Did Jesus Die Spiritually? (Part Three)

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 Three

In part one of our essay we have shown from the Scriptures that a case can be made for the spiritual death of our Lord Jesus the Messiah. In the second part of this essay we have briefly shown the place that Satan had in the sufferings of our Lord. We also saw that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Christ indeed descended into hell. We saw that depending upon how one interprets certain passages of scriptures along with the logical implications that comes from the spiritual death of our Savior, that one could possibly make a case for His suffering in hell. Let it be known that if the critic believes that our case is weak, their case against it is much weaker.

In this part of our series, we will deal with the teaching of what has been called "the born-again" Jesus, a teaching that has added further charges of heresy to the Faith Movement. We will also deal with the place that the blood of Jesus has in this teaching, showing that, contrary to the opinion of the critics, Faith Teachers do not devalue the blood but hold it in high esteem because it is indeed the blood of our God, our Lord, yes, our Savior and Redeemer, Christ Jesus.

Was Jesus Born Again?

The way we express our beliefs can often offend the religious sensibilities of others. We may use different language to communicate to our listeners what we believe is Biblical truth, and yet be misunderstood due to the verbiage used. This is sometimes the case when it comes to Faith Teachers. Unfortunately, it is not always that the Faith Teachers are misunderstood but it is often due to their being maliciously misrepresented by their critics.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. (1 Pet. 3:18-19)

There are some Bible translations that interpret verse 18 as being made alive by the Spirit (in reference to the Holy Spirit Himself). Yet, according to some Greek scholars, this is an incorrect translation. According to the Greek (as shown by some experts), there is a distinction being made here between the flesh of Jesus and His spirit. Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson says, "But quickened in the spirit (zwopoihqeiv de pneumati). First aorist passive participle of zwopoiew rare (Aristotle) verb (from zwopoiov making alive), to make alive."[1] So Robertson teaches, not that Jesus was made alive by the Holy Spirit in this passage, but that Jesus spirit was made alive.

Robertson is not alone in this. The Jamieson-Faussette-Browne Commentary makes a similar statement: "The oldest manuscripts omit the Greek article. Translate with the preposition 'in,' as the antithesis to the previous 'in the flesh' requires, 'IN spirit,' that is, in respect to His Spirit. 'Put to death' in the former mode of life; 'quickened' in the other."[2] Marvin Vincent was also convinced of this:

In the spirit. Also without the article, in spirit; not as A.V., by the Spirit, meaning the Holy Ghost, but referring to his spiritual, incorporeal life. The words connect themselves with the death -cry on the cross: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Huther observes, "Flesh is that side of the man's being by which he belongs to earth, is therefore a creature of earth, and accordingly perishable like everything earthy. Spirit, on the other hand, is that side of his being according to which he belongs to a supernal sphere of being, and is therefore not merely a creature of earth, and is destined to an immortal existence."

Thus we must be careful and not understand spirit here of the Spirit of God, as distinguished from the flesh of Christ, but of the spiritual nature of Christ; "the higher spiritual nature which belonged to the integrity of his humanity" (Cook).[3]

Though Robertson and the contributors to the JFB Commentary would not believe that Jesus spirit was ever dead,[4] they dismiss any reading of 1 Pet. 3:18 that implies that this passage speaks of the Holy Spirit bringing Him back to life. Although it is true that the Holy Spirit brought Jesus back to life (see Rom. 8:11), this is not what is being taught in this particular passage. The Greek scholars cited above believe that the 1 Pet. 3:18 speaks of a quickening in Christ's spirit, or rather that His spirit was made alive.

