here in using the pluperfect, and this is proved by the fact that at this point in the narrative the Lord was already present before Caiaphas, to whom Annas had sent him.
Conclusion. It will be seen from our examination so far that the A.V., R.V. and R.S.V. have been inconsistent, not only with one another, but each in its own version, in the way they have treated the ‘IAIA’ Greek verb. (Yet Bertholdt said “the New Testament writers were very little bound by the laws of grammar.” The looseness is not with the New Testament writers, but with the translators.!!)
Other examples could be brought forward, but I think, fellow-Jurors, we have heard sufficient to assent to the following judgment:
(1) that Winer’s accusation has been proved, viz. that the New Testament translators have been chargeable with the grossest mistakes in regard to the tenses of the (Greek) verb, and
(2) that in narration a Greek Aorist verb should sometimes be translated by the pluperfect. (NB: I do not say “should always be translated by the pluperfect”)
Finally. From all that we have seen we may conclude that John 19:34 should be rendered thus: “When they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs, (but one of the soldiers had pierced his side with a spear).” See Objection 1 on the word for ‘but’ in this verse.
Let us compare two Greek words that could not be more closely comparable. Both are verbs, both in the same tense, same mood, same voice, both of the third person and singular number, both written by the same author, John, and both in narration, the same narration. Yet in John 18:24 the A.V. correctly gives the Pluperfect – “Annas had sent” but in 19:34 gives the past definite ‘pierced’ instead of the pluperfect ‘had pierced.’
Chapter three – Isaiah 53.5
We have seen that the Lord poured out His life-blood unto death when He was pierced by the Roman spear. It was the blood of atonement, shed for the remission of our sins; it was the blood of a Living Sacrifice.
This is in accordance with Isaiah 53:5. The A.V. translation sounds well, but it is incorrect. It is not a translation of what Isaiah wrote by the Spirit of God. This is a statement which must be proved. Let us therefore hear what three acknowledged Hebraists have to say on the matter – Drs. R. Young, Parkhurst and Gesenius.
Young (a) his Literal Translation reads “He is pierced for our transgressions”
(b) his Analytical Concordance gives the meaning of the Hebrew word chalal as ‘pierce, wound, stay’.
Parkhurst renders the root word as ‘make an opening, pierce, break in’
Gesenius gives the meaning of the root word as ‘pierce through, perforate, lay open’.
The rendering of Young in the Literal Translation, as given above, is in accordance with the meaning of the relevant Hebrew word, has the approval of the three Hebraists cited above, is in accordance with other passages of Scripture having that Hebrew word, and is in accordance with the facts of that awful deed when our Lord was killed by the spear-thrust.
Chapter four – Objections
1. The word for ‘but’ in John 19, 34 viz. ‘alla’. The objector says that the use of ‘alla’ is inconsistent with the view which I put forward, and that another Greek word would have been more suitable.
It should, however, be noted that that word ‘alla’ is used in several different senses. Green’s ‘Handbook’ sec 404 gives five of those ways, one of which is —
INTERRUPTION: ‘alla’ is used when a train of thought is broken by some limitation, modification, correction.
This is the case with John. I have sought for other passages having a similar construction, where ‘alla’ is used in a manner similar to John 19, 34. As the word appears in the N.T. more than 630 times it is not listed in Young’s Analytical Concordance. I have come across these three examples. There are no doubt others, but these three are sufficient. As in John 19:34 the word ‘alla’ contrasts a present happening or condition with a past happening or condition.
Galatians 4:7-8 Thou art (present indicative) a son… but (alla) ye served (1 Aorist Ind.) as slaves.
1 Timothy 1:15-16 I am (pres. ind.) chief of sinners … but (alla) I obtained (1 Aor. Ind.) mercy.
John 20:6-7 Peter beholds the kerchief not lying (pres. ptcple.) with the sheets, but (alla) having- beenwrapped-up (perfect ptcple.) in one place.
This last specimen is in close proximity to John 19:34. Furthermore, that the word alla is not always strongly adversive is seen from its occurrences in the same narration – 18:28 but (alla) that they might eat. 18:40 not this man, but (alla) Barabbas. 19:21 write not … but (alla) that that man said. 19:24 not tear it, but (alla) let us cast lots.
2. Textual criticism. Another Objection takes this form: “After a great deal of vacillation, textual critics in general lean towards the ‘Western’ text. . . and therefore against the lance-thrust phrase in Matthew”.
