Did Jesus Die Spiritually?

Ten Reasons Not To Reject Word-of-Faith Teachings

(Reason Three: The Divine Son of God Tasted Death In All It's Phases So You Don't Have To )

Part One

What we do see is Jesus, made "not quite as high as angels," and then, through the experience of death, crowned so much higher than any angel, with a glory "bright with Eden's dawn light." In that death, by God's grace, he fully experienced death in every person's place. (Heb. 2:9; The Message by Eugene Peterson).

In her third reason to reject Word-of Faith teachings Ms. Tillin says that these teachers make the Divine Son of God into a born-again man who had to die in Hell to pay the price for our treason. Within this reason Ms. Tillin makes several additional accusations that supposedly supports her claim that WoF should be rejected. I will address each of these reasons in this essay.

One of the problems with Tillin's third reason is that the teaching popular known as JDS (Jesus Died Spiritually) is attributed to all churches and ministers that advocate Word-of-Faith doctrine.[1] This is far from true. It is admitted that many of the well known teachers such as Kenneth Copeland still proclaims this particular doctrine, but that does not make it a primary aspect of Word-of-Faith theology. There are many who either have never taught it or who once taught it but have rejected this particular teaching.

Does Hebrews 2:9 Speak of Spiritual Death As Well As Physical?

I confess that I was not a big fan of this teaching before studying this Scriptures and some writings on this subject. I felt that it cause more controversy than is necessary. However, I have since found that there are quite a number of Scriptures that can make a case for this teaching. The purpose of my essays is to prove that Faith teachers are neither heretical nor are they aberrational and that what they believe is not just a bunch of Scriptures strung together and twisted as some have criticized. JDS advocates have a coherent doctrine with in context Scriptural support.[2]

All of our doctrines must be based on the Scriptures and that within context. Scripture must also be allowed to interpret Scripture. The Faith teachers who teach JDS are truly sincere and believe that they have thoroughly researched the Scriptures on this. They believe that a revelation of this teaching will give the believer a greater appreciation of what Jesus has done on their behalf due to the fact that He suffered extensively for the purpose of their victory.

Hebrews 2:9 tells us that Jesus "by the grace of God should taste death for every man."(KJV) The word taste comes from the Greek word geuomai which means figuratively "to experience."[3] The paraphrase by Eugene Peterson (quoted above) implies that our Lord fully experienced death. Andrew Murray seemed to hold this position as well when he wrote, "Some men die without tasting the bitterness of death; Jesus tasted its bitterness, as the curse of sin, in full measure. [emphasis mine]"[4]. The late Ray Stedman said concerning this passage, "To taste death does not simply mean to die, but to experience death in its full horror and humiliation. He comes under the penalty of sin in order that he might remove it."[5] These men may believe that there is a certain level or measure of death that a man can experience, though they do not make it clear as to what measure of fullness that Christ suffered. We cannot say that the men we quoted would necessarily endorse what is know today as JDS, but we can show from their comments that they, as well as many others saw Heb. 2:9 as speaking of something far greater than a mere physical expiration.

There are some commentators that use stronger language when expressing their comments on Hebrews 2:9. An example can be found in the commentaries of John Gill (1697-1771). Gill was a Baptist preacher who was also a Greek scholar. He made this comment on Heb. 2:9:

that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man; that is, Christ was made a little lower than the angels by becoming man, and assuming a body frail and mortal, that he might die for his church and people: to "taste death", is a Jewish phrase, often to be met with in Rabbinical writings; (See Gill on Matthew 16:28) and signifies the truth and reality of his death, and the experience he had of the bitterness of it, it being attended with the wrath of God, and curse of the law; though he continued under it but for a little while, it was but a taste; and it includes all kinds of death, he tasted of the death of afflictions, being a man of sorrows all his days, and a corporeal death, and what was equivalent to an eternal one; and so some think the words will bear to be rendered, "that he by the grace of God might taste of every death"; which rendering of the words, if it could be established, as it is agreeable to the context, and to the analogy of faith, would remove all pretence of an a rgument from this place, in favour of the universal scheme: what moved God to make him lower than the angels, and deliver him up to death, was not any anger towards him, any disregard to him, or because he deserved it, but his "grace", free favour, and love to men; this moved him to provide him as a ransom; to preordain him to be the Lamb slain; to send him in the fulness of time, and give him up to justice and death: the Syriac version reads, "for God himself through his own grace tasted death for all"[6]

Gill's comment that part of the death that Christ suffered "was equivalent to an eternal one" can be opened to interpretation by both pro and con of JDS. I believe that Gill is interpreting Heb. 2:9 as speaking of a spiritual death. It seems that he believes that spiritual death is part of the "all kinds of death" that Jesus tasted.