Many other Bible translations seem to agree with the conclusions brought out by these men. Below are the four translations that I believe express it most clearly:

Because Christ also died once for all in relation to sins, a just One on behalf of unjust ones, in order that He might provide you with an entree into the presence of God, having in fact been put to death with respect to the flesh [His human body], but made alive with respect to the spirit [His human spirit], by which [human spirit] also having proceeded, He made a proclamation to the imprisoned spirits who were at one time rebels ..." (The New Testament: An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest)

For Christ died for sins once and for all, a good man on behalf of sinners, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death physically, but made alive spiritually, and in his spiritual existence he went and preached to the imprisoned spirits. (Today's English Version)

Christ died once for sins. An innocent person died for those who are guilty. Christ did this to bring you to God, when his body was put to death and his spirit was made alive. Christ then preached to the spirits that were being kept in prison. (Contemporary English Version)

For Christ too died once and for all for our sins. He, the good, died for us, the bad, and he died to open the way to God for you. He underwent physical death, but in his spirit he was brought to life, and he went and preached to the spirits in prison. (The New Testament Vol. II, a new translation by William Barclay)

Other translations such as the J.B. Phillips, the New Living Translation, Douay-Rheims, International Standard Version, Darby, American Standard Version, Wesley New Testament, Young's Literal Translation, World English Bible, The New English Bible, The Amplified Bible, New Century Version, and God's Word to the Nations convey this thought as well.

The word quickened as used in the KJV comes from the Greek word zoopoieo (Strong's #2227). The Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words gives this definition: "to make alive, quicken" (from zoe, "life," and poieo,"to make").[5] The Strong's dictionary gives a similar definition: "to vitalize -make alive, give life, quicken."[6] The same type of interpretation is brought out in the Bible translations we have quoted on this verse. If we bring this to it's logical conclusions, Jesus spirit had to have been dead in order for it to have been made alive or to have been given eternal life (the translation of the Greek word zoe). This is the same word used in Ephesians 2:5 concerning you and I:

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (Eph. 2:5, 6)[7]

Whenever the Bible speaks of imparting this zoe eternal life into us, we are referred to as being born again (see John 3:5-15 and 1 John 3:9-15). Due to our sins we were alienated from this zoe life of God (Eph. 4:18) and the Bible calls this as being dead. We gave thorough evidence in Part 1 of this series that Jesus was indeed separated from God when He was made sin and a curse on our behalf. Since separation from God is called spiritual death when applied to us, it can also be applied to Jesus.

Therefore, after bearing the full punishment for our sins and then having His spirit quickened (more than likely by the Holy Spirit), why is it such a terrible thing to say that He was "born again." It simply means that He was restored from the eternal death that He suffered on our behalf and restored to eternal life. This does not take away from His deity as the true God no more than His incarnation into human flesh does. Because people in their zeal attempt to protect the deity of Christ are easily offended when certain language is used towards Him. Yet, no Word-of-Faith teacher as ever denied the deity of Christ by saying that He was "born again."

Besides, there is more than one Scripture that makes the very implication that the Faith Teachers are asserting. Acts 13:33-34 says:

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

According to the Strong's Dictionary, this word means "to regenerate -: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, and conceive."[8] Most Bible translations that I have consulted translate this as "Today I have become your Father." Whether this is an accurate translation or not, I do not have the expertise to dispute. Nevertheless, the word begotten which is used in the KJV and other translations seems to deal more with the birthing aspect of the relationship.

The Amplified Bible says it this way, "You are my Son; today I have begotten You [*caused You to arise, to be born; formally shown You to be the Messiah by the resurrection]." Although some equate this passage with the Messiah's birth through Mary, the context does not support this. It is dealing with the period between the death and resurrection of Christ. We see this brought out clearly in Colossians:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Col. 1:18)

Some of the commentaries I have referenced on this verse won't even touch it. They seem to skip right over it and move to the next verse. Others that I referenced seems to imply that this means that Jesus was the first one raised from the dead. This may sound reasonable but it cannot be true. In the Old Testament, we have examples of people being raised from the dead. In Kings 17:17-24, Elijah raised the widow's son from the dead. Elisha prayed and God brought a Shunammite woman's son back to life (2 Kings 4:32-37). A man was raised from the dead when he was thrown upon Elijah's bones (2 Kings 13:20-21).

