Did Jesus Die Spiritually? (Part Four)

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 Four

Before God could declare salvation to sinners, it was necessary for Jesus Christ to enter into a conflict with Satan, to do battle with him, to come out of that battle as the victor, and to declare that Satan was a vanquished foe.[1] - J. Dwight Pentecost

In this final essay we will study the aspect of Satan's role in Christ's sacrifice. This seems to be another area of contention with the critics of JDS teaching. Faith Teachers often emphasize the role that they believe Satan played in the death of our Messiah. We don't always find a lot of emphasis on Satan's part in traditional religious teachings. More often we are taught the Father's role and very seldom do we see the spiritual warfare aspect portrayed (Isaiah 53:10).

Though the Faith Teachers , as we shall see in this essay, are not the first to teach on the work of Christ in our redemption from a warfare aspect, they have certainly made it popular (or unpopular depending on who you listen to) in our day.

Though the Faith Teachers have used more imagination than is necessary to clarify their points in this, it certainly is not without its Biblical and historical support. For example, the very first prophecy given concerning the Messiah dealt with the struggle between Him and satanic power:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen. 3:15)

This prophecy is more than just a pronouncement of judgment, it is a declaration of war. The Bible in Basic English states it this way, "And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded." James Moffat's translation also brings this out: "And I will set a feud between you and the woman, between your brood and hers: they shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel."

C. H. Spurgeon says, "Within those words we find the whole story of our Lord's sorrows from Bethlehem to Calvary."[2] The New Testament proclaims Jesus Christ as that One who is the seed of the woman. He is the redeemer who was promised from the moment God saw its necessity. It is important for the reader to remember that the seed of the woman represents Jesus (Gal. 4:4) and the serpent represents Satan (Rev. 12:9).

This speaks of a battle that will occur between God and the devil. A. B. Simpson seems to agree here as he states, "The judgment which follows begins with the serpent and henceforth makes the battle of the battle of the ages not a conflict between God and man, but between God and Satan."[3] Simpson also observes that the prophecy not only depicts the coming battle but also the final defeat of the serpent: "But here let us not fail to observe and realize that the battle of humanity begins with the picture of Satan as a conquered foe."[4]

Though Simpson gives us the positive picture of Christ's prophesied victory, he does not fail to point out that prophecy speaks of Christ's sufferings in the process:

His feet were to be placed on the head of the dragon, but in the act of triumph He was to receive the death-blow from the serpent's sting and for a moment sink in suffering and death as the cost of victory and salvation. But the suffering should not be in vain, for the adversary should be crushed and eventually destroyed through His death and resurrection.[5]

Though I will not deal with this extensively here, I want to point that Simpson believed that the resurrection was necessary to bring about Satan's defeat. This is also taught very clearly by the Scriptures though the critics seem to overlook this important aspect when they criticize the Faith Teachers for teaching that the cross was not the only important aspect of man's redemption.

Like Simpson and other men of his time, A. C. Gaebelin taught that this was a prophecy of complete victory over Satan and his hold over man:

The words are addressed to the sinister being, the erstwhile Lucifer. Two things are prominently stated: There is to be a conflict from now on, a conflict which will go on through the ages, and in the second place the conflict will end in the bruising, or crushing, of the serpent’ s head. Here is the forecast of history and God’ s redemptive program, which will end with victory on God’ s side, the dethronement of evil, the defeat of lawlessness. [6]

Also in a similar vein as Simpson, Gaebelin taught that this verse prophesied Satan's part in bringing about Christ's sufferings:

The seed of the woman ! That seed is to crush the serpent’ s head. He is to procure the victory for God over the being of darkness and end sin and its curse. And here is a faint hint, how it is to be accomplished. The heel of the seed is to be bruised; in other words He is to suffer. Such is the germ prophecy of redemption-suffering followed by conquest and glory. [7]

F. W. Grant, a minister with the Plymouth Brethren wrote these words in his commentary on Genesis:

But there is still another way in which the serpent’s victory is his defeat :-“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.” That this last expression received its plainest fulfillment on the cross I need not insist upon. There Satan manifested himself prince of this world, able (so to speak) by his power over men to cast Christ out of it and put the Prince of life to death. But that victory was his eternal overthrow.--“ Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out; and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto ME.”[8]

Theodore Epps also saw this as a prophecy of the suffering that Christ would endure under Satan in order to gain the victory over him:

Genesis 3:15 not only predicted that Christ would bruise Satan's head, but it also predicted that Satan would bruise Christ's heel. The head represents the most vital part of a person, while the heel represents the least vital part. Although Christ was able to gain victory over Satan on the cross, Christ had to suffer in the process.[9]

G. H. Pember, in his 1876 book, Earth's Earliest Ages, taught that the Lord Jesus Christ would for a season be under the dominion of Satan:

In the bruising of the heel we recognize His first coming to suffer what appeared to be an utter defeat; to find that His own would not receive Him ; to find that His own would not receive Him ; to endure the contradiction and insults of the serpent's seed ; to be rejected of His generation ; and finally, to lay down His life for a short season under the dominion of him that hath the power of death.[10]

Like Pember, many Faith Teachers have taught that Jesus was temporarily under Satan's dominion. This is one of the aspects of their teaching that many of critics find very offensive, if not most offensive. Just the very idea that Jesus would be under Satan's dominion truly causes pain to the religious sensibilities of many. However, one must consider that before Jesus destroyed him, the devil had the power over death (Heb. 2:14). Whether one believes He died a spiritual death as well as physical or if one believes He only died physically, the fact of the matter is that He died.

If the Lord died in any kind of manner, He suffered in some way under Satan's dominion. He did this voluntarily knowing full well what He was doing. Romans 5:17 tells us that death reigned after Adam sinned. Therefore if death had ruled over men and it had our Lord in its grip (again I mention that this was voluntary), then it is not unscriptural to say that for some small amount of time. The fact that God had to loose Him from the pains of death shows us that for some time death had our Lord in its grip and under its dominion (Acts 2:24).

