Occasionally, voices have been lifted
up against these teachings pointing out extremes or imbalances
in the areas of "guaranteed" health and wealth, the "speak it
into existence" concept and the basic misunderstanding of faith.
[i] In spite of what has already been done, nothing has surfaced
that addresses what may be one of the movements most dangerous
errors: the "Faith" teaching on the Atonement of Christ.
As Christians, we affirm that our salvation
is based solely on what Christ did for us. And, we appropriate
by faith what He has accomplished for us (Romans 3:21-4:5; Ephesians
2:8,9; II Timothy 1:8-11; Titus 3:4-7). By
this affirmation we do not mean that saving faith involves nothing
more than simply acknowledging that Jesus died for us, nor do
we insist that a thorough and complete understanding of the Atonement
is essential for salvation. Faith in the Lord Jesus Himself
saves. And yet, such faith is based not only on who Jesus is,
but on His finished work on the cross. As Archibald Hodge clearly
points out in his work on the Atonement, the doctrine of the cross
is the central truth of the Christian message.
Our conception of the Atonement necessarily
affects our conceptions of all other basic doctrines -- everything
from the person of Christ and the moral attributes of God to the
place of faith and "hence the entire character of our religious
experience." [ii] But, is it really crucial to have an understanding
of what happened on the cross? Let's let Paul Little answer:
Some question the necessity for understanding the meaning of the
Cross and the Atonement. After all, they argue, we are not saved
by any theory of the Atonement, but by the actual death of Christ.
This, of course, is true. We must
be careful not to try to reduce the Atonement into merely a neat
formula. On the other
hand, just as what we believe about Christ's person is crucial
-- even though we are saved by what He has done -- so it is important
for us to understand the meaning of His mission to die for man's
sin.
Otherwise we may find ourselves wittingly
or unwittingly opposing the Gospel in one of its most vital and
fundamental teachings [iii] (emphasis ours). And, these thoughts
bring us to the question presented herein; namely, is the "Faith"
teaching on the Atonement "another Gospel"? (II Corinthians 11:4,
12-15). Space would not allow us to adequately discuss the
whole range of "Faith" movement theology in this article. Since
the Atonement is such a crucial topic, and since those in the
"Faith" movement have definite, controversial views on the subject,
our analysis will be limited, for the most part, to this area
of theology.
Before we press on for a closer look
at the "Faith" teaching on the Atonement, there are two points
that need to be made at the outset. The first has to do
with the mystery surrounding the Atonement while the second has
to do with the need for a systematic and biblical approach to
theology. As Paul declares in his letter to the Romans, God's
ways are unfathomable (Romans 11:33).
His plans and counsels, infinite in
majesty and wisdom, are not fully revealed to us -- nor could
they be. And, although
the Lord has graciously revealed to us certain things about the
Atonement in His word, there is still a great deal regarding the
details of Christ's work that is not explained. As H.D.
McDonald writes in Jesus: Human and Divine: Metaphor after metaphor
is used to give some understanding of what Christ wrought in the
cross. The feeling comes to us that there is more in the
cross than can ever be put into words. [iv] The second item that
needs to be pointed out is the need for a systematic and organized
approach to our theology.
Unfortunately, this is somewhat lacking
in the teachings of the "Faith" ministers. There seems to be little
concern for precise views of doctrine or a systematic handling
of biblical truth. As long as the Scriptures are read with serious
interest, and men and women seek to comprehend something of God's
plan for mankind, definite views of doctrine and systems of theology
will not be optional but an absolute necessity for the church.
This need for definition and classification
arises from these facts: that God has communicated His truth to
rational and logical beings, and that the infinite Mind from which
the revelation comes is, in itself, self-consistent and rational
-- not illogical. These two points, the mystery of the Atonement
and the need for a systematic approach, are brought together in
balance in the excellent work by T.C. Hammond, In
Understanding Be Men: In urging the student
to classify, it is necessary to add a warning concerning the danger
of carrying this process to extremes. There have been several
examples in church history of devoted men who (pursuing their
classification too far) attempted to reduce all doctrine to a
cast-iron system.
The outcome was not only that they themselves
were forced into unscriptural statements, but that heresy and
division were forced on the church. It is necessary for the advanced
theologian to learn that there will always remain unavoidable
gaps in every theological system. Where
divine revelation has not pointed the way, it is extremely unwise
for human speculative philosophy to attempt to do so.