In the New Testament our Lord Jesus raised Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:35-43) and He also raised Lazarus from the dead. Therefore, this could not mean that Jesus was the first raised from the dead. Other commentators say that this means that Jesus is the type of the "firstfruits" of those who would be raised from the dead. This could possibly be true, but since the word "firstfruits" and firstborn" have two different meanings in the Greek. It is the same word spoken of Christ when He was born to Mary (Luke 2:7). Therefore, this word is specifically referring to birth. So, it is not heretical for Faith teachers to say that He was born once again from His death. Yet, it's implications reach further than that. Marvin Vincent explains the meaning of this word in the Greek:

Who is the beginning (ov estin arch). Who is, equivalent to seeing He is. Beginning, with reference to the Church; not the beginning of the Church, but of the new life which subsists in the body - the Church. The first-born from the dead (prwtotokov ek twn nekrwn). Defining how Christ is the beginning of the new spiritual life: by His resurrection. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23, and Prince of life, Acts iii. 15 (note) See on Apoc. i. 5, where the phrase is slightly different, "first-born of the dead." He comes forth from among the dead as the first-born issues from the womb. Compare Acts ii. 4, "having loosed the pains of death," where the Greek is wjdinav birth -throes. 188 There is a parallelism between first-born of the creation and first-born from the dead as regards the relation of headship in which Christ stands to creation and to the Church alike; but the parallelism is not complete. "He is the first-born from the dead as having been Himself one of the dead. He is not the first-born of all creation as being himself created" (Dwight).[9]

According to Vincent, this word is speaking of the new "spiritual life." Again, according to Vincent, it was when the Lord was loosed from the pangs of death that He became the "firstborn." Another translation of Col. 1:18 says, "He is the Beginning, the first to be born from the dead, which gives him pre-eminence over all things. (The New Testament in Modern English by J.B. Phillips)" John makes the same statement in the book of Revelation:

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood (Rev. 1:5)

The Greek word translated "first begotten" here is the same one used in Colossians 1:18 as "firstborn." This word means a whole lot to us from a spiritual and victorious aspect. Though I cannot deal with this subject as thoroughly as I would like, I will say this much for the purpose of this essay: the teaching of the subject of Christ being the "firstborn" as an example to us should by no means be limited to our resurrection from the dead, as Vincent has well stated. The application of this can be seen in this life. A.B. Simpson tells us:

The very second name given to our blessed Lord in Apocalypse is the "firstborn from the dead" (1:5). He comes to us in this vision not in the nature of the first but the second Adam; not as the Christ of Judea and Galilee now, but as the Christ of the open grave, the 40 days and the heavenly glory. He comes as the great Author and Leader of a new race, men that have passed from death with Him and entered into the resurrection life. This is not the book of the old creation, but of the new. The only pathway to it is the rent veil of the flesh, and the only passport is to "know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death" (Philippians 3:10). The inheritance revealed in this Apocalypse is for those who, like their Leader, have been begotten from the dead and entered upon a resurrection life, dead to self and sin through the power of the Savior's cross and blood.[10]

Notice the words "new race." This is similar to the language that E.W. Kenyon uses.[11] Historical evidence and sound research has proven that Simpson was indeed one Kenyon's spiritual mentors and that they had a relationship with one another.[12] Simpson and Kenyon were not the only two who employed such language. F. W. Grant (1834-1902), a minister and writer among the Plymouth Brethren wrote this:

This is deliverance for Satan’s captives. It is not the restoration, however, of the old creation, nor of the first man. The seed of the woman is emphatically the “second Man,” another and a “last Adam,” new Head of a new race, who find in Him their title as ‘ ( Sons of God,” as “born, not of blood (i.e., naturally), nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”[13]

No one should be shocked by this term because the Apostle Paul makes a similar statement when he says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor. 5:17).

The Bible says that we are new creatures (more literally, new CREATIONS). Do not be surprised by the fact that critics of Faith teaching do not take these Scriptures literally. Nevertheless, Theodore H. Epp made a similar statement concerning this passage:

As the first begotten of the Father, Christ has the birthright belonging to that position. This means spiritual blessings far beyond our understanding, and a double portion of them at that ...