Satan had the power of death. By Jesus dying we see that He was under death's grip. This is what Pember was pointing out, this is what the Faith Teachers are emphasizing. They are trying to teach us the depth that the Messiah went in order to redeem man.

The Powers of Darkness Assailed Against The Messiah

We can see that Gen. 3:15 was a prophecy concerning the warfare between the coming Messiah and Satan. In the preaching of many, Satan is left out of the equation. The Faith Teachers (and many before them) have taught the truth that Christ came specifically to do war with the devil who held man under his control (Eph. 2:1-3; Acts 26:18; Col. 1:13; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8; 5:19). The express purpose was to gain a legal triumph over the devil and redeem man back to Himself as He promised our first parents (Col. 2:13-15).

This meant that God Himself in the form of His Son was willing to endure some suffering. This suffering, though primarily at the hands of men, would find its ultimate source in Satan, God's self proclaimed enemy. Satan has deceived himself into believing that he could actually win a war against God almighty. In the beginning of his fall he believed that he could dethrone God (Isaiah 14:12-15).

Now that God Almighty became a man, Satan boldly took every opportunity possible to kill Him. How often we read in the gospels of these assaults on the life of Christ. First the devil tried to tempt our Lord to throw Himself from the temple pinnacle (Matthew 4:1-11). He tried to stir up the crowds against Him or destroy Him through adverse weather. Finally, when the time came in the Father's plan for His Son to offer Himself as a sacrifice on our behalf, Satan was allowed authority to bring this about:

“When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” (Luke 22:53)

The Bible in Basic English translates it this way, "When I was in the Temple with you every day, your hands were not stretched out against me: but this is your hour, and the authority of the dark power." The Living Bible paraphrases the last part of the verse this way: “But this is your moment - the time when Satan’s power reigns supreme.” There is no doubt that this passage is referring to Satan. The redemption in Christ was intended to "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness." (Col. 1:13). Paul stated that part of the commission he received from the ascended Messiah was "... to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." (Acts 26:18). Paul tells us that Satan and his agents are "... the rulers of the darkness of this world." (Eph. 6:12).

This leaves us with no doubt that Satan is being referred to here as the power of darkness whose hour has come. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 that God gave forewarning Satan of his coming defeat. However, Jesus would have to first suffer the assaults of Satan, being tortured and placed on a cross being one of them.[11] God was going to allow Satan to bruise Jesus’ heel. This was for our benefit. Later, Jesus would crush his head and bring victory for all mankind. Nevertheless, we see here that the power of darkness represents Satan and that he had a large part to play in the death of our Lord. Matthew Henry seems to believe this as well as he states in his commentary:

This is the hour allowed you to have your will against me. There is an hour appointed me to reckon for it. Now the power of darkness, Satan, the ruler of the darkness of this world, is permitted to do his worst, to bruise the heel of the seed of the woman, and I resolve to acquiesce; let him do his worst. The Lord shall laugh at him, for he sees that his day, his hour, is coming."[12]

F. E. Marsh also believed that Luke 22:53 speaks of the fulfillment of the prophecy in Gen. 3:15. In his book, Why Did Christ Die?, He states:

Psalm 139:11 - " Surely the darkness shall cover me." This latter text, compared with the context, appears to me to fix the meaning of the verb, and, therefore, according to the common reading, I am obliged to understand it in the same sense in the only remaining passage where it occurs, namely, Genesis 3:15, which, in this view, will contain an allusion to that outer darkness to which Satan should finally be condemned, as well as to that darkness of death and the grave to which the mortal part of the promised seed should be reduced, when the power of darkness prevailed against Him (Luke 22:53).

Satan seemed to overwhelm Christ when he focussed all the powers of darkness upon Him at the cross. But he was only bruising the heel of Christ. Christ by means of that very death has overwhelmed the power of darkness, and covered it with eternal confusion. Satan has bruised the heel of Christ, but Christ has fetched him such a blow on the head that he will never get over it.[13]

Even the Reformed Pastor and cessationist, John MacArthur, believed that the power of darkness is in reference to satanic opposition:

While Jesus was in the garden, the soldiers arrived. He asked them, "Have you come out with swords and clubs as against the robber? ...But this hour and the power of darkness are yours" (Luke 22:52-53). The power of darkness is Satan. He was saying, "This is the hour for My judgment on you and the power of darkness." He regarded the cross as a conflict with Satan. Satan would bruise Jesus on the heel, but Jesus would crush Satan's head (cf. Genesis 3:15).[14]

What is being emphasized through these men is that Satan and his demons worked through human agency to accomplish the crucifixion of our Lord (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). It seems that Jesus was for a short time in the hands of Satan and, from all appearances of those around Him, He had been defeated. Yet, Jesus would later turn the tables over on the devil and triumph over him, bringing about the redemption of mankind.

This is the primary message of the Faith teachers in proclaiming the JDS message. If we could look past some of their vivid imagination and some of the other statements that some of us might find offensive and see the message that they are proclaiming, we would have a greater appreciation of that Christ has done to redeem us from the hands of our enemy (Psalm 107:2).

Are Faith Teachers Repeating The "Divine Deception" Error of The Church Fathers?

The ire of many critics of the Faith Teachers is often raised due to the fact that the Faith Teachers make any insinuation that the Lord's death at the cross could in any way have been a defeat or even a seeming defeat. Yet, this is exactly what it seemed like to the disciples of Jesus (Matt. 28:17; Mark 16:9-14; Luke 24:13-26; John 20:9). Obviously it seemed this way to satan. The devil obviously thought that He had won a victory when he bruised Christ's heal. Yet, he was in for a big surprise.