When a classification has been extended
to a point where (in any particular) it cannot claim the authority
of Scripture, it has ceased to be useful and is rapidly becoming
a danger. Reverent agnosticism is preferable to unauthorized
speculation. [v] This is precisely what lies ahead of us in this
article. An attempt will be made to give a coherent overview of
the "Faith" teaching in regards to the Atonement and compare it
to the biblical teachings regarding Christ's work. We will strive
to be systematic in presenting the biblical evidence, and yet,
we will gladly refrain from extending to a point where there is
no Scriptural warrant. Where
the Scriptures speak, we will compare them to the "Faith" teachings;
where they are silent, we will seek to avoid unwarranted and "unauthorized
speculation."
As we turn to the teachings of the
"Faith" ministers, there are many sources to which we could look;
many men and women who are preaching this "Word of Faith." However,
to avoid confusion and simplify the documentation of these teachings,
we will be examining the message as expounded by two recognized
leaders of the movement: Kenneth E. Hagin and Kenneth (and
Gloria) Copeland. A bibliography of the works that were studied
specifically for this article appears at the end. Hopefully,
the extensive direct quotations and footnotes will verify that
a sincere attempt has been made to present the teachings of the
"Faith" ministers on the subject of the Atonement in a fair and
accurate manner.
When examining the "Faith" teaching
on this subject, two "truths" stand out. It is taught that Jesus
"died spiritually" and that, therefore, Jesus had to be born-again.
Let's take a closer look at the "what"
and the "why" of these views. The place to begin is, obviously,
to define "spiritual death." To understand the implications
of Jesus dying spiritually, we need to understand the meaning
behind the language used by these teachers. Spiritual death means
separation from God.
The moment Adam sinned, he was separated
from God. Spiritual death means something more than separation
from God. Spiritual death also means having Satan's nature
[vi] (original emphasis). Spiritual death means having Satan's
nature -- just as receiving Eternal Life means we have the nature
of God in us. When Adam and Eve listened to the devil, the
devil became their spiritual father and they had the devil's nature
in their spirits. That is spiritual death.
. . . Man is now united with the devil.
[vii] . . . but when Adam committed high treason against God and
bowed his knee to Satan, spiritual death -- the nature of Satan
-- was lodged in his heart. Actually,
Adam was the first person to be born again. He was born
from life unto death, from spiritual life unto spiritual death.
[viii] God was speaking of spiritual death, the sin nature.
That day in the garden first Eve, then Adam, changed gods.
The sin nature of their new god, Satan,
took possession of their once righteous spirits. They died
spiritually. The very nature of man was changed from one
of righteousness or eternal life into one of spiritual death --
from the nature of God to the nature of Satan. [ix] From these
representative quotes, we see that, according to the "Faith" message,
spiritual death is more than a separation from God; it entails
a distinct change in nature.
Spiritual death includes having, in
some sense, Satan's nature. Building upon this, as we look at
the Atonement, we need to next understand whether this "spiritual
death" is what Christ suffered for us. The teachings seem to be
clear. He [Jesus] paid the price for Adam's sin. He suffered in
His own body, and more important, in His spirit. Jesus experienced
the same spiritual death that entered man in the garden of Eden.
[x] . . . He [Jesus] had taken upon Himself not our sins, necessarily,
but He was made to be our sin -- our sin nature -- spiritual death.
He died spiritually. [xi]
The Bible says in 2 Cor. 5:21 that He who knew no sin was made
to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God
in Him. He who knew no sin was made to be sin. He did the
same thing that Adam did in the garden of Eden. He made
Himself obedient to death and put Himself into the hands of God's
enemy, Satan. Only He did it, He committed this act, not by treason
but by choice. He did it in order to pay the price for Adam's
treason.
See, He put Himself, He made Himself
obedient unto death and the same thing happened to Him that happened
to Adam: spiritual death. [xii] So it is clear that Jesus,
according to these men, suffered the same spiritual death that
Adam suffered. In some
significant way, His nature must have changed as He took our sin
nature -- and hence "Satan's nature" or "spiritual death" -- as
His own. But, for such a one as Christ Jesus, what are the
implications of this spiritual death?. . . in 1 Tim. 3:16:
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 [sic] wasn't first unrighteous.
The righteousness of God was made to
be sin. He [Jesus] accepted
the sin nature of Satan in His own spirit and at the moment that
He did that He cried, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?" You don't know what happened at the cross. Why
do you think Moses, obeying the instruction of God, hung the serpent
up on 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 the light was turned off." [xiii] Jesus became
sin. His Spirit was separated from God. And He went
down into hell in our place. [xiv] Jesus died as our Substitute.
He who knew no sin was made to be sin. He
took upon Himself our sin nature. And He died -- He was
separated and cut off from God. He went down into the prison
house of suffering in our place. He was there three days
and nights. [xv] There is no more sacrifice beyond this [the cross]
because that God has given Himself.