Not only does our Lord have the spiritual birthright from God, but the Word tells us we are fellow heirs with Him. We inherit with Him. In a spiritual sense we have also received Him as our life and live in His life. We have been raised together with Him and are made fellow heirs with Him (Rom. 8:17). A day is coming when we will even sit on the right hand of the throne on high together with Him (Rev. 3:21). Even now He has given us the privilege to be in Him and His power is in us to overcome anything that would hem us in or cause us to fall. There is nothing that can conquer us if we by faith take our place with Him as our spiritual life.[14]

We see that the fact that our identification with Jesus as the "firstborn" from the dead does not have to be limited to our physical resurrection upon His return for the church. This can be applied to the zoe eternal life that we receive from our union with Him, just as He received in His spirit. When it is applied to us as Christians, we refer to it as having been born again. Yet it seems repulsive to many Christian leaders to use the same terminology with Jesus.

The famous theologian, philosopher, and author, C.S. Lewis referred to Christ as the "first instance" of the new man:

I have called Christ the "first instance" of the new man. But of course He is something much more than that. He is not merely a new man, one specimen of the species, but the new man. He is the origin and center and life of all the new men. He came into the created universe, of His own free will, bringing with Him the Zoe, the new life. (I mean new to us, of course: in its own place Zoe has existed for ever and ever.) And He transmits it not by heredity but by what I have called "good infection." Everyone who gets it gets it by personal contact with Him. Other men become "new" by being "in Him."[15]

Now is this respected theologian being heretical with such a statement? Why would Jesus be the "first instance" of the new man if something, in some sense "new" had not happened to Him when He was raised from the dead? Like Simpson and modern Faith Teachers, Lewis seems to think of our Lord as the head of a new race of people who become part of that race when they are in union with Christ.

Yet, even if we do come to the conclusion that Jesus was actually "born again," the next question to be asked is when did this occur? Was Jesus' spirit made alive while he was in hell or on the cross. Most Commentators and Bible teachers would say that it occurred while He was on the cross. The Faith Teachers believe that it happened while He was in hell. 1 Pet. 3:18-19 could imply either/or depending on how one interprets the passage. It is unfair to label the Faith Teachers "heretical" because they do not accept the traditional interpretation of 1 Pet. 3:18-19 when Scriptural evidence for the traditional interpretation is just as weak as theirs.

Do The Faith Teachers Deny The Blood of Jesus?

This would have to be the most ridiculous accusation I have ever heard aimed at the Faith Teachers. I have never heard any group of preachers who affirmed the power and covenant of the blood more than these men (see Appendix D).

The criticism aimed at the Faith teachers is based on the critic's understanding of the phrase that Jesus uttered, "it is finished" (John 19:30) just before He died. However, does this mean that everything that is required for the redemption of mankind was absolutely and totally complete? Then what would we do with Jesus' statement in the garden as He was praying to the Father: "I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." (John 17:4)

Jesus made this statement a little while before He ever hung on the cross. He prayed this right after He gave His disciples their final instructions. Does this mean that redemption was complete when He prayed this prayer? If not then what does it mean? If there is any other meaning for John 17:4 than the completion of redemption, cannot the same explanation be applied to John 19:30?

As we read the context of the chapter, I believe we can find an alternative translation than that of saying that all that was needed to redeem man was complete when Jesus said, "It is Finished." The following verses in John 19 teaches that there was more blood that needed to be poured out:

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. (John 19:30-26)

In the Bible we read of four times that the blood of Christ was shed prior to His death. The first was in the garden of Gethsemane while in agonizing prayer (Luke 22:42-44). The second time was when He was whipped (Matt. 27:26; Isa. 53:4-5; 1 Pet. 2:24). The third time was when a crown of thorns was placed upon His head (Matt. 27:29). The fourth time was when He was actually nailed to the cross (John 20:25). If all that was required was the shedding of His blood then the Garden of Gethsemane should have been sufficient. Yet we have these three other times mentioned in the Scriptures.