When Faith Teachers preach this message they are accused of teaching the "divine deception" and "ransom" errors that were advocated by some of the second and third century church fathers. It's amazing how many things the Faith Teachers have been accused of. Because the Faith Teachers teach that Faith is believing before seeing (Mark 11:24; Heb. 11:1) they have been accused of embracing the lies of metaphysical cults such as Christian science. When they teach the need for revelation knowledge of the Bible (Deut. 29:29; Eph. 1:18-19) they are accused of embracing gnosticism. When they teach that we are little gods (John 10:34-36) they are accused of teaching Mormonism.[15] When they teach that the world has been reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:17-21) then they are accused of Universalism (in spite of the fact that they still warn those that do not accept Christ of their impending eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire).

The above are just a few out of the many accusations launched against the Faith Teachers by their critics.[16] It should come as no surprise to the reader that in their teaching of the atonement that the Faith Teachers would be accused of deriving their doctrine from any other source than their own study of the Scriptures.

Concerning the supposed "divine deception" teaching that is alleged by several historians to have been taught in the early church, Origen seems to be the most popular "whipping boy." Some historians maintain that church Father Origen taught a view in which Jesus offered Himself as a ransom to Satan (also known as The Ransom to Satan theory). IIM Magazine summarizes this theory credited to Origen (185-254 AD):

This view is sometimes called the “Military” or “Patristic” theory, and was advocated by Origen. This theory says the death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan to free man from sin; but Satan was deceived in the bargain, for he could not retain his hold on the Son of God who rose from the dead. In the conflict between the forces of Christ and the forces of evil, Christ wins the battle at the Cross. [17]

Another historian shows us that Origen is not necessarily guilty of all that he is being accused of. In his "Story of Theology," Prof. Finlayson tells us that Origen actually taught that Jesus' sacrifice of Himself was offered to God and not to the devil:

With Origen there creeps in just a suggestion of what became known afterwards as the 'Ransom to Satan' theory, though Origen himself is quite clear that: the sacrifice was offered to God, even though he seems to hold that Satan was outwitted in the transaction. Origen, nevertheless, was the first to show a developed doctrine of the atonement, even if it lacked many of the elements that entered into what became the accepted doctrine of the Church.[18]

If what Finlayson says is true then Origen (and probably other church fathers) has been misrepresented by the critics who do not see the warfare aspect of Christ's redemption work. The ironic part is that I cannot find in any of the writings of the Faith Teachers where they make any insinuation that God offered Christ to the devil as a ransom. Nevertheless, the Bible does teach that Christ was a ransom for us.

Since I cannot seem to find an actual quote from any of the Church Fathers on this subject we will have to decide whose report we will believe. Of course it depends on the agenda of the individual and his reasons for wanting to research this aspect of the Church Father's teachings. If his internet is to prove that the Faith Movement is in error by comparing them to the alleged Church Father's teachings, then of course he will receive the most negative report on this.

Yet, while some would like to interpret the Church Father's warfare teaching of the redemption work of Christ as "unbiblical error," there are others who see the fathers as giving a picture of liberation and freedom from the power of evil:

The first theory, the Classic or Dramatic view of the Cross, grew out of the Conflict-Victory picture - as wave after wave of persecution swept over the Church, followed by the onslaught of the barbarian invasions and the sacking of Rome in 410. As conflict followed conflict, the Church Fathers focused more and more on the spiritual warfare pictures of the Cross that consoled them in their hour of trial. Picking up on Paul’s warfare pictures especially, the Church Fathers saw the Cross as a great dramatic battle between Christ and Satan that liberates us from the evil powers that enslave us. So the Classic theory sees sin primarily as submission to evil powers, but corporate as well as individual, and a problem which may involve Jesus offering himself as a ransom to the devil and even deceiving him. This theory flourished between the second

and sixth centuries, the Church took it into the Middle Ages, and it surfaced again in the 20th Century through the work of Gustaf Aulen and the renewed interest in spiritual warfare at the end of the century.[19]

Instead of hunting for error in the teachings of the church fathers, the writer above attempts to see them as proponents of a victorious message. It seems that the critics who would accuse the Faith Movement of embracing the "errors" of the church fathers have to first propose that the church fathers taught error in this regard. This means that the critics must do what they do best – criticize. The problem with the critic is that they do not see the warfare view of Christ's life, death and resurrection.

Therefore the critics will only look for the errors in the writings of the church fathers rather than the heart of their message which was one of the Savior's victory over the devil. Nevertheless, even if the church fathers can be rightly credited with being the first derive a warfare view of Christ's sacrifice from the Scriptures, it is not likely that the present day Word-of-Faith teachers borrowed the concept from them.

Regardless of what anyone believes concerning the ransom theory of the church fathers, the Bible is clear that Jesus gave His life as a ransom:

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Tim. 2:5-6)

I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (Hos. 13:14; see also 1 Cor. 15:54-57)

Furthermore, the Bible specifically teaches that man was purchased by the blood of Jesus (1 Cor. 6:19, 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:4). Obviously, a payment was made to someone for some reason. It would do well for us to know why Jesus purchased us and to whom was the price paid.

The Bible teaches that man was in the grip of Satan and needed to be freed (Acts 26:18; Col. 1:12-14; Eph. 2:1-9; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 5:19). Though God is omnipotent and possesses all power, He is also righteous and fair. Though He has the ability to overpower Satan, this would have brought Him no glory to redeem man this way. Furthermore, it would have been a stain on His own holiness, and that can never happen with God.

Therefore God had to redeem man in a way that both satisfied His justice as well as defeat Satan severely but fairly. The only way to release man from the grip of the adversary was to have His own innocent sinless Son go to earth and die in our place. By shedding His own precious blood that was not stained with Son, Satan was to be defeated. I strongly lean towards the ransom being paid to God and not to Satan. When God's own sense of justice was satisfied, He is now legally and righteously able to demand that Satan release his captives.