This objection has to do with textual criticism generally, and there has been and still is a ‘great deal of vacillation’ among textual critics. This pamphlet, however, deals with a specific case. Out cancelling all theories of textual criticism, both the sound and the unsound, is this basic fact, that the ‘Excluded Words’ were written in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts when they were first written (4th cent.), and are found in C (Ephraemi Rescriptus: 3rd cent.). The words are also found in the Palestinian Syriac Mss. and in the Ethiopic version when first written. Moreover Chrysostom (4th cent.) quotes the passage.
The ‘Excluded Words’ are also found in the majority of the OLD LATIN translations, and those translations were made within “a generation or two of the time at which the sacred books were themselves composed” (F. Kenyan in ‘Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, page 238). The Vulgate Codices contain the excluded words, and the Vulgate NT was copied from the older Old Latin Codices, with slight revision. There are in existence some earlier papyri, but none contains anything of Matthew after chapter 26.
(To verify the statements made in this pamphlet concerning the text, reference could be made to the footnotes in the Variorum, to the Greek Testament published by the BFBS 1954, and to that published by the United Bible Societies in 1966).
O. L. Barnes makes the following summary: writing of the ‘Excluded Words’ —
“the Mss, etc. evidence is divided, but it is significant in this case (more so than the witness of Vaticanus) that the reading is given by the Latin r², which, with certain other evidence, takes us back to Justin and Irenaeus, behind Syr c & s and Tat diat and approaches more nearly to Graeco-Syriac of A.D. 125.”
3. The alleged transplant. This Objection asserts that the excluded words were transplanted from John 19:34 into Matthew 27:49. This is a very frequent allegation. It ignores altogether the alternative that the phrase was transplanted into John’s narration from Matthew’s. We shall see, however, that the phrase was not copied from one to the other, in either direction. However, let us look at some of the rash and irresponsible sayings of some Greek scholars. We select Burgon, Scrivener and A. T. Robertson.
Burgon “From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say This came from Tatian’s Diatessaron…’ The piercing of our Saviour’s side, transplanted by Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Ephraemi Rescriptus from St. John 19:34 into St. Matthew 27:49, is an instance of (this), which… Westcott & Hort (alone among editors) have admitted into their text” – Revision Revised 1885.
Dr. Burgon was very careless. Among the errors in the above are three glaring ones. The first is in overlooking the fact that the Greek NT published by Cardinal Mai in 1860 contains the excluded words at Matt. 27:49.
The second glaring error is in supposing the alleged transplant to have been possible. For the excluded words do not coincide with the passage in John 19:34, and there is so great a difference in the wording and the order of the words as to preclude the idea of copying. Here are the two passages, the top line is the EW from Matthew and the lower line the passage in John 19:34.
allos de labOn logchEn enuxen autou tEn pleuran kai exElthen udOr kai aima all eistOn stratiOtOn logchE autou tEn pleuran enuxen kai exEtthen euthus aima kai udOr
The third error is in supposing that the ‘transplanting’ took place when the Codices he mentions were written. We saw in the answer to the previous Objection that the EW appeared in texts written centuries earlier. The Old Latin mss. were made within a generation or two of Matthew, and they contained the ‘Excluded Words’. And they would have been made from even earlier copies.
This is that Dr. Burgon who was ‘conspicuous for his vehement, even intemperate’ opposition to the RV. Sir F. Kenyon wrote of him —
“Dean Burgon tilted desperately… and even went so far as to argue that these two documents (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) owed their preservation, not to the goodness of their text, but to its depravity, having been, so to speak, pilloried as examples of what a copy of the Scriptures ought not to be!” – ‘Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts’ pp 182-3; 204; 316.
Scrivener: 1873-1891. “We are here brought face to face with the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge of B (Vaticanus)… a sentence which neither they (Westcott and Hort) nor any other competent scholar can easily believe that the Evangelist ever wrote… words borrowed from John 19:34 with a slight verbal change, and representing that the Saviour was pierced before his death…” – Introduction to the criticism of the NT, 4th edn. Revised by Miller, vol 2 1894.
How careless these scholars can be! While the sense of the EW and the passage in John 19:34 is the same, the words are so different, and the order, as to rule out the possibility of ‘borrowing’ or ‘transplanting’.