There's not any further that God can
go cause that is part of Himself hanging on that cross.
And the very inside of God, hanging on that cross, is severed
from Him and in that moment of severing, the spirit of Jesus accepting
that sin and making it to be sin, He's separated from His God
and in that moment He's a mortal man; capable of failure, capable
of death. Not only that, but He's fixing on being ushered into
the very jaws of hell. And if Satan is capable of overpowering
Him there, he'll win the universe and mankind is doomed. [xvi]
Dramatic indeed! And what do these excerpts teach us about
Jesus' spiritual death? His nature was radically altered
and He was ushered into hell to suffer for three days and nights.
What then follows Jesus' suffering in
hell for three days at the hands of Satan? For
those in the "Faith" movement, the mortal man Jesus is born-again.
After Jesus was made sin, He had to be born again. . . . Once
again, He was the righteousness of God, and once again, eternal
life was His nature. [xvii] Not only was He physically resurrected
-- His body resurrected -- but His spirit was made alive unto
God again. He had died spiritually. He took upon Himself
spiritual death -- for us. And He is the first one who was
ever born again. His new birth is our new birth! [xviii]
See, you have to realize that He [Jesus] died; you have to realize
that He went into the pit of hell as a mortal man made sin.
But He didn't stay there, thank God.
He was reborn in the pit of hell and
resurrected. [xix] It is important for us to realize that a born-again
man defeated Satan . . . Colossians 1:18 refers to Jesus as the
firstborn from the dead. . . . He was the first man to be reborn
under the new covenant. [xx] Assuredly,
these passages raise many questions. There are many possible
implications of some of these assertions. And yet, in order
to limit the scope of this article, we will confine ourselves
to the following synopsis of the teaching explained above. According
to these teachers, then, Jesus Christ voluntarily took upon Himself
our sinful nature and His very nature changed.
He experienced, as spiritual death,
an objective and real separation from the Father. That part
of Him which is divine was severed from God, and He became a mere
mortal man. As a man having our sinful nature, He was ushered
into hell to be left in the hands of Satan. After
three days and nights, He was born-again in hell and resurrected
as an immortal, reborn man. His [God's] purpose was to put Jesus
through all the torments of hell. He bore our sins, our
sickness, our disease, our griefs, our sorrow, and our pain.
Then, at the command of God the Father
the Spirit of God came blasting down through the eons of time
and injected the very "zoe" [xxi] life, light, and glory of God
into Jesus' spirit and He came out of that place victoriously!
[xxii] Now you can see His [Jesus'] inauguration in the first
chapter of Hebrews and it begins to mean something when God turns
to a reborn, resurrected man and calls Him God. "And He
said to the Son, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.'"
God has successfully brought a man from the depths of hell, from
being made sin, to the highest position that exists in the universe,
and Satan said He couldn't do it. But He did. He turned
to a man and called Him God. He is in a higher position now than
He was before He headed to the cross. I don't know how He could
be any higher, but God said He was. So that's enough for
me. [xxiii] Quite a scenario, is it not? However,
in spite of its dramatic appeal and the popularity it is enjoying
today, the question that needs to be asked is "Is it biblical?"
Consider the words of T.J.
Crawford: The Atonement is a pure matter
of revelation. Whether as regards the truths which it embodies,
the principles on which it rests, or the ends to which it is conducive,
we have no reliable means of information beyond what God has given
us in His Word. In approaching such a subject our question
ought ever to be, "What is written in the Scriptures? How
readest thou?" Nor can we be too careful lest we advance any position
but such as, on full and fair inquiry, has been found to be either
expressly set down in the Holy Scriptures, or by good and necessary
consequences deducible from them. [xxiv] Dr. Crawford's words
to us here are sound and valuable.
Our question, when looking at the concept
of the Atonement of Christ as taught by Hagin and Copeland, needs
to be "Does it conform to the plain teaching of Scripture?" Seeing
that the doctrine of the Atonement touches on such a wide spectrum
of important concepts -- such as the hypostatic union, [xxv] the
biblical concept of sacrifice, the moral attributes of God, etc.
-- it will be necessary to again limit our focus to certain pivotal
questions.
The three questions that arise from
the "Faith" teaching documented above for which we will seek biblical
answers will, therefore, be: 1) Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus
suffered a "spiritual death" on the cross that severed His union
with God, and made Him a mere mortal man with a sin nature? 2)
Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus descended into hell -- a place
of torment -- to there suffer at the hands of Satan for three
days and nights? 3) Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus was, subsequent
to His death on the cross, born-again and is now an exalted, resurrected,
reborn man?