Though Satan may not have been completely aware of how the death of the Lord would bring about his own defeat, I would hardly accuse God of deception. Just because God did not give Satan all of the information concerning what would happen does not mean that God deceived him. Satan was simply blinded by his own lust to kill the Son of God Himself and therefore brought about his own demise. It is not God's fault that Satan was without knowledge of this.

Other Well Known Bible Teachers who Have Taught This

Unless we would limit this type of teaching to the church fathers only, I think that we would do well to read some of the 18^th century teachings of the Higher-Life advocates. Below are some quotes from a few that shows a position I believe was commonly held among many 18^th century preachers, a position that did not seem to be heretical during that time. One such writer is F. E. Marsh. In his book "Why Did Christ Die" wrote the following:

The powers of hell are degraded and humiliated by the death of Christ. They thought they degraded and humiliated Him when they fixed Him to Calvary's cross, but He transfixed and degraded them in that very degradation. He stooped to conquer, and He conquered by means of His stoop.[20]

Notice that Marsh believes that Satan and his demons were responsible for putting the Lord on the cross but that it was done in ignorance, not realizing that they would suffer defeat in the very act. This is similar to what church historians call "the divine deception" (and is referred to as "error" when used in comparison with the Faith Teachers). Andrew Murray also taught a similar concept:

How terrible was the disappointment which the death of Jesus brought to all who had believed in Him! It seemed, indeed, as if the powers of darkness had conquered and had established their kingdom forever.

But, behold! Jesus is risen from the dead! An apparent victory proved to be the terrible downfall of the prince of darkness. By bringing about the death of "the Lord of life" Satan permitted Him who alone was able to break open the gates of death to enter his kingdom. "Through death He has destroyed him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." In that holy moment when our Lord shed His blood in death and it seemed as if Satan was victorious, the adversary was robbed of the authority he had hitherto possessed.[21]

S. D. Gordon, who was popular for his "Quiet Talk" series of books also taught what the critics have (I believe facetiously and incorrectly) labeled "the divine deception:

These two, God's Man, and the pretender-prince, had a combat: the most terrific combat ever waged or witnessed. From the cruel, malicious cradle attack until Calvary's morning and two days longer it ran. Through those thirty-three years it continued with a terrificness and intensity unknown before or since. The master-prince of subtlety and force did his best and his worst, through those Nazareth years, then into the wilderness, -- and Gethsemane -- and Calvary. And that day at three o'clock and for a bit longer the evil one thought he had won. And there was great glee up in the headquarters of the prince of this world. They thought the victory was theirs when God's Man lay in the grave under the bars of death, within the immediate control of the lord of death. But the third morning rose and the bars of death were snapped like cotton thread. Jesus rose a Victor. For it was not possible that such as He could be held by death's lord. And then Satan knew that he was defeated. Jesus, God's Man, the King's rightful prince, had gotten the victory.[22]

Though these men believed that Satan felt that he had won some type of victory, only to later find out that he assisted God Himself in bringing about his defeat, none of these men accuse God of deceiving the devil. To my knowledge, neither does E. W. Kenyon nor any of the Faith Teachers after him.

These men taught the same thing that the Faith Teachers are accused of teaching. Though one may claim that these men borrowed their teachings from the church fathers, there is no proof of this. The best that the critics can do is say that the church fathers taught a certain theory, label it as "error," compare similar sounding things that the Faith Teachers (and others) say on the subject, and then accuse the Faith Teachers of borrowing this so called "error" from them.

If The Princes of This World Only Knew

Thankfully there are some scholars and theologians who do not totally write off the concept held by the church fathers as irredeemable error, but instead see some Scriptural merit in what they taught. One well known theologian, while disagreeing with some aspects of the Church Father's teachings, saw that the derived the basic concept itself from the Word of God:

Sometimes called "the fishhook theory," it portrayed Christ as "bait" that God used to "hook" Satan. The theory at times became remarkably extravagant, as when God was portrayed as deceptively giving Christ to Satan as a "ransom" for his children, only to take him back again. However, though a fair amount of fantasy was often interwoven into the conception, and though the way in which this "outsmarting" was articulated at times expressed a less-than-ideal view of God (viz., God was deceptive), the core of the concept is biblical. God used Satan's evil to bring about Satan's own demise. Just this constitutes a central dimension of "God's wisdom, secret and hidden."[23]

In spite of all of the quotes we have provided by well known and respected men, our main concern is what does the Scriptures themselves teach on this subject. Depending on how one would interpret 1 Cor. 2:6-8, one could very easily find evidence of this teaching surrounding the atonement (or redemption as most Faith Teachers would prefer to say). The theologian quoted above points us to 1 Corinthians 2:8 as the text in which this teaching is primarily based upon:

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. 2:6-8)

1 Corinthians 2:8 tells us that it was the "princes" of this world that crucified the Lord of Glory. This passage could not be referring to humans for two reasons: first the word is plural and every human world ruler could not have been involved in the death of Christ. Second, the passage in context with verse 7 seems to imply a regret on the part of the princes due to a defeat that they experienced. We certainly have no record of this concerning any human rulers. I have no doubt that this is in reference to Satan himself. The Bible teaches that he and his underlings rule this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:12; 1 John 5:19).

James Moffat seems to bring the point out clearer in his own translation of the Scriptures:

We do discuss 'wisdom' with those who are mature; only it is not the wisdom of this world or of the dethroned Powers who rule this world, it is the mysterious Wisdom of God that we discuss, that hidden wisdom which God decreed from all eternity for our glory. None of the Powers of this world understands it (if they had, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory).

