Did Jesus Take His Blood To Heaven? (Hebrews 9:12)

Paul the Apostle

While it has been a common doctrine that Jesus took his blood to heaven, this has been today critiqued especially by those who come from the line of Robert Thieme, who believed that the literal blood of Christ had nothing to do with the atonement, but was purely symbolic. As a corollary doctrine, he also denied that Jesus' blood was taken to heaven.

The debate centers around Hebrews 9:12, which reads:

Hebrews 9:12

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.

This verse has often been understood as Jesus taking his blood to heaven to sprinkle it in the holy place, thus fulfilling the Old Testament type layed out in Leviticus 16:

Leviticus 16:14

14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.

Evangelists of the past generally shared this view, as the Bible teacher M.R. DeHaan (1891 – December 13, 1965) wrote in his book "The Tabernacle":

M.R. DeHaan

The blood was to be sprinkled, remember, on the mercy seat right after the death of the substitutionary animal of sacrifice, Now Christ is, of course, our substitute.  He was slain for us upon the Cross, and entered into death for us, and when He arose, He immediately went to heaven, entered into the holy of holies in heaven, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin questions, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New testament. Hebrews 9:12 is very definite on this:

"But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

The Bible also makes plain when He accomplished this. On the morning of the resurrection He meets Mary at the tomb. As soon as Mary recognized Him, she prostrated herself upon Him, and would have kissed His feet, but with shocking suddenness, Jesus emphatically says to her: "Touch me not"; and then He proceeds immediately to give the reason why Mary is not permitted to touch Him at all.

"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." (John 20:17)

Literally the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Touch me not; for I now am about to ascend unto my Father."  We can understand this action when we remember the the high priest after he had offered the sacrifice, was to enter the holy of holies, before he did anything else, with the precious blood. No one was allowed to approach him. Everyone was shut out until this was completely done. And here in the record of the meeting with Mary we have the fulfillment of this type. Here Mary meets her great High Priest, just arisen from the tomb, but before He had entered the holy of holies with the reconciling blood. And so He says to her, "TOUCH ME NOT."

The TABERNACLE, by M.R. DeHaan, M.D., ISBN 0-310-23491-3, page 129.

The objection raised by those who deny that Jesus took his blood to heaven is based on their interpretation of the Greek word dia (which they argue should be translated as "through" in this context). They contend that it does not imply Jesus taking his blood to heaven but rather that the "holy place" mentioned refers to the cross itself. However, the usage of dia (often translated as "by" or "through") in this context is instrumental, indicating the means of Jesus' enterance into holy place, not excluding the act of Jesus taking his blood into heaven. It is essential to understand the verse as referring to Jesus taking his blood to heaven to fulfill the Old Testament typology. If Jesus had not taken his blood into the heavenly sanctuary, this typology would remain incomplete, leaving a significant aspect of Scripture’s redemptive narrative unfulfilled.

Further support for the historicity of this event (as already noted by DeHaan) is from John 20:17, where Jesus does not let Mary touch him because he is not yet ascended. If this were the same ascension as in the book of Acts, it would not make sense why Jesus would then allow Thomas to touch him (John 20:24-27). This contradiction is easily solved by the fact that before the ascension in Acts 2, Jesus had already prior gone to heaven to apply his blood to the mercy seat. Those who deny this event, often argue that John 20:17 should instead be translated as "hold" (NIV) or "cling" (NKJV) instead of the KJV rendering "touch", however this is a forced meaning of the word "ἅπτομαι", where it is very consistently translated instead as "touch" (such as in Matthew 8:3 Matthew 8:15 Matthew 9:20 Matthew 9:21 Matthew 9:29 Matthew 14:36 1 John 5:18 Luke 22:51). The translation "touch" is also supported by the ancient editions of the Bible such as the Latin Vulgate and the Peshitta. This lack of consistency is a strong mark of eisegesis (the forcing of one's views unto the Bible) rather than exegesis (taking your doctrine from the Bible), and it is sad that such eisegesis is being included in the translations themselves. 

In conclusion, it is Biblical to say that Jesus' actual blood was taken into heaven.