The proponents of this teaching assert
that Jesus must have experienced spiritual death (as they define
it) in order to redeem His people from their sins. They
insist that since death (i.e., spiritual death) is man's "wages
for sin," for Christ to atone for our sins He must endure that
same spiritual death in our stead. Although this may appear
reasonable to some degree, it is scripturally unjustifiable. In
answering the first of these questions, let us look at the extent
of Christ's humiliation as recorded in Scripture and then some
select verses cited by proponents of this teaching.
In our examination of the passages used
by these teachers, we will examine why their extreme view is unwarranted,
and develop a biblical picture of some of the aspects of Christ's
atoning work. The place to begin our biblical answer to the first
question is in Paul's letter to the Philippians.
In the second chapter he presents a
concise overview of Jesus' work. Have this attitude in yourselves
which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the
form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being
made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance
as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point
of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly
exalted Him . . . -- Philippians 2:5-9It is of importance here
to note that in describing the depths Christ went to in reaching
out to mankind, no mention is made of His suffering spiritual
death or experiencing a change in nature. Paul
asserts that Jesus, eternally existent as God, entered into human
history as a bond-slave.
Paul gives no support to the "spiritual
death" idea advanced by the "Faith" teachers. Regarding this passage,
Alexander Bruce, in his work The Humiliation of Christ, says the
following: Notwithstanding this change, the personality [referring
to Jesus] continued the same. Kenosis [xxvi] did not mean
self-extinction or metamorphosis of a Divine Being into a mere
man.
He who emptied Himself was the same
with Him who humbled Himself: and the kenosis and the tapeinosis
[xxvii] were two aspects of the same mind dwelling in the same
subject. [xxviii] What Bruce so aptly points out is that this
passage teaches that Christ's divine nature did not change. His
humbling and emptying of Himself did not result in His becoming
a mere mortal man, as the "Faith" teachers proclaim. In other
scriptural passages where we are given an account of the steps
that Jesus took in order to redeem man, this same truth is borne
out.
Although He came as a servant and died
on the cross, there is not evidence to support the extreme idea
that He died spiritually and underwent a change into mere moral
humanity. [xxix] (e.g., Mark 9:31; Acts 2:22-24; I Corinthians
15:1-4). As Bruce clearly states elsewhere: The writer of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he would commend Jesus as the
pattern of patience, says of Him simply, that He 'endured the
cross, despising the shame.' Paul, when he would exhibit
the humility of Christ in its utmost depth of self-abasement,
indicates the limit of descent by the phrase, 'obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross.' It did not occur to him to
say, 'even death spiritual,' or 'even death eternal,' or 'even
death of the damned.'
It may safely be concluded that such
extreme phrases are not required for a correct statement of the
true doctrine, and that it will suffice to say in general terms
that Christ suffered in body and soul all that it was possible
for a holy Being to suffer. [xxx]
At this point, although it may not be fully clear what the Lord
did experience in His death on the cross, it is evident that it
did not include a spiritual death which resulted in His becoming
a mere mortal man.
To so assert, in the absence of any
biblical warrant, is to move beyond sound doctrine and into unscriptural
and potentially dangerous speculation. However, the "Faith" teachers
do turn to a handful of selected verses in an effort to substantiate
their view. It may be helpful to examine a few of the more
important passages they cite.
One of the verses that is heavily relied
upon for substantiating the doctrine of Jesus' "spiritual death"
is II Corinthians 5:21: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin
on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in
Him. As we have seen, the "Faith" message teaches that this means
that Jesus "took upon Himself our sin nature," accepted in His
own spirit "spiritual death," and that He, as a result, ceased
to be the God-man and became a mortal man.
In examining this passage, one of the
first things to be noted is that the word "sin" is used as an
abstract noun. As such, biblical commentators have noted
that the expression "to be sin" must be metonymical. A metonym
is "a figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one
thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with
which it is associated (as in 'lands belonging to the crown').
[xxxi] Metonym is often used in Scripture, as in the example where
Jesus comments that "those who take up the sword shall perish
by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
It is clear that Jesus is not making
a dogmatic assertion concerning how an individual who "takes up
the sword" shall specifically die, but simply stating a general
truth. Thus, the phrase "perish by the sword" is one example
of a metonym. T.J. Crawford, in his excellent work The Doctrine
of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement, offers important insight
into the metonymical expression in II Corinthians 5:21. Still,
though on these grounds our common translation is to be preferred
[over rendering the phrase "to be sin" as "to be a sin-offering"],
there can be no doubt that the expression is metonymical, since
it is impossible that Christ, or any person, could be literally
made "SIN."
The abstract word "sin" must necessarily
be held to be here put for some concrete. And there is no
concrete that we can think of as denoted by it, except either
"a sinner," or "one who bears or suffers for sin."