Moffat refers to the princes of this world as "dethroned powers." this could only refer to Satan and his hordes since the human rulers were still on their thrones during the time of Paul's writing. Yet, the men we have referred to thus far are far from the only ones who see 1 Cor. 2:6-8 as referring to the devil and his demons. Ed Murphy, who wrote a very extensive book on spiritual warfare believes that 1 Cor. 2:8 refers to Satanic forces, though he acknowledges that this is not a view held by many Bible commentators:

Some see Paul's reference to "the rulers (archontes) of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 as a possible repetition of his use of similar expressions in Ephesians 6:12 where they refer to the evil forces which govern the human rulers of each age. While not generally accepted by commentators, this is a real possibility. I would lean towards that position because we have Paul's clear teachings about the spiritual powers behind human rulers in Ephesians and Colossians.[24]

The late Theodore Epp, founder of the Back To The Bible ministry also saw this passage as Satan being defeated due to a lack ignorance on his own part:

In His wisdom, God did something at the cross that the world did not understand. It was a mystery to the world. Satan thought he was rid of the contender to the throne of this wisdom of God, "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (v. 8). Had the princes of the world (Satan's angelic host) understood this mystery they would not have crucified Jesus on the cross, because this brought about their defeat.[25]

The popular Evangelical Bible teacher and and writer, Warren W. Wiersbe, also believed that 1 Cor. 2:6-8 referred to Satan and his hosts. Because of the incredible insights that Wiersbe offers, I have decided to quote him at length:

Paul may have been referring to the spiritual and demonic rulers of this present age (Rom. 8:38; Col. 2:15; Eph. 6:12ff). This would make more sense in 1 Corinthians 2:6, for certainly Pilate, Herod, and the other rulers were not recognized for any special wisdom. The wisdom of this age has its origin in the rulers of this world, of which Satan is the prince (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Of course, the spiritual rulers would have to work in and through the human rulers. So perhaps we must not press the distinction (John 13:2, 27).

But if this interpretation is true, then it opens up a challenging area of consideration. The satanic forces, including Satan himself, did not understand God's great eternal plan! They could understand from the Old Testament Scriptures that the Son of God would be born and die, but they could not grasp the full significance of the cross because these truths were hidden by God. In fact, it is now, through the church, that these truths are being revealed to the principalities and powers (Eph. 3:10).

Satan thought that Calvary was God's great defeat; but it turned out to be God's greatest victory and Satan's defeat! (Col. 2:15) From the time of our Lord's birth into this world, Satan had tried to kill Him, because Satan did not fully understand the vast results of Christ's death and resurrection. Had the demonic rulers known, they would not have "engineered" the death of Christ. (Of course, all of this was part of God's eternal plan. It was God who was in control, not Satan.)[26]

So we can see that there are some theologians and evangelicals who truly believe that 1 Cor. 2:6-8 is in reference to satanic forces. Therefore these men affirm that Satan, through his own ignorance helped the Lord bring about a legal victory against him.

Certainly the crucifixion of our Lord was done through human agency but this still a fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 which talks about how God would put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.[27]

Several Bible versions use the word "descendants" or "offspring" in the place of the word "seed." The Bible declares that anyone who serves Satan is his child. This is primarily all those who do not know Christ as Savior (John 8:44; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 John 3:10). Proof of how Satan can use human agency to assist him in bringing about the death of our Lord is seen in the case of Judas' betrayal of our Lord:

Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. (Luke 22:3-4)

In spite of whether one would agree or disagree with the interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:6-8 that we have presented here, the above Scripture clearly beyond a shadow of a doubt proves that Satan was quite involved in bringing about our Lord's death. It seems highly unlikely to me that Satan would do something in which he knows would ultimately destroy his reign over mankind. Bible commentator Lawrence O. Richards agrees:

Luke alone reports Satan's role in the betrayal of Jesus. This simple verse supports two important observations. A person who holds back in his or her commitment to Jesus becomes vulnerable to hostile spiritual influences. And, Satan is not as powerful or wise as some fearfully suppose. Satan would hardly have participated actively in his own defeat at Calvary, unless he had supposed that causing Christ's death would defeat rather than accomplish God's purposes.[28]

Did Christ Take On The Nature of Satan?

If there was a category of controversy I can find in this whole JDS syndrome (as advocated by some WoF proponents) this is definitely goes to the top of the list, probably higher than the "born again Jesus" controversy. Kenneth Copeland seems to promote this teaching more than any other Faith Teacher that I am familiar with:

"God was manifested in the flesh and justified in the spirit. Now you can't get somebody justified and made righteous in the spirit if it wasn't first unrighteous. Jesus accepted the sin nature of Satan in His own spirit. Why do you think Moses, obeying the instruction of God, hung the serpent upon the pole instead of a lamb? That used to bug me. I said, 'Why in the world would you want to put a snake up there--the sign of Satan? Why didn't you put a lamb on that pole?' And the Lord said, 'Because it was the sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross.' He said, 'I accepted in my own spirit spiritual death and teh light was turned off.'"[29]

This is supposed to have happened during a conversation between Copeland and the Lord. Though I can sympathize with those who find themselves troubled by this statement of Copeland's, one should be careful before condemning him unless they would be ready to do the same with the great and admired reformer, Martin Luther. Luther taught that Christ became a "transgressor" and a "sinner."[30] If we were to pronounce Copeland as a false teacher then we must do the same with the great reformer. If we are to reject all of Copeland's teachings due to this offensive statement then we must reject "Justification by Faith" as a valid doctrine.

Though I agree that Copeland may have taken more liberties than necessary in how he interprets Christ's redemption work, we can see that his understanding is based on what he believes the Scriptures teach. For example, when Copeland says (about Jesus), "Now you can't get somebody justified and made righteous in the spirit if it wasn't first unrighteous," he is referencing 1 Tim. 3:16 which states that "God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit." Copeland sees this as Christ becoming righteous in His spirit after He was made sin for us and suffered our penalty.[31]

Copeland also brings us another Scripture that is pertinent to this controversial teaching. One thing I have found with the critics of the Faith Movement is their failure to deal with the "prooftexts" used by the Faith Teachers. They often dismiss the Scripture while making every effort to destroy the credibility of the one that they attack.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:14-15)

It is not wrong to ponder the reason why Jesus would use the symbol of the serpent to represent Himself on the cross. We have already seen in this study that in every instance except for this particular passage, the serpent normally represents Satan himself (Gen. 3:15; Rev. 12:9-11). The usual symbol that portrays the sacrificial death of our Lord is normally the lamb. If even if Brother Copeland may not have come to the correct conclusion (I am not saying whether he did or he didn't), for a certainty he did ask the right question.