However, if Gill's language seems somewhat ambiguous to the reader, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown's commentary state their belief in no uncertain terms:

"Taste death" implies His personal experimental undergoing of death: death of the body, and death (spiritually) of the soul, in His being forsaken of the Father. "As a physician first tastes his medicines to encourage his sick patient to take them, so Christ, when all men feared death, in order to persuade them to be bold in meeting it, tasted it Himself, though He had no need" [CHRYSOSTOM]. (Heb_2:14-15).[7]

Faussette believes that Jesus death was spiritual as well as physical. He supports this by referring to Matt. 27:46 which speaks of our Lord being forsaken by the Father just moments before He "gave up the ghost." We will deal with this passage momentarily.

I do not feel it monotonous to point out that the commentators quoted extensively above make it absolutely clear that they believe that the fullness of death that Jesus tasted was not just physical but spiritual as well.Whether one agrees with the above commentators is not important. The intent of quoting them is to show the reader that the Faith Movement did not necessarily invent this teaching.

Nevertheless, the Bible most certainly teaches that there is a spiritual death. The Scriptures are clear that the death is not limited to the physical being. We are taught that man is a tripartite being. We are spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess. 5:23). Many people who lack knowledge concerning the whole being of man often believe that the account in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 are contradictory. God has told Adam that if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die that very day (Gen. 2:15-17). Yet, the day that Adam ate this fruit he was still very much physically alive. As a matter of fact he live 930 years before his physical death (Gen. 5:5).

Sin Culminates In Spiritual Death

Now was God lying? Of course not. Some have said that God was not implying a physical 24 hour day when He made the statement but meant a day like a day in His mind which is supposed to be 1,000 years (2 Pet. 3:8). I don't gather from reading the Genesis account that God was speaking to Adam that way. If we take the seven day creation in Genesis 1 as literal 24 hour days (and Exodus 20:8-11 seems to make this clear) then we should take God's statement in Gen. 2:17 as a literal 24 hour day.

So what was God speaking about when he told Adam that he would die the very day he ate from the fruit? He was speaking of spiritual death, or rather, seperation from God (see Eph. 2:1-3, 12-14). We see this spiritual death in motion as Adam and Eve hid from God in shame when he came to the garden (Gen. 2:8). Prior to this sad event they were having wonderful fellowship together. The seperation culminated further when God drove them from the garden (Gen. 3:24).

The Scriptures teach that sin culminates in death (Rom. 6:16, 21-23; 7:9; James 1:15). I have no doubts that the death spoken of is spiritual death, or seperation from God (Isa. 59:1-2; Eph. 2:1-3, 12-14). The new birth is equated with having received eternal life (John 3:15-16, 36; 1 John 5:11-13). John speaks of us having passed from death to life (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14). So it seems that basically anyone who has not accepted Christ as their personal Savior is part of the walking dead. However, Jesus offers life to the walking dead.

Do The Scriptures Teach That Jesus Died Spiritually?

Once again, a compilation of Scripture can make a case for JDS. We have proven that the Scripture teaches a spiritual death and we see from these same Scriptures that the meaning of spiritual death is seperation from God Himself. Yet, we know that Jesus is God and He is a member of the threfold Godhead that includes the Father and the Holy Spirit. All three are equally God. Three persons, one God. Therefore, how could we apply spiritual death to Jesus who is God? Again, we must see what the Scriptures teach.

We know that Jesus laid aside all of His attributes and became a sinless man (Phil. 2:5-8; Acts 10:38; Gal. 4:4). Most importantly, Jesus depended upon His union with His Father to maintain His spiritual life:

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57; see also John 5:26 and 10:30)

Jesus said He lives by the Father. We are also taught in so many Bible passages that our own spiritual life is dependent on union with Christ (John 5:40; 6:33-35, 53;10:10-11; 14:6; 15:1-8; 1 John 5:12). Therefore separation from the Son is equal to be being spiritually dead. I doubt if anyone would debate this though some might debate whether such a break in union could occur after one has committed his/her life to Christ.[8]

Therefore, if spiritual life is dependent upon union with another person, it would be reasonable to say that separation, or a break in union, from that person would also lead to a loss of that life. Though Jesus was and is fully God and fully man, He stated that during His time on earth He depended on union with His Father for life. Was their ever a break in that union? Matthew 27:46 seems to make such an implication:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (see also Mark 15:34)

It was not too long after Jesus uttered these words that He experienced physical death (Matt. 27:50). Usually, as we demonstrated in the case of Adama dn Eve, spiritual death is that which brings about physical death. Yet, can we say that Jesus died spiritually? If being forsaken by the Father means anything then the answer is "yes."