But then there is the fifth time which occurred after His death when His side was pierced, something that seemed to be of importance since the Scriptures mention it and because Jesus mentions it to Thomas as proof that He is indeed the Christ. So when Christ said it is finished, it could be totally applying to completion of our redemption. Please bear with me as I give the reader more Scriptural proof.

The Resurrection

The Bible also teaches how vitally important the resurrection is to man's salvation and redemption. The Bible teaches us that if Christ is not risen from the dead, then our faith is empty (1 Cor. 15:13-20). The fact that Christ has risen from the dead is the reason that we can have hope (1 Pet. 1:21). Contrary to what some opponents of JDS will tell you, belief or unbelief in the JDS doctrine has nothing to do with one's salvation. However, a belief in the fact that Christ has risen from the dead seems to be essential to it:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:9-10)

So we can see from this passage that belief in Christ's resurrection is of utmost importance.[16] If Jesus statement "it is finished" means that all that was necessary for our redemption was done then there would have been no need for Him to be resurrected. Yet, not only was it necessary for Him to rise, it is essential to our salvation for us to believe that this was done.

Entrance Into The Holy of Holies

The last thing I want to point out is the necessity that Christ enter the Most Holy Place and presented His blood to the Father before our redemption was to be complete. In this sense, Jesus was fulfilling the type of the Levitical Priest who took the blood of the innocent sacrifice into the tabernacle in order to make an atonement for the sins of the people (see Lev. 16). Hebrews tells us how our Lord fulfilled this type:

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 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. (Heb. 9:11-12)

Because verse 12 might be interpreted incorrectly by those who would attempt to to refute this, allow me to present this verse from several different translations. The New English Bible translates the passage this way:

But now Christ has come, high priest of good things already in being. The tent of His priesthood is a greater and more perfect one, not made by men's hands, that is, not belonging to this created world; the blood of his sacrifice is his own blood, not the blood of goats and calves; and thus he has entered the sanctuary once and for all and secured an eternal deliverance. (New English Bible)

Here are several other translations that shows us that redemption was complete AFTER Christ took His blood into the Most Holy Place:

Once for all time he took blood into that Most Holy Place, but not the blood of goats and calves. He took his own blood, and with it secured our salvation forever. (New Living Translation)

When Christ went through the tent and entered once and for all into the Most Holy Place, he did not take the blood of goats and bulls to offer as a sacrifice; rather, he took his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us. (Today's English Version)

Christ entered the Most Holy Place only once – for all time. He did not take with him the blood of goats and calves. His sacrifice was his own blood. He entered the Most Holy Place and set us free from sin forever. (New Century Version)

Then Christ went once for all into the most holy place and freed us from sin forever. He did this by offering his own blood instead of the blood of goats and bulls. (Contemporary English Version)

Once and for all he went through it into the Holy of Holies. It was not the blood of goats and calves that he took with him as a sacrifice. It was his own blood. And thus he secured eternal redemption for us. (The New Testament Vol. II by William Barclay)

And he entered not by means of of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, thus setting people free forever (Jewish New Testament).

He used his own blood, not the blood of goats and bulls, for the sacrifice. He went into the most holy place and offered this sacrifice once and for all to free us forever. (God's Word to the Nations)

Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood he went into the Holy of Holies once for all and secured our eternal redemption. (International Standard Version)

and once for all entered the Holy place, taking with Him not the blood of goats and calves, but His own blood, and thus procuring eternal redemption for us. (Wesley New Testament)

What amazes me is that E.W. Kenyon has written a whole chapter on this in his book, What Happened from the Cross to the Throne. Chapter twelve of his book is titled, What Happened When He Entered In With His Blood. I will confess that he uses language that understandably offends the religious sensibilities of many.[17] Nevertheless, we should attempt to understand his whole message and what He was attempting to convey to his readers.