Another much persecuted Faith Teacher, Charles Capps, seems to have a much less controversial answer to this question than Copeland:

Jesus became the serpent, but the brass is symbolic of divine judgment. Divine judgment was poured out upon Jesus to destroy the power of the serpent. Since that has taken place, the serpent is powerless. Jesus destroyed his ability; his power is gone. Jesus spoiled principalities and powers; He made a show of them openly, triumphing them over them in it. (Col. 2:15).[32]

Charles Capp does not say that Jesus took on the nature of Satan but he does believe that Jesus represented the divine judgment that would be placed on the serpent.

Lest anyone would still accuse the Faith Movement of giving their own interpretation of this passage, A. W. Pink also felt that the "serpent" represented the curse and the judgment upon Satan:

Robert Hawker (1753-1827), who was a minister in the Church of England and who was very much Calvinistic in his theology also believed that this "serpent" represents Jesus taking upon Himself the curse for those who He died for:

There is one circumstance in this representation of Jesus being reckoned with the transgressors, as a sin and a curse, yea, sustaining the whole of sin and the curse in his own sacred person, that is particularly striking; I mean, that amidst all the shadowy representations under the law, the only type on this subject, and a most decisive one it was, is that of "the brazen serpent." Of all the creatures of God's creation, it was the serpent only that was pronounced cursed at the fall; and therefore, though the blood of many beasts may be, and indeed was made typical of redemption by the sacrifice of Christ, yet none but the serpent could represent Christ as a curse for his people. There is somewhat very striking in this. Christ, in redeeming us from the curse of the law, must be represented as a curse for us: the serpent therefore, the cursed beast, shall be lifted up in the wilderness; and Jesus himself will graciously explain it: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have eternal life:" John iii. 14,15.[34]

The serpent seems to point to the lifting up of the Son of Man on the cross. And it seems almost as if Jesus took the serpent right into His arms and received his poison and his sting that we might escape. Jesus took the serpent's sting and the serpent's poison into His own heart and into His own life, and, therefore, we may be free. Having borne in His body what our body deserves to bear, why should we bear it too? Why should you be stung by the devil's fangs when He was stung for you?[35]

While Capps, Pink, and Hawker sees the serpent as a type of the divine judgment and curse that Christ was made to suffer (Gal. 3:13), Simpson saw this as a literal warfare between Christ and the devil. This brings us to our next point. Was there a literal struggle and/or battle between Christ and the hordes of hell between the cross and the resurrection?

Was There a Battle Between The Cross and the Resurrection?

Kenyon and some of the modern Faith Teachers believe that a warfare took place in hell after Christ had suffered some time. They base this on their understanding of Colossians 2:15:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Col. 2:12-15)

Due to the reference in verse 12 concerning Christ's resurrection, some commentators and scholars are divided as to when verse 15 took place. While most believe that verse 15 took place on the cross, there are some others who believe that the spoiling of principalities and powers occurred after the resurrection. Still others believe that it took place between the cross and the resurrection.

Regardless of the disagreements, many commentators believe that some sort of battle between Christ and the evil spirits took place. Some commentators and translators see in Colossians 2:15 a literal battle taking place with Christ as the victor, stripping off from Himself the evil spirits that warred against Him. As we read verse 15 in some different translations this seems to bring this out:

Having stripped off and away from himself the principalities and authorities, He boldly made an example of them, leading them in a triumph procession in it. (Wuest)

Having made himself free from the rule of authorities and powers, he put them openly to shame, glorying over them in it. (Col. 2:15; BBE)

And the hostile princes and rulers He shook off from Himself, and boldly displayed them as His conquests, when by the Cross He triumphed over them. (Weymouth)

And the hostile princes and rulers He shook off from Himself, and boldly displayed them as His conquests, when by the Cross He triumphed over them. (Wesley NT)

Christ overcame and disarmed the spirits of darkness, the evil angels. He triumphed over Satan and all his powers. Many commentators see this happening on the cross while others see this happening after the resurrection. If we read Ephesians 4:8-10 in light of Appendix B, a case can be made for this occurring during the resurrection.

The most important thing we see is that many writers had a picture of Christ as a combatant. F. E. Marsh brings this out well:

Here the thought seems to be that of the powers and forces of evil gathering around Christ, but He puts them off from Himself, as a man would put off a garment which impedes his action. Rotherham's rendering is "having stripped the principalities and authorities," &c. I am inclined to think that this last rendering is the more correct. The word "spoiled" is used in Col. iii.9, and is there rendered "have put off"; while a cognate noun is found in ii. II, and is translated "the putting off." It means having put off from oneself, or having stripped others for oneself. Liddle and Scott say that the expression is used in relation to one who puts off his clothes for combat.[36]

Marsh believes that this happened at the cross, nevertheless, he still gives us a picture of a literal combat taking place between Christ and the evil spirits that attempted to destroy Him. E. W. Kenyon believed that it happened during the three days and three nights. Kenyon says, Kenyon says, "It would seem as though the whole hosts of hell were upon him. He was going through agonies beyond words, and suddenly is justified, made alive."[37] Can Kenyon's assertion be supported by Scripture? It depends on how one views the Scriptures themselves:

Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Acts 2:24-27)

If we read the passage literally, we see Jesus may have been bound by the agonies of death. Even the Messianic Psalms teach this; "The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me." (Psalm 18:5) Some scholars believe that death in this passage is depicted as a hunter or huntsman:

... where the Hebrew word for snares is rendered by the word used here, pains; and that, therefore, it should be rendered snares of death; the figure being that of escape from the snare of a huntsman. (Vincent)[38]