The word forsaken according to the Strong's definition means "to leave behind in some place, i.e. (in a good sense) let remain over, or (in a bad sense) to desert:--forsake, leave."[9] The late Baptist Pastor, Russell Bradley Jones, gives us a very clear picture of this word:

The second agony of Hell here demonstrated is to be seen in the Master's word "forsaken." Forsaken is the saddest word in any language. In the Greek, it is made up of three words: to leave, meaning to abandon; down, suggesting defeat and helplessness; and in, referring to place or circumstance. "The total meaning of the word is that of forsaking someone in a state of defeat or helplessness in the midst of hostile circumstances" (Bypaths in the Greek New Testament, by Kenneth S. Wuest, p.87).[10]

Many of the translations I have consulted seem to agree with the above word studies:

... My God, my God, why are you turned away from me? (Bible in Basic English)

... My God, my God, why did you abandon me? (Today's English version)

... My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? (God's Word to the Nations)

... My God, My God, why have You abandoned me? [leaving Me helpless, forsaking and failing Me in My need?] (The Amplified Bible)

"(My God! My God! Why have you deserted me?)" (Jewish New Testament)

... My God, my God, Why have you deserted me? (Contemporary English Version)

... O my God, O my God, why did you let me down? (Kenneth S. Wuest)

... My God, my God, why have you left me alone? (New Century Version)

These are very strong interpretations of the word "forsake." It would seem to me that Jesus actually sensed a loss of God's presence, one that He has experienced for the first time in all of eternity (see John 8:29). To be abandoned, deserted, let down, and left alone imply more than just having one's hands over their eyes so that the scene before you cannot be viewed. The Father had forsaken Christ and the union that made life possible for Christ had been broken.

This is symbolic of the scapegoat that was sent into an uninhabited land while bearing the iniquities of the Israelites as their substitute (Lev. 16:8-22). Jesus was our scapegoat. Just as the scapegoat was literally abandoned and forsaken due to carrying the sins of the people, so was our Lord when He carried our sins: "and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6) and "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree..." (1 Pet. 2:24)

Some who oppose what is known as JDS teaching would tell us that Jesus only felt this anguish because of His suffering but that the Father had not truly forsaken Him. Yet, if we accept this interpretation then Scripture could never mean what it literally says. Furthermore, we would make Jesus a liar due to the fact that He accused the Father wrongfully of doing something that the Father did not do. This would certainly make Jesus a sinner like us and in need of redemption rather than Him being the One to provide it, which means His death on the cross is meaningless for us.

Personally, I hold to no such thought and opponents of JDS teaching should be ashamed of themselves for making such a suggestion. C. H. Spurgeon well says, "It was not a failure of faith on his part which led him to imagine what was not actual fact. Our faith fails us, and then we think that God has forsaken us; but our Lord's faith did not for a moment falter, for he says twice, 'My God, my God.'"[11]

Others say that Jesus was simply quoting a Psalm, therefore, this statement does not mean that the Father forsook Him. My reply to this is why did He select this particular Psalm? Why not quote Psalm quote Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me." Why choose Psalm 22 over this particular one? Why did Christ choose to only quote from one particular verse? For what reason did the Holy Spirit have this statement by Jesus recorded TWICE (in both Matthew and Mark) if Jesus was simply quoting a Psalm that would be meaningless to us who are reading it?

Many scholars and Bible teachers have taught the literal meaning of this Matthew 27:46. Greek scholars such as W.B. Godbey and A.T. Robertson believed that this was in relation to the passage in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Robertson says, "We are not able to enter into the fulness of the desolation felt by Jesus at this moment as the Father regarded him as sin (2Co_5:21). This desolation was the deepest suffering."[12]

Many other commentators and scholars too numerous to cite here have all taken the words that Jesus spoke in Matthew 27:46 literally. Nevertheless, I have made these quotes available to the interested reader in Appendix A.