Now, that Christ "was made a sinner for
us" is inconsistent, not only with the testimony which the Scriptures
elsewhere bear to His immaculate holiness, but with the express
statement in the adjoining clause, that "He knew no sin."
Accordingly, we are shut up to the other
interpretation, that Christ was "made sin for us" in the sense
of being divinely appointed to bear the burden or to suffer the
penal consequences of our transgressions. [xxxii] We see from
the above that, taking into account the language and context,
the meaning of the expression "made to be sin for us" is that
Christ suffered the legal consequences -- the penalty -- for our
sin. Although Jesus identified with sinners, it is unjustifiable
to read the passage to imply that He took on our sin nature (and,
according to the "Faith" teachers, "Satan's nature" -- spiritual
death).
The author Philip Hughes concurs with
this in his commentary on Second Corinthians where he writes:
"He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our
iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with
His stripes we are healed, . . . and Jehovah hath laid on Him
the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:5f) -- that is the meaning
of Christ's having been made sin for us. Not for one moment
does He cease to be righteous, else the radical exchange envisaged
by the Apostle here . . . would be no more than a fiction or a
hallucination. [xxxiii] And, this understanding is the consistent
testimony of Scripture: Christ was "made to be sin" in the
sense that He bore the penalty of our sins. To elaborate, there
are two words in Hebrew that have the precise meaning of "to bear"
and, when construed with "sin," convey the idea of carrying the
burden or penalty of that sin. For
example, in Lamentations 5:7 we read: "Our fathers sinned,
and are no more: it is we who have borne their iniquities."
Obviously, this can only mean that they
bore the penalty or consequences of their father's sins (Cf. Leviticus
5:17,18; Numbers 30:15). Thus when the Lord, through Isaiah, speaks
of the Messiah saying, ". . . the Righteous One, My Servant, will
justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities . . . " (Isaiah
53:11), the meaning is clear. This prophetic passage affirms
that Christ would suffer the penalty of consequence of the sins
of others. Earlier in this Messianic section, there are other
clear indications that the suffering Servant of the Lord would
suffer on behalf of sinners, be subject to the penal consequences
of their sins and, in that way, "bear" their sins (Isaiah 53:5,8).
This is the consistent testimony of
the Scriptures; Christ took the place of sinners and, in their
stead, bore the punishment their sins required (e.g., Romans 4:25;
I Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 1:4; I Peter 2:24). In light of
this, some insist that if indeed Christ was to bear the penalty
for our sins, then He must have had to suffer "eternal death,"
since that is the penalty sinners suffer for their sin.
The error in this view stems from a misunderstanding of the penalty
Christ bore. Christ did not bear the penalty for sins in
a pecuniary way; He did not offer satisfaction for sins as if
He were paying off a monetary debt.
By way of clarification, it can be said
that the "debt" owed by a sinner is not like a promissory note
that needs to be repaid penny for penny, dollar for dollar.
Divine justice does not require such
a payment for sin. Sin is a moral debt rather than a pecuniary
one, and is discharged differently. Perhaps, at this point, an
illustration would be of help; but, a word of clarification and
caution is needed. The atonement of Christ is a wholly unique
event -- no analogy will ever adequately do justice to Jesus'
work of substitution on the behalf of sinful men.
However, to help illustrate the concept
of substitution in Christ's atoning work, the following analogy
may be of help. Jimmy Olsen, reporter for the Daily Planet and
friend of Superman, has been kidnapped by Lex Luthor. The
villain Luthor has chained Olsen to the wall of his laboratory
and has pointed a large Electro-Generator Gun at him.
When Luthor pulls the trigger, millions
of volts of electricity will be fired into Jimmy Olsen's body.
At the instant before the gun is fired, Superman breaks into the
room and stations himself between Olsen and Luthor's terrible
machine. The trigger having been pulled, the electrical
charge is sent at Superman who bears the full brunt of what Jimmy
would have received had Superman not stepped in his place.
The charge Superman receives is identical
to that which Jimmy would have received, but he bears it differently.
In some remotely similar way, Christ stepped in to bear the full
discharge of God's wrath against sin that was due us. Although
God is hardly meant to be typified by the villainous Luthor, the
analogy does illustrate the idea of full substitution that is
different than the simple payment of a pecuniary debt.
Therefore, in discussing II Corinthians
5:21 and the interpretation offered by the "Faith" teachers --although
we have hardly exhausted what could be said -- certain truths
are clear. Christ "was made sin for us" by becoming the
legal substitute for sinners.