Kenyon believed that Jesus entered into Heaven, and into the Most Holy Place, and offered His blood to the Father as a ransom for us. Commenting on Heb. 9:12, Kenyon says, "The Spirit is telling, through Paul, of Jesus as the New High Priest carrying His blood into the Holy of Holies and making eternal redemption ..."[18] Kenyon was not the first to preach this. The Baptist minister, Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) made this statement:

The priest shall bring in the blood of the bullock into the tabernacle of the congregation; showing thereby, how Christ should enter into heaven, by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us, Heb. ix.12.[19]

Keach seemed to believe that Christ's entering into heaven is a fulfillment of that type which was portrayed through the Old Testament Levitical Priesthood. Andrew Murray also taught this:

When He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, it was according to that working of the strength of His might, whereby God had raised Him and set Him at His own right hand. He entered God's presence as the living One who was dead, and behold, He lives for evermore. And yet, strange to say, it was not enough that He should present Himself at the gate of heaven as the conqueror of death and hell, and ask admission. He had to take with Him His own blood, as it had been shed upon earth, as the power by which alone, as the surety of sinners, He could claim access to the presence of God. Through His own blood Christ entered the Holiest of all.[20]

Andrew Murray felt that it was when Christ entered into Heaven that He presented His blood to the Father. In a similar fashion, William Newell says, "... these words, through (dia) His own blood, reveal that Christ entered Heaven with a memorial of His own sacrifice."[21] The JFB Commentary states, "His offering began on the altar of the cross, and was completed in His entering the holiest place with His blood."[22]

The Scriptures affirm that the cross is vitally important to the atonement that Christ made on our behalf. Yet, the Bible does not stop with the cross in proclaiming the benefits of our redemption. A resurrection was necessary and an ascension was necessary to present the blood to the Father as the price of our redemption.

It is not necessary for anyone to believe that Christ suffered in hell. The Faith Teachers have their reasons for teaching this derived from their understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Yet, to make them look heretical or aberrational because of this is divisive. If anything, there is no worse heresy than for one to say that the cross was enough when the Scriptures teach otherwise. We do not serve a Savior who is on the cross. We serve a RISEN and VICTORIOUS Savior. He has conquered Satan, death, and hell.

So What Did Jesus Mean By "It Is Finished?"

If it is true that Jesus may not have been implying that redemption was complete when He said, "it is finished" then it would behoove us to determine the true meaning of His Words. We do not believe that Jesus made empty statements and we do not believe that the Holy Spirit would have statements recorded that are meaningless. So what did the Lord truly mean by "it is finished?" The book of Acts provides us with an answer:

For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead. (Acts 13:27-30)

Notice that the Lord was not taken down from the tree until those who crucified Him had fulfilled all that was written of him. He said, "it is finished" right after that He was given vinegar. This was a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy in Psalm 69:21 which says, "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." Once this last prophecy was fulfilled, Jesus was able to say, "It is finished" and He yielded up His spirit. All that had been done to our Lord by the hands of men and devils had been an accurate fulfillment of prophecy concerning our Lord but the offer of vinegar was the last prophecy that needed fulfillment. Once that happened, the Lord died physically.

There is no denial of the efficacy and vital importance of the blood as this is taught. We have just seen that the blood only purchased redemption once Jesus entered Heaven, and into the Most Holy Place and offered His blood to His Father as the redemption price.

For critics to say that the Faith Movement denies the importance of the blood is ludicrous. If the Faith Teachers did this, I would reject them as well. However, since I have read their books and listened to their tapes and I know that they place a very high value on the blood of Jesus, I not only accept them, but I am continually blessed by their ministries.

Conclusion to Part Three

We have seen so far that if Jesus was made alive or brought to life in His spirit, something had to have happened in His spirit to make such an act a necessity. If nothing had happened in His spirit then there would have been no need for God to make it alive. Because the Faith Teachers believe that Christ died spiritually after becoming sin for us and enduring the curse that you and I should have endured, then it would be necessary for His spirit to be made alive again. Due to this, the Faith Teachers believe that Christ was born again.

Taking the consequences of spiritual death to its logical conclusions, some Faith Teachers have taught that Christ suffered for a short time in hell. He suffered for a short time the punishment that you and I would have suffered if He had not atoned for our sins by His blood. Though this is repulsive to their critics, to the Faith Teachers this shows a Savior who is willing to go all the way for us, even as far as to suffer the pangs of death. They feel that if Christ would do this much for His people, then there is no excuse for us not to do what it takes to appropriate the benefits of His terrible sufferings on our behalf.