Jesus Made Sin

So we are taught by those whose writings we have referenced that the Father's forsaking of Jesus was due to His being made sin on our behalf. 2 Cor. 5:21 says:

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Once again I would like to refer to comments from the two aforementioned scholars. In Robertson's comments on 2 Corinthians 5:21 makes the relationship directly back to Matthew 27:46:

He made to be sin. The words "to be" are not in the Greek. "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin." But he knew the contradiction of sinners (Heb_12:3). We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ's suffering on the Cross, but this fact throws some light on the tragic cry of Jesus just before he died: "My God, My God, why didst thou forsake me?" (Mat_27:46).[13]

However, there are some critics who would dispute with A.T. Robertson's literal interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:21. Some say that the words "Jesus was made sin" should actually read "Jesus was made a sin-offering." Greek scholar Marvin Vincent disputes this translation:

Made to be sin (amartian epoihsen). Compare a curse, Gal. iii. 13. Not a sin-offering, nor a sinner, but the representative of sin. On Him, representatively, fell the collective consequence of sin, in His enduring "the contradiction of sinners against Himself" (Heb. xii. 3), in His agony in the garden, and in His death on the cross.[14]

W.B. Godbey, while making similar comments as those of Robertson, also disputes the interpretation made by non-literalists:

"He made Him heir who knew no sin, in our behalf, that we may become the righteousness of God in Him." This verse is wonderful and paradoxical in the extreme. Translators generally soften it by inserting "sin offering," which is not in the original and will not do, because it breaks up the antithesis with righteousness. This settles the question of absolute substitution beyond the possibility of cavil, affirming that God made him sin (i.e., the noun sin), not in an active sense, which would be shocking, but in a passive sense, in our behalf, so that He actually punished all of the sin of the ages in His own beloved Son. This accounts for His turning His face away when the dying Savior hung on the cross. That was the crucial moment when He laid the sin of the whole world on Him and "made Him sin" (noun), instead of us. We tread lightly on ground so awful. We must give it to you as it is. It is too awful for anything like criticism to be indulged. This is the irrefutable climax of the substitutionary atonement, involving the unequivocal conclusion that He not only took the sin of the whole world on Himself, but that He became the personal substitute for every human being involved in the Fall.[15]

So we see the logical consequences of Christ being made sin on our behalf is to be forsaken by the Father. God cannot look upon sin and it is not allowed in His presence (Hab. 1:13; Lev. 22:3; Jer. 23:39-40; 52:3; 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 1:24). That is why separation from God is eternal and those who do not receive Christ will be eternally separated from God (Rev. 20-22). The shameful part about this is that no one should ever have to go to hell because of what Christ has done on the behalf of every person that has ever been or ever will be born.

Jesus Made A Curse

The extent of the atonement that Christ has wrought for us goes even deeper and becomes more significant as we continue to study the Scriptures on this subject. To be forsaken by God is the result of the curse of the law (see Deut. 28:15-68 and 31:17-18). Jesus became this curse for us as is clearly stated in the Scriptures:

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:13-14)

Just as Christ was made sin for us, He was also made a curse for us. He suffered the full results of sin and the curse on our behalf. Christ was a complete substitute for us. Martin Luther, the great reformer of the 16^th century had very strong commentary on this point. He applies a literal meaning to this passage:

And this, no doubt, all the prophets did forsee in spirit, that Christ should be accounted the greatest transgressor that could be, having all sins imputed to Him. For He being made a sacrifice for sin, yea for the sins of the whole world, is not now the Son of God born of the virgin Mary, but a sinner who hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a balsphemer and a persecutor; of Peter who denied Him; of David who was an adulterer and a murderer; and briefly, who hath and beareth all the sins of all men in His body; not that He is Himself guilty of any, but that He received them, being committed or done by us, and laid upon His own body, that He might make satisfaction for them with His own blood (Isa. 53:5)[16]

Notice that Luther did not simply say that Jesus bore sin, but Luther seems to go further in his belief that positionally, Jesus is no longer the Son of God but has become a sinner. I interpret Luther's statements as saying that this occurred when our sins were laid upon Christ. Though Robertson took 2 Cor. 5:21 literally just as Luther does with Gal. 3:13, Robertson was sure to state that, "He did not cease to be the Son of God. That would be impossible."[17]