... but the Hebrew original means "snares" or "traps" or "cords" of death where sheol and death are personified as hunters laying snares for prey. (Robertson)[39]

Satan or those he assigns to such a task are the only ones who could qualify for being a hunter in the passage (Psalm 91:3; Prov. 6:5).[40] We should also consider the fact that the Bible depicts Death and Hades as personal beings who are under satan's authority (1 Cor. 15:26; Rev. 6:8, 20:13-15; Heb. 2:14). The thought is that when Jesus was loosed from the hunter's snare, He invaded the devil's territory and rescued all who were trapped there:

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. (Luke 11:21-22)

But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.(Isa. 49:25)

Depending on how one would interpret these passages, a case could be made for a combat having occurred between the cross and the resurrection. During this period is when Kenyon and others believe that Christ rendered ineffective the works of satan and the power he held on death (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8). The picture is one of a conquering warrior, one who faced His enemy and dealt him a severe blow which this enemy can never be recovered from.

Lest anyone should think that Kenyon and many who followed his line of thinking were a bunch of "mavericks" who simply made up "war stories," let it be known that they were not the first to see this picture of a warrior Savior in combat with the forces of darkness between His death and resurrection. The16th century reformer, John Calvin also saw this picture:

If Christ had dies only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No – it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God's vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and and the dread of everlasting death ... Christ was put in place of evildoers as surety and pledge – submitting himself even as the accused – to bear and suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained. All this with one exception: "He could not be held by the pangs of death."[41]

Notice that Calvin believed that Christ engaged in "hand to hand" combat with the armies of hell. Many who are zealous to defend Calvin while criticizing the Faith Teachers would make every attempt to spiritualize what Calvin said. They will tell us that Calvin did not literally mean what he is saying here. Yet Calvin is dead and only he could tell us if he really mean exactly what he said. Otherwise, I do not see any reason not to read his words literally. Hugo Odeberg also believed that there was a combat when Christ descended:

Christ's descent has a cosmical, universal import. To save mankind he must grapple with and become victor over, vanquish, the cosmical powers and evil agencies in their activity. He must, hence, go beyond the surface world, in which fallen mankind dwells, to the depths of Darkness, the utmost sphere of the authority of evil.[42]

Some believe that Christ went straight to heaven after His death on the cross. Some believe that Christ sat with the Old Testament saints for a few days, preached to the spirits in hell and then rose from the grave. Still others believe that Christ actually engaged in open combat with the forces of evil after being held captive by them for a short period of time (until the Father said "enough!").

The critics claim that this is adding to the blood atonement. This is a ridiculous accusation and there is no Scriptural basis for making such an assertion. Even if there was not the slightest bit of Scriptural proof that leads to a combat view of Christ's redemptive work, it was still necessary that the Savior arose from the dead since the Bible depicts death as an enemy that was under Satan's authority (1 Cor. 15:26; Heb. 2:14). If Christ had not been resurrected then He would still be under the dominion of Satan and there would be no hope for you and I.

Therefore, if the Faith teachers see in the Scriptures that Christ defeated the forces of hell in their own territory before rising from the dead, what gives the critic the authority to pronounce this as heresy just because it conflicts with his own perspective of Christ's work of redemption. If the critic would spend less time looking for ways to pronounce others as heretics and more time studying the Scriptures then they would see that these Faith Teachers that they so vehemently criticize are exalting the Lord and teaching their followers that Christ was willing to do all that was necessary to set them free from the bondage of Satan, even if that meant being under Satan's dominion for a short period. I personally may not agree with every statement that my fellow Faith Teachers make on this subject but I appreciate their desire to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ. In closing, let me leave you with a quote from C. H. Spurgeon:

Christ died—he was buried; but neither heaven nor earth could tell whether God had accepted the ransom. There was wanted God's seal upon the great Magna Charta of man's salvation, and that seal was put, my hearer, in that hour when God summoned the angel, and bade him descend from heaven and roll away the stone. Christ was put in durance vile in the prison house of the grave, as a hostage for his people. Until God had signed the warrant for acquittal of all his people, Christ must abide in the bonds of death. He did not attempt to break his prison; be did not come out illegally, by wrenching down the bars of his dungeon; he waited: he wrapt up the napkin, folding it by itself: he laid the grave-clothes in a separate place; he waited, waited patiently; and at last down from the skies, like the flash of a meteor, the angel descended, touched the stone and rolled it away; and when Christ came out, rising from the dead in the glory of his Father's power, then was the seal put upon the great charta of our redemption. The blood was accepted, and sin was forgiven. And now, soul, it is not possible for God to reject thee, if thou comest this day to him, pleading the blood of Christ.[43]

Spurgeon, known as the prince of preachers whose sermons are still widely read today. Should this man be labeled a heretic due to his view of the redemptive work of Christ? I don't think he should and neither do I find the Faith Teachers guilty of this charge. Amen.