He suffered precisely that kind, degree,
and duration of suffering that the absolute, just wisdom of God
determined was a full equivalent for all that would have been
required of individual sinners. The assertion that He suffered
spiritual death and underwent a change in nature is unsupported
by II Corinthians 5:21 and goes against the plain teachings of
Scripture that we have examined. It
will suffice to say, in the words of Alexander Bruce, ". . . it
was needful that the sin-bearer, though divine, should endure
all that it was possible for a holy Being to suffer in the way
of penalty" [xxxiv] [original emphasis]. A second passage that
often surfaces in the teaching that Jesus died spiritually is
Galatians 3:13.
Paul writes: Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is
written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree . . ." After
the careful look we took at Paul's declaration in II Corinthians
5:21 (". . . made to be sin for us . . .") the parallel with this
passage is evident. Christ "became a curse" for us in the
sense that He bore the effects of God's judgment (curse) against
sin that was due us. It is clear from the testimony of Scripture
that Christ, in and of Himself, was not accursed by God.
We must not forget John 10:17 when the
Lord says, "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay
down My life . . ." Although He suffered the penalty and
"curse" due our sin, Jesus Himself was always the "beloved Son."
Never was Christ more the Son in whom
the Father was well pleased than when He was willing to accept
the utmost consequence for the sins of men. The last passage of
Scripture called on to support the "spiritual death" of Jesus
teaching that we will look at is found in Matthew's Gospel. And
about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying
"Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani?" That is, "My God, my God,
why hast Thou forsaken Me?" -- Matthew 27:26 Here, at what may
well be the height of agony for the Lord Jesus, we would do well
to proceed with great care. The
ground on which we walk, so to speak, as we examine these words
of the Savior is indeed holy.
It is most likely that no man will
ever fathom what was truly involved in this cry and, in analyzing
it, we need to be very careful about undue speculation and theorizing,
or we will soon find ourselves beyond the truth of Scripture.
It is of great importance to note that this passage is not didactic
but narrative; that is, this verse in Matthew is not specific
teaching about Christ's atoning work but is rather a record of
what transpired before the eyes of witnesses. Caution is
needed because, although we have a record of what Christ said,
what He meant by these words is open to question.
The "Faith" teachings indicate that
these words of Christ meant that He who was God the Son was severed
from God the Father and, as a result of that separation, ceased
to be God and became a mere man. However, from the passages that
have been examined thus far, it is clear that such a change in
nature is not taught in the Scriptures. It is evident that
even at His death, Christ was the Lamb "unblemished and spotless"
(I Peter 1:18,19), the Just One (I Peter 3:18), and the very Lord
of Glory Himself crucified for the sins of men (I Corinthians
2:8).
In fact, Paul declares that it was indeed
God who purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28), thus
clearly undermining the teaching that Christ was less than God
when He offered Himself as a ransom for many. If, indeed, there
was no change in the nature of the Son (and, therefore, no dissolution
of the union in nature shared by the Son and the Father), in what
way are Christ's words of desolation true? How is it that
He cries out from the cross that He is "forsaken"?
Theologian Francis Turrettin offered
these words that underscore Christ's union with God the Father
while touching on His "forsakeness": With a voice of deepest sadness,
He complained that he was forsaken by God the Father, though not
by a dissolution of the union, nor by withdrawing a participation
of holiness, nor by withholding his supporting power, yet by withholding
from Him the beatific vision, by suspending the sense and fruition
of full felicity. [xxxv] Turrettin is saying that Jesus' fellowship
with the Father changed and, for that moment, He no longer enjoyed
the full, joyful fellowship that He had enjoyed for eternity past.
As previously shown, Christ became the
legal substitute for sinners, receiving in His own person the
punishment that was due them. As the wrath and judgment
of God were unleashed on the Son, the Father could not share the
fellowship with Him that they had so long enjoyed.
The Son was treated as if He were a
sinner, because he was standing in our place. This, however,
does not necessitate a change in His nature or that He was essentially
severed from God: T.J. Crawford explains: In order to give its
just meaning to His language, we can hardly suppose less than
that, amidst His other sufferings, the sensible joys and consolations
of His Father's fellowship and countenance were withheld from
Him. Nor is it any very
difficult matter to conceive that even in the case of the beloved
Son of God some such spiritual privation may have been endured.
For it is not beyond the bounds of human
experience that the favour and love of God should actually be
possessed, while not felt support and encouragement are derived
from them. Although it be an unquestionable truth that "the Lord
will never leave nor forsake His people," and that "nothing can
ever separate them from His love," yet there are times in the
history of His most devoted servants, in which we find them bitterly
deploring that the light of His gracious countenance is hidden
from them, and that they derive no conscious satisfaction from
the joys of His favour and the comforts of His fellowship.