Yet, Luther has only begun to fight. It seems that there one some during his time that disagreed with Luther concerning his theological view of Christ's atonement. Luther did not seem to be the typed that sugarcoated his criticism or used flowery words to describe what he believed was the seriousness of Christ's atonement. He goes on further to say:

But some men will say, it is absurd and slanderous to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer, if thou be wilt deny Him to be a sinner and accursed, deny also that He was crucified and dead. For it is no less absurd to say that the Son of God (as our faith professesth and believeth) was crucified and suffered the pains of sin and death, than to say that He is a sinner and accursed. But if it be not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say also that He was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest.[18]

Do not be mistaken by Luther's strong rhetoric here. In this same commentary on this verse Luther acknowledges Christ's purity, righteousness and innocence. Luther is simply stating what he feels is the ultimate and horrible price that Christ had to pay on our behalf. His did not just take our sins but He became sin for us. He did not just take away the curse but He actually became a curse for us. Luther felt that to belittle the significance and extent of the atoning work of Christ simply because it might offend our religious sensibilities was not a good reason at all.

Luther is not alone in his depiction of what Christ became on the cross. The Reformed Calvinist writer, Michael Horton makes similar expression in his commentary on the Apostle's Creed:

He who was the truth would become the world's most inveterable liar. He who was too pure to look upon a woman to lust would become history's most promiscuous adulterer. The only man who ever loved with pure selfless love would become the most despised villain in God's universe. He would become a racist, a murderer, a gossip, slanderer, thief, and tyrant. He would become all of this not in Himself, but as the sin bearing substitute for us.[19]

Do The Scriptures Teach That Jesus Bore Our Sins In His Body Only?

In spite of all the Scriptural support we have offered which has been confirmed by both scholars and well known Bible teachers, some will still dispute us on our claim that Jesus died spiritually. They will state that His sufferings were limited only to His physical being and that His deity was in way effected by this. Our critics will cite 1 Peter 2:24 as their proof that the sufferings of Christ were bodily only.

We do not deny that His bodily suffering was a major and significant part of the price that was paid on our behalf. The Bible puts great emphasis upon this. However, we strongly believe that the suffering of our Lord was not limited to bodily suffering alone. We do not believe this due to the fact that sin is a spiritual problem that effects every part of our being (Matt. 12:33-37; 15:18-20; Rom. 8:1-13; Gal. 5:16-26; 6:1, 7-8).

Isaiah 53:10-11 seems to imply that the suffering of Christ went beyond just His human nature:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Christ's soul was made an offering for sin and His soul travailed/suffered on our behalf. Of course the Hebrew word for soul used in Isaiah 53:10-11 can just as easily be translated as life and we would not dispute anyone on this translation since I do not claim to be a Hebrew scholar. Nevertheless, Strong's shows that the Hebrew word, nephesh (Strong's #5315), has more than one way of being translated. While the Hebrew word chay is primarily translated in the Old Testament in relation to someone's, as in the days of a person's life (Eccl. 5:18), the Hebrew word nephesh seems to be used more in relation to that force on the inside that animates the body.

In his Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Larry Richards gives us insight into the Hebrew meaning of nephesh:

Most scholars believe that the root of the Hebrew word nepes originally meant "to breathe." In Hebrew and related languages, nepes focuses on life, or the living being (e.g., Ge 1:20,21,24,30; 2:7). But generally "soul" is not life in the abstract.

> Life and Death Soul is personal existence. It is the life or self of an individual as marked by vital drives and desires. It is the seat of emotion and will. Nepes is the "I" of the individual, and is often used with the sense of a personal pronoun. Thus, while nepes may mean "life," it is the unique personal life, the individual self, that is emphasized. [20]

Though we sometimes divide the spirit and soul for teaching purposes, there is nothing that can effect one's soul and not effect their spirit as well. Therefore, if we take the literal meaning and context of the word soul used in Isaiah 53:10-11 we must conclude that the sufferings of Christ were not limited to His human side alone.

Hebrews 9:14 seems to also imply that Jesus sacrifice on our behalf went beyond the physical realm:

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

There seems to be some dispute amongst scholars and Bible teachers as to whether the "eternal Spirit" is referring to the Holy Spirit or our Lord's own spirit.[21] Since this essay is an apologetic intended to present a defense of the JDS teaching (or to at least prove that a case can indeed be made for it), I will present the scholarship that affirms that the sacrifice that Jesus made was by His own spirit.