A. T. Robertson. “a manifest and blundering harmonistic addition.” That is how Robertson refers to the EW in his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the NT, 1925, p. 217.
Yet the actual wording of the Greek text shows that there was no copying from John 19:34 – nor from Matthew 27:49. Moreover, the narration in Matthew, after re-incorporating the Excluded Words, is so smoothly running that there is nothing ‘blundering’ and nothing manifesting an attempt at harmonising whatever. This can be seen by reading the corrected RSV reading in chapter One of this pamphlet.
A strange oversight. The whole difficulty vanishes when it is realised that in John 19 the narration ends with verse 33, and verses 34 to 37 inclusive are John’s comment upon the narrative, written to show how the OT. prophecies came to be fulfilled. (For other examples of editorial explanatory comments in John see 2:21-22; 3:13; 6:71; 7:39; 12:33; 13: 29; 18:14; 19:34-37; 20:9; 20:30-31; 21:24; 21:25).
Why do so many people assert (in the face of clear evidence to the contrary) that the Lord Jesus Christ was not a Living Sacrifice – that therefore the Blood of the New Covenant was an unholy thing – the blood of a corpse? Why all the baseless objections?
4. Blood-shedding. “The first shedding of blood was the piercing of the hands “and feet”. So runs this fourth Objection. And it ignores the previous scourging. (I do not cite Luke 22:44. The textual authenticity of the verses 43-44 is uncertain). But let us examine the Objection fully. The phrase ‘shedding of blood. The phrase is used literally, and also idiomatically. It is used in the literal sense in Hebrews 9:22. The Greek is aimatekchusia = a pouring-out of blood, (aima = blood, ekcheO = to pour out). The sense of this last word ekcheO is obtained from its other occurrences in Scripture —
John 2:15 poured out the changers’ money
Acts 2:17 I will pour out my Spirit
Acts 2:18 will pour out … of my Spirit
Revelation 16:1 pour out the vials of the wrath of God.
Revelation 16:2,2,4,8,10,12,17 – poured out the vial
So we see that this literal sense of blood-shedding cannot be applied to the loss of blood from the piercing of hands and feet of the Saviour. Let us look at the idiomatic sense. This is seen in Genesis 9:6; “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Again in Deuteronomy 21:7: “they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood”. The slain man in both verses could have been killed by drowning, by strangulation, by stoning, by poisoning, or by any other means not involving loss of blood. In the Ten Commandments the phrase is ‘Do no murder.’ Exodus 20:13 R.V.
It is true that our Lord lost a little blood from the wounds in hands and feet, perhaps more in the scourging, but none of this can be called “the Blood of the New Covenant shed for many for the remission of sins.”
But when the Roman soldier took a lance and killed our Master, His blood was shed in both senses – literally and idiomatically (i.e. death by murder).
The Law. The words of Leviticus 17:11-14 should be heeded here: “The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life… he shall pour out the blood thereof… for as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof… R.V.
The Types. The Messiah did not die in order to comply with the types of the OT. Contrariwise, the shadows in the OT. were made to prefigure the death of our Lord. Those shadow-figures in the Tabernacle and in the Temple invariably pointed to the death of the Coming Sin-Sacrifice, and they portrayed that Sacrifice as death by blood-shedding. In no case was it permissible for a dead animal to be brought to have its blood shed at the altar.
If we refer to the type of Abraham and Isaac we find that Abraham tied his son and was ready to slay him with the thrust of the knife. It was not his intention to wound Isaac and leave him to die of exposure or exhaustion, but to slay him suddenly by a knife-thrust and consequent blood- shedding. Thus did the Most High pre-figure the death of His Son, our Saviour.
A. H. Broughton.
Caveat: It appears that Brother Broughton was a member of a church called The Nazarene Fellowship in Wales. I have not thoroughly studied their beliefs (and they are no longer a fellowship). However, I do remember my father sharing with me some of the, perhaps unorthodox, views that this gentlemen held. The best I remember they resembled some of what we call hyper-preterists today (though I’m not certain). One view being that Jesus returned in 70AD. Other expressed views were that some of what we consider canonical Scriptures should have not been added. I know that my father did not agree with these fringe views. (However, Dad did think the above study was excellent). My father, Leo Jordan, was a firm believer that one can have WRONG theological views and not be a heretic. See his essay called: Doctrine, Right, Wrong or False.