May we not say, then, that this was
the main source of the Savior's lamentation on the cross?
It certainly appears to be the kind of affliction which His words
most naturally and obviously suggest. [xxxvi] Therefore, there
is no need for asserting that Christ's nature changed, or that
His ontological [xxxvii] union with the Father was severed on
the basis of His words from the cross.
As many Christians can attest, even
those times when they are not fully experiencing the blessings
of fellowship with the Father, the truth of their relationship
with Him remains constant; such was the case with Christ. Now,
let it be made clear that this hardly implies that the Lord Jesus'
suffering was bodily only. In bearing the penalty of our
sins He suffered in body and spirit.
Obviously, such suffering had impact
on Him as a total being. But,
there is no basis for insisting that such suffering altered His
very nature. (Some Christians hold that the experience of
alienation that Christ suffered in His spirit could be considered
a "spiritual death" but, such a definition of spiritual death
is significantly different than that advanced by the "Faith" teachers.)
We now, therefore, have a reply to the
first and perhaps most difficult question. In answer to
whether the Scriptures teach that Jesus suffered a "spiritual
death" on the cross that severed Him from union with God and resulted
in His becoming a mere mortal man, the Scriptures indicate "No."
The Word of God clearly demarcates the
extent of Christ's humiliation in death and it does not include
such a "spiritual death." Scripture declares that Christ
"bore our sins on the tree" but also makes it clear that in "bearing
sin" His nature did not change. Even our Lord's cry of desolation
gives no ground to the teaching that He was severed from His essential
union with God to become a mere man, as previously seen.
The second question needing an answer
is this: do the Scriptures teach that Jesus descended into
hell -- a place of torment -- to there suffer at the hands of
the devil for three days and nights? For the "Faith" teachers,
this is an integral part of their beliefs. As
we have seen, according to their view of events, after Jesus became
a mortal man, He was ushered into the waiting grasp of Satan. They
feel that this must be part of the atoning work of Christ. There
is some question in many Christian's mind about Jesus' "descent
into hell," because the phrase "He descended into hell" appears
in the commonly called Athanasian Creed. Therefore, it may
be of value to take a brief look at the history of the phrase
in question in regard to its place in the creeds of the Church.
According to church history, the phrase
"He descended into hell" was not in any of the recognized creeds
of the Church prior to the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325); neither
was it a part of any creed drawn up by that council or the Council
of Constantinople (A.D. 381). Apparently, it first appeared
in the Creed of the Church at Aquileia (c. A.D. 400). These
words were not in the Old Roman form of the Apostle's Creed, but
were included in the form given by Rufinus (c. A.D. 400).
When the phrase does appear in the so-called Athanasian Creed,
it reads "descendit ad inernos" -- "He descended to the underworld."
Therefore, it is evident that the idea
was not articulated until many years after the church began.
In addition, regrettably, there is a
great variety of opinion about what the formulators of the creeds
intended to convey by the expression. Although it may be
likely that the phrase was added to respond to certain docetic
[xxxviii] views of the person of Christ, the meaning is, at best
ambiguous. Therefore, the value of this creedal statement
is rather limited. We must look directly to the Scriptures
for help.
When turning to the Scriptures, however,
a certain ambiguity again arises. The idea that Christ "descended
into hell" finds its basis on a small group of passages, all of
which appear to open up a variety of views or interpretations.
Perhaps the clearest reference is found in Acts 2:24-32 (Cf. Psalm
16:10-11 and Acts 13:34-37). Peter, preaching, quotes a
prophetic Psalm and goes on to explain that Christ was not "abandoned
to Hades" (2:31). As noted scholar A.T. Robertson points
out, "Hades is the unseen world, Hebrew Sheol . . . It does not
mean the place of punishment, though both heaven and the place
of torment are in Hades (Luke 16:23). 'Death and Hades are
strictly parallel terms: he who is dead is in Hades' (Page)."
[xxxix]
Therefore, the most that can be legitimately
concluded from this reference is that not only did our Lord's
identification with mankind lead to His death on the cross, but
He subsequently experienced that which any man would (i.e., the
separation of soul and body). In Romans 10:6,7, Paul quotes a
passage from Deuteronomy that some take as referring to a "descent
into hell" by Christ. However, it also appears as though
this reference is simply alluding to Christ's death.
Commenting on the seventh verse -- 'Who
will descent into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from
the dead), R.C.H. Lenski comments: "Abyss" is the extreme opposite
of "heaven." Paul himself
indicates in what sense he uses this term, namely as referring
to Christ's death and resurrection . . . The reference is to Christ's
resurrection, to His going down into the abyss of death and the
grave and His being brought up from the dead in his glorious resurrection.