There are well known scholars and commentators who believe that the phrase "eternal Spirit" is referring to Christ's spirit and not the Holy Spirit:

Through the eternal Spirit (dia pneumatov aiwniou). Not the Holy Spirit, but Christ's own spirit which is eternal as he is. There is thus a moral quality in the blood of Christ not in that of other sacrifices. (A. T. Robertson)[22]

Through the eternal spirit (dia pneumatov aiwniou). For the rend. an. Dia through = by virtue of. Not the Holy Spirit, who is never so designated, but Christ's own human spirit: the higher element of Christ's being in his human life, which was charged with the eternal principle of the divine life. Comp. Rom. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 45; 1 Pet. iii. 18; Heb. vii. 16. This is the key to the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice. The significance and value of his atonement lie in the personal quality and motive of Christ himself which are back of the sacrificial act. The offering was the offering of Christ's deepest self - his inmost personality. Therein consists the attraction of the cross, not to the shedding of blood, but to Christ himself. This is Christ's own declaration, John xii. 32. "I will draw all men unto me." Therein consists its potency for men: not in Christ's satisfaction of justice by suffering a legal penalty, but in that the cross is the supreme expression of a divine spirit of love, truth, mercy, brotherhood, faith, ministry, unselfishness, holiness, - a spirit which goes out to men with divine intensity of purpose and yearning to draw them into its own sphere, and to make them partakers of its own eternal quality. This was a fact before the foundation of the world, is a fact today, and will be a fact so long as any life remains unreconciled to God. Atonement is eternal in virtue of the eternal spirit of Christ through which he offered himself to God. (Marvin Vincent)[23]

Heb 9:14 - offered himself--The voluntary nature of the offering gives it especial efficacy. He "through the eternal Spirit," that is, His divine Spirit (Rom_1:4, in contrast to His "flesh," Heb_9:3; His Godhead, 1Ti_3:16; 1Pe_3:18), "His inner personality" [ALFORD], which gave a free consent to the act, offered Himself. The animals offered had no spirit or will to consent in the act of sacrifice; they were offered according to the law; they had a life neither enduring, nor of any intrinsic efficacy. But He from eternity, with His divine and everlasting Spirit, concurred with the Father's will of redemption by Him. His offering began on the altar of the cross, and was completed in His entering the holiest place with His blood. The eternity and infinitude of His divine Spirit (compare Heb_7:16) gives eternal ("eternal redemption," Heb_9:12, also compare Heb_9:15) and infinite merit to His offering, so that not even the infinite justice of God has any exception to take against it. It was "through His most burning love, flowing from His eternal Spirit," that He offered Himself [OECOLAMPADIUS]. (Jamieson-Faussette-Brown)[24]

All of the above scholars believe that the passage is referring to Christ's own spirit and not the Holy Spirit. If this is true then the sacrifice that Christ made goes far beyond just physical suffering. Not only do we have these scholars to affirm that Heb. 9:14 can be translated in this manner, but we also have some Bible translations that seem to agree:

... how much more shall the blood of the Messiah, who by virtue of [His] eternal spirit [His divine essence as deity, thus by His own volition as a member of the Godhead] offered himself spotless to God, purge our conscience from dead works to the serving of the living God.(The New Testament: An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest).

How much more surely shall the blood of Christ, who by virtue of [His] eternal Sprit [His own preexistent divine personality] has offered Himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, purify our consciences from dead works and lifeless observances to serve the [ever] living God? (The Amplified Bible)

how much more will the blood of the Christ, who, through his eternal Spirit, offered himself up to God, as a victim without blemish, purify our consciences from a lifeless formality, and fit us for the service of the Living God! (Twentieth Century New Testament)

how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through his eternal spirit offered himself free from blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works unto the service of an ever-living God! (Montgomery NT)

The Contemporary English Version captures the essence of what we are trying to help the reader understand concerning this message:

But Christ was sinless, and he offered himself as an eternal and spiritual sacrifice to God. That's why his blood is much more powerful and makes our consciences clear. Now we can serve the living God and no longer do things that lead to death. (Contemporary English Version)

To say this is NOT denying the Holy Spirit's part in this. We know that the Holy Spirit certainly had His part in the redemption wrought through Christ. However, if we can show the reader that Jesus suffered in His spirit as well as His body, we can show that the reader that His sacrifice was not limited to the physical aspects of His suffering.