Notes

Pentecost, J. Dwight Your Adversary The Devil (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 149, 150
Spurgeon, Charles H. Satan: A Defeated Foe (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1993), p. 121
Simpson, A. B. The Christ In The Bible Commentary (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1992), p. 36
Ibid., p. 36
Ibid., p. 40
Gaebelin, A. C. Conflict of the Ages (Niagra Falls, NY: Shiloh Christian Library), p. 31
Ibid., p. 32
Grant, F. W. Genesis (Niagra Falls, NY: Shiloh Christian Library), pp. 49, 50
Epp, Theodore H. The God of Creation (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible, 1972), p. 174
Pember, G. H. Earth's Earliest Ages (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1975), p. 101. First published in 1876.
John Wesley sums it well in his explanatory notes in his comments on Matthew 27:46, the place where Christ questions God's abandonment of Him: "Our Lord hereby at once expresses his trust in God, and a most distressing sense of his letting loose the powers of darkness upon him, withdrawing the comfortable discoveries of his presence, and filling his soul with a terrible sense of the wrath due to the sins which he was bearing. (Psa_22:1)." (Wesley, John Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, Online version available at http://www.godrules.net)
Henry, Matthew Matthew Henry's Commentary (Part of the E-Sword Software project. These are Henry's comments on Luke 22:53).
Marsh, F. E. Why Did Christ Die (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1985), p. 127
MacArthur, John What Jesus' Death Meant To Him (a sermon posted on the internet at http:\\www.biblebb.com)
The difference between the Mormons and the Faith Teachers in this regard is vast. See James Spencer's book Heresy Hunters: Character Assasination in the Church (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1993, pp. 60, 61). Spencer is a former Mormon Elder who later converted to orthodox Christianity. Spencer refutes the charge that the Faith Teachers are repeating the Mormon error.
Joe McIntyre lists quite a number of accusations launched at Kenyon by one of his main critics. See Appendix One of his E. W. Kenyon: The True Story (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1997), pp. 299-306
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 25, August 16 to August 22, 1999. To be found at http://www.thirdmill.org/
Finlayson, Prof R.A. The Story of Theology (Anselm and the Doctrine of the Atonement. To be found at http://www.freechurch.org/finlayson/story5.html)
Miller, Gordon Rediscovering The Ten NT Gates (WorldVision Leadership Letter, Issue 168, Sept/Oct 2001)
Marsh, Why Did Christ Die, p. 129
Murray, Andrew The Power of the Blood (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1984), pp. 127, 128. Like A. B. Simpson, Andrew Murray believes that the victory came upon Christ rising from the dead. Though the critics of the Faith Movement go through great pains to paint the Faith Teachers as heretics or at the least, aberational due to their belief that it took more than just Christ's physical death to bring about victory, a common belief among many in Murray's day was that the resurrection of Christ is what ultimately demonstrated the defeat of Satan.
Gordon, S. D. Quiet Talks on Prayer (This out of print classic has been provided for free by Peter Wade of Positive Word Ministries, Inc.) To be found at http://208.56.35.100/index.phtml Notice that like Murray, Gordon also believes that the actual victory took place, not upon Christ's death but actually in His resurrection. Men should be able to disagree charitably on this point without labeling one another as heretics. Also to be noted is the fact that Gordon was greatly admired by E. W. Kenyon and had a profound influence upon his life and teachings (see E. W. Kenyon: The True Story by Joe McIntyre).
Boyd, Gregory A. God At War (Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity Press, 1997), p. 256. Boyd gives an excellent scriptural and scholarly presentation of why he believes that the rulers spoken of in 1 Cor. 2:8 are in reference to Satan and demons rather than the human rulers that lived during the time of Christ. This presentation is well worth the price of the book (though the majority of the book is excellent). There are many who are troubled by Boyd's Open View Theology (the belief that God does NOT know the future exhaustively except where He declares what the future will be) but this book has much more to offer than just a treatise on Open Theism.
Murphy, Dr. Ed The Handbook For Spiritual Warfare (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992), p. 369
Epp, Theodore H. Practical Studies in Revelation (Vol. II) (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible, 1969), p. 176
Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary (Volume I) (Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1989), pp. 574, 575
Gaebelin, Conflict, Gaebelin says that this particular part of Genesis 3:15 is often neglected: "We have seen who is meant by the seed of the woman. The serpent is the author of sin and death. But who is the seed of the serpent? That part of humanity which sides with this sinister being and is under his control. According to Scripture this is true of the entire race in its natural and sinful state. It is a truth which is almost forgotten in Christendom today. Does not God’ s revelation tell us that the whole world is guilty before God?" (p. 35)
Richards, Lawrence O. The Victor Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1994), p. 205
Copeland, Kenneth, What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (tape, side 2), as quoted to me by a heresy hunter during a debate on one of the internet forums.
Luther, Martin Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI Kregel Publications), edited by John Price Fallowes, M.A. Luther actually teaches that Christ became a sinner upon the cross: "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 ..."
Most commentators believe that 1 Tim. 3:16 is teaching us that Christ was vindicated from the false charges laid on Him by His enemies. He was vindicated or declared righteous by the Holy Spirit when He was raised from the dead. I believe in Copeland's sincerity in his interpretation of 1 Tim. 3:16 but it certainly goes against the common understanding of the passage.
Capps, Charles Authority in Three Worlds (Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1980, 1982), p. 178
Pink, Arthur W. Exposition of the Gospel of John (Can be found at http://www.pbministries.org)
Hawker, Robert The Poor Man's Morning and Evening Portions (Reformation Heritage Books). From the April 7 devotion, "Numbered With the Transgressors"
Simpson, A.B. The Lord For The Body, Copyright (C) 1996 by Christian Publications, 3825 Hartzdale Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011. All rights preserved.
Marsh, Why Did Christ Die, p. 129
Kenyon, Essek W. What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1969), p. 65
Vincent, Marvin, Vincent's Word Studies (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net)
Robertson, A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures In The New Testament (Online version available at http://www.godrules.net).
Benjamin Keach taught that Satan was a hunter based on the passages of Scripture we referenced: "By the Hunter in these places, I see no ground to doubt, bu that the Holy Ghost principally intends the devil, who is the great Hunter and destroyer of men's souls, out of whose hand, i.e. Power, Wisdom advises her to her son to deliver himself." (Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, p. 922)
Calvin, John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. I) Edited by John T. McNeill.(Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1967), p. 513
Odeberg, Hugo View of the Universe, p. 19. As cited by Gregory Boyd in his God At War (Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity Press, 1997, p. 265)
Spurgeon, Charles H. The Blood of the Lamb, the Conquering Weapon (Sermon found at http://www.spurgeongems.org)

E-mail: victoryword@yahoo.com

Back to Home

Go to Ten Reasons

Return to Contents Page

Return to Part One

Return to Part Two

Return to Part Three