Yet, we have seen that it is not necessary to deny the Blood of Christ or the importance of the blood on this basis. According to Scripture, there was a need for a resurrection in order to complete all things and there was a need for Christ to present His blood to the Father before our eternal redemption could be secured.

However, a the Faith Teachers have not majored as much on this part of the teachings as they have on its victorious outcome. In our next and final essay on this subject, we will deal with the victory that we are to appropriate as we by faith realize the heavy price that was paid to purchase it for us.

Notes

Robertson, A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures In The New Testament (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net)
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) Available at Crosswalk.com
Vincent, Marvin, Vincent's Word Studies (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net)
Yet, A.T. Robertson seems to believe that Christ was forsaken by the Father when He was made sin. What is separation from God but spiritual death as was very much pointed out in part one of this essay.
Vines, W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), p. 368
Strong, James The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984).
Actually, according to Strong's Concordance, the Greek word used here for quicken is suzoopoieo (Strong's #4806) which is derived from the Greek word zoopoieo (Strong's #2227).
Strong Concordance
Vincent, Marvin, Vincent's Word Studies (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net)
Simpson, Albert B The Christ in the Bible Commentary Vol. VI (Camp Hill, PA: Christians Publications, 1994), pp. 416, 417
Kenyon, Essek W. What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1969) On page 93, Kenyon speaks of all that God had to suffer in order to bring in a new race of men.
See Joe McIntyre's book, E.W. Kenyon: The True Story (Orlando, FL: Creation House, 1997) and Dale Simmons thesis The Postbellum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and Plenty (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 1997) for more information on the true origins of Kenyon's theology and those who mentored him.
Grant, F. W. Genesis (Niagra Falls, NY: Shiloh Christian Library), p. 50
Epp, Theodore H. Practical Studies in Revelation (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible, 1969), pp. 32, 33
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1980), p. 187
J. W. McGarvey laments the fact that resurrection of Christ seems to have had no importance in his day. In his 1863 commentary on Acts, McGarvey says, "The resurrection of Jesus is not appreciated by the religious world now, as it was by the apostles. As respects the return of his soul from hades, Protestant writers have fled so far from the justly-abhorred purgatory of the Catholic, and the gloomy soul-sleeping of the Materialist, that they have passed beyond the Scripture doctrine, and either ignore altogether the existence of an intermediate state, or deny that the souls of the righteous are short of ultimate happiness during this period. On the other hand, they have so great a tendency to absolute spiritualism in their conceptions of the future state, that they fail to appreciate the necessity for the resurrection of the body of Jesus, or to exult, as the apostles did, in anticipation of the resurrection of their own bodies." (A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, available at http://www.ccel.org)
Kenyon, What Happened. Kenyon says that Father had seen the Son recreated (page 79). Though we can certainly chastise Kenyon for his carelessness in the use of some expressions, we must be careful not to take this statement as though Kenyon was teaching that Christ was a created being. Kenyon strongly belived and advocated what he termed The Incarnate One in several of his books. Typical of his theology is this statement: "The Incarnation proves the pre-existence of Christ and is the foundation and reason for all subsequent miraculous manifestations of Divine Power. The Incarnation is the basic miracle of Christianity." (From his book The Bible in the Light of Our Redemption, p. 151) Obviously, Kenyon believed that Christ is eternal and is an uncreated being. The statement concerning the Son being recreated is being applied to what he believes was Christ being made alive in His spirit (1 Pet. 3:18).
Kenyon, What Happened, p. 73
Keach, Benjamin Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1855), p. 989
Murray, Andrew Murray The Holiest of All (Tarrytown, NY: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1894), p. 295
Newell, William R. Hebrews: Verse by Verse (Chicago, Ill: Moody Press, 1947), pp. 289
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

E-mail: victoryword@yahoo.com

Back to Home

Go to Ten Reasons

Return to Contents Page

Return to Part One

Return to Part Two