Classic Writers Who Believed The Christ Suffered Spiritually

There are other writers in the past who have tried to attempted to show their audience that Christ's suffering were more than just physical torment and torture. In 1852, a minister by the name of George Griffin also saw the correlation between the sufferings of Christ in His humanity as well as His deity:

The name, the Christ, when mingled in the ever-recurring declarations of his sufferings, is not limited. to his humanity, directly or by implication, anywhere in the Word of God. The limitation sought to be engrafted on the declarations of his sufferings rests on human, not on divine authority. It is the begotten of the unfounded hypothesis, A"God is impassible.@" Had that hypothesis never been adopted, it is not likely that the prevalent theory, confining the sufferings of Christ to his human nature, would have found a place in Christian theology.

It is the radical error of the prevalent theory, that it seeks to contract, without scriptural authority, to the manhood of Mary=s@s son the declarations of the Holy Ghost applicable, in their terms, to the whole incarnate God, and crippled by a more limited application. Human reason has no authority delegated from above to restrict, by its own volition, what the Bible has left general. The Word of God must not be bent to what human reason somewhat arrogantly terms, when applied to divine things, its own sound discretion. The sound discretion of one theorist differs from the sound discretion of another theorist. If the Bible is to shape itself to the ever-varying phases of what claims to be the sound discretion of reason, it must assume more forms than the fabled Proteus of heathen mythology ever assumed. The self styled sound discretion of human reason has done the Bible more harm than it ever suffered from the prince of darkness. It has brought Christians into collision with Christians; it has broken into fragments what should have been the one and indivisible Church of the Son of God; it has rent asunder what the Roman soldiery spared, even the seamless vestment of Christ.

The impropriety of limiting to his mere humanity the unlimited declarations of Scripture indicative of Christ=s@s sufferings will be more obvious if we consider the relative proportions which his two natures bore to each other. The one was finite, the other was infinite; the one akin to the dust of the earth, the other thinking it A"not robbery to be equal with God.@" Would the inspired writers, would our Lord himself, then, if intending to have it believed that the divinity of Christ had not suffered, have used, to express the sufferings of his mere terrestrial adjunct, terms applicable to the whole infinitude of his united natures; and terms, too, which are crippled and distorted by a more limited application? They best knew the natures and agonies of the Mediator: and when they used the significant term, the Christ, to designate the recipient of the expiatory sufferings, they must have meant that the Christ, the whole Christ of the Bible had suffered.[25]

Griffin's statement that Bible reasoning has brought Christians into collision with other Christians is most certainly as true today as it was in his time. If this were not true there would never have been any need for me to write these articles in rebuttal to all of the ant-WoF attacks from so many religious sects.

Asa Mahan, an associate of Charles G. Finney seems to agree with Griffen in this respect as he states: "The divine declaration, 'if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature,' can never become, in its full sense, a reality in actual experience, so long as Gethsemane and Calvary present a no more melting spectacle to the mind, than that of a human sufferer."[26]

If sin is a spiritual problem then it stands to reason that physical suffering alone will not bring about a complete atonement. If that were true then then the Levites would not have had to make a yearly atonement for the people. Therefore, we believe that Christ's full being entered into this suffering.

Conclusion to Part One

I believe that I have presented sufficient evidence that the teaching that Christ experienced a spiritual death can and is supported by the scriptures, which is most important to any theological position. We have seen that this teaching also has a historical basis, in spite of the fact that critics will tell you that it doesn't (see Appendix A for more quotes). The reader who has already made up his mind that this teaching is heresy will in no wise be convinced by any presentation of this. Therefore I have not been concerned with trying to convince the critic. My desire however has been to strengthen those who already accept this teaching but need more evidence and those who, like myself, have wavered back and forth on this. I pray that those in the latter two categories will be blessed by this essay.

In Part Two of this essay I will deal with the question as to whether Christ suffered in hell. In Part Three I will deal with the lie that JDS teaching denies the efficacy of Christ's shed blood. Finally, in Part Four I will deal with the fact that Christ's atonement was in fact warfare against the kingdom of darkness. God bless you.

Notes

The late Pastor Hobart Freeman taught many of the doctrines supposedly unique to the Faith Movement such as faith, positive confession, divine healing, tongues, etc. Yet he wrote a book refuting the "Jesus Died Spiritually" teaching. The book is titled Did Jesus Die Spiritually? Exposing The JDS Heresy. This book can be found on his webpage at http://churches.kconline.com/faithassembly/jdsfirstpart.htm.
Bowman Jr., Robert M The Word-Faith Controversy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001), p. 227. Although Bowman (in my opinion) has shown much more charity than most of the other critics, he still believes that the Word-Faith movement "as a whole is suborthodox and aberrant." Though I might appreciate the fact that he has no desire to label us as "cultic" (p. 228), I still feel that the other two classifications are quite unfair and bias on his part and those of other critics. Bowman, like other critics see through a certain theological lense when it comes to the Faith teachers.
Strong, James The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984).
Murray, Andrew The Holiest of All (Tarrytown, NY: Fleming H. Revell Co.,), pp. 80, 81. Published sometime in 1894.
Stedman, Ray C. Hebrews (The New Testament Commentary Series) (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press, 1992). As I will attempt prove in these essays, the logical conclusion of JDS is that Christ suffered in hell. This is not to say that Stedman (or for that matter Eugene Peterson or Andrew Murray) believed that Christ suffered in hell (though they do teach that Christ was forsaken on the cross. See Appendix A). Stedman does not believe that Christ went to hell (See his Studies In Acts found at http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/acts/index.html). Even Peterson paraphrases Acts 2:27 as "... he talked of the resurrection of the Messiah-'no trip to Hades, no stench of death.' (see The Message by Eugene Peterson, Navpress Publishing Co.). I cannot find any writings that states Andrew Murray's position on this. It is certain that Stedman and Peterson do not believe that our Lord descended into hell. Nonetheless, my purpose in quoting the comments made by Stedman and others on Heb. 2:9 is to show that more than one commentator agree that Jesus death goes beyond just simply dying after a severe punishment.
Gill, John John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer), The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernized and adapted for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rights Reserved, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario. Available at Crosswalk.com
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) Available at Crosswalk.com
Contrast passages such as Heb. 6:4-8 and 10:26 with 8:35. This issue of what is called eternal security or "once saved, always saved" is an issue that has been debated in the church since the time Jacobus (James) Arminius protested many aspects of Calvinist theology. The question to be asked is what does James 1:13-15 means when it speaks of sin bringing forth death in a Christian?
Strong, James The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publisher's, 1984).
Jones, Russell Bradley Gold From Golgotha (Kirkwood, MO: Impact Books, 1972), p. 72. Original copyright for this book is 1945.
Spurgeon, Charles H. Lama Sabachthani (A sermon delivered on March 2, 1890 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle).
Robertson, A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures In The New Testament (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net)
Ibid.
Vincent, Marvin, Vincent's Word Studies (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net)
Godbey, William Baxter Godbey's New Testament Commentaries Volume IV – Corinthians-Galatians (Paul, The Champion Theologian) (Spokane, WA: Holiness Data Ministry). For Godbey's comments on Matthew 27:46 and how it relates to 2 Cor. 5:21 see Volume VII -- Matthew-John (Part 2)(Harmonized).
Luther, Martin Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI Kregel Publications), edited by John Price Fallowes, M.A.
Roberts, Word Pictures
Luther, Galatians
Horton, Michael We Believe: Recovering the Essentials of the Apostles' Creed, Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1998), p. 101
Richards, Lawrence O. Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1985, 1991) p. 575.
Albert Barnes says about this verse, "This expression is very difficult, and has given rise to a great variety of interpretation.--Some Mss., instead of eternal here, read holy, making it refer directly to the Holy Spirit. See Wetstein. These various readings, however, are not regarded as of sufficient authority to lead to a change in the text, and are of importance only as showing that it was an early opinion that the Holy Spirit is here referred to." (Barnes New Testament Notes, Tempe, AZ, The CrossWire Bible Society)
Robertson, Word Pictures
Vincent, Word Studies
Jamieson, Fausette, Brown, Commentary
Griffin,George, LL.D The Sufferings of Christ (can be found at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library http://www.ccel.org/)
Mahan, Asa The Sufferings of Christ, from the Oberlin Quarterly Review, Vol II – No. IV, May 1847. Can be downloaded at http://www.revivaltheology.com

E-mail: victoryword@yahoo.com

Back to Home

Go to Ten Reasons

Return to Contents Page

Go to Part Two