[xl] Apparently, then, these two references most-likely refer
to Christ's death, and not a three-day visit in hell as the "Faith"
teachers believe.More problematic still is Ephesians 4:9,10 where
Paul writes: Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it
mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of
the earth?
He who descended is Himself also He
who ascended far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.
The question here is to determine what
Paul meant by the lower parts of the earth. Paul explains that
Christ "ascended far above all the heavens" and contrasts that
to His having "descended into the lower parts of the earth."
Many feel this may simply be a reference to His incarnation (i.e.,
His descent to earth) and that it is simply a dramatic comparison
of the lowliness of earth in comparison to His high heavenly home
(Cf. Isaiah 44:23 for another reference to the "lower parts of
the earth" indicating, poetically, the earth itself).
Others hold that the reference is to
Christ's humiliation in enduring death. (There is a third
view -- that Christ did descend to hell in order to make a proclamation
-- but we will examine that as we look at the next passage in
question.) Whatever
the interpretation held, it is clear that this passage is hardly
a substantial basis for teaching that Jesus Christ descended to
hell as a mortal man to be tortured by the devil. The last
reference to this "descent" of Christ is found in I Peter 3:18-20.
Although the reading appears to be quite straightforward, there
is nonetheless, some question about the meaning of this passage
as well.
For Christ also died for sins once for
all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us
to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive
in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to
the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the
patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction
of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought
safely through the water.As has been mentioned, a variety of views
are held regarding these verses. [xli]
However, rather than working through
them all, attention should be called to two salient facts concerning
this passage. Notice that, according to Peter's words, after Christ's
death (in the flesh) He is then made alive. And, it is subsequent
to this vivification that He "went and made proclamation to the
spirits now in prison." Thus, for the "Faith" teachers who
insist that Christ's vivification came after His time in hell,
the sequence of events here is a significant problem. Second,
Peter tells us that Christ went and "made proclamation" to the
spirits. The word here used by Peter is "to herald" or "proclaim."
(It is not the word used in referring to "preaching" -- i.e.,
the Gospel.) The point seems clear that whatever else Peter
may be speaking of, Christ did not go to the "prison" to be tortured
by Satan, but He went announcing and proclaiming (what we would
assume to be) His victory.
Therefore, although it may be unclear
as to precisely what Peter intended to convey by these words,
the passage will not allow for the portrayal of Christ as a spiritually
dead mortal man tortured by the devil in hell. Having examined
the Scriptural references to Christ's "descent into hell," we
again find the "Faith" message teaching to be biblically unsupported.
It is significant to note, as has been pointed out previously,
that in the Scripture passages discussing the steps Christ went
through to redeem man, the "Faith" message concepts are conspicuously
missing.
In I Corinthians 15:3,4, Paul gives
us what he clearly feels is the essence of the Gospel saying,
". . . that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures . . . . " No mention is made
of the Lord's alleged descent and torment in hell, such teaching
is without biblical warrant. Before leaving this second question,
it may be profitable to look, once more, at the events of the
crucifixion and Christ's words from the cross. In reference to
the Savior's words, "It is finished" (John 19:30), the "Faith"
teachers have a view quite different than that which is generally
held. For example: Now
here's the part I want you to get. When He said, "It is
finished," on that cross he was not speaking of the plan of redemption
-- the plan of redemption had just begun.
There were still three days and three
nights to be gone through before He went to the throne." [xlii]
When Jesus cried, "It is finished," He was not speaking of the
plan of redemption . . . Jesus' death on the cross was only the
beginning of the complete work of redemption. [xliii] For those
holding this view, Jesus still had to suffer three days and nights
in hell and then be born again to complete the atoning work He
came from heaven to do. And yet, one can't help wondering
whether they have truly given honest thought to those last words
of Christ from the cross. It could rightly be said that the Lord
Jesus came into the world pre-eminently in order to die; He came
specifically to give His life up in death on the cross (Mark 10:45;
John 10:14-18).
With this in mind, John's testimony
about Christ's last moments on the cross are significant. After
this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished,
in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, said, "I am thirsty."
A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge
full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop, and brought it
up to His mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the sour
wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head,
and gave up His spirit. -- John 19:28-30 I have found no comment
on these verses more profound than that of Alfred Edersheim in
his The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
He observes: It can scarcely have been
a minute or two from the time that the cry from the twenty-second
Psalm marked the high-point of His agony, when the words 'I Thirst'
seem to indicate, by the prevalence of the merely human aspect
of the suffering, that the other more terrible aspect of sin-bearing
and God-forsakenness was past. To us, therefore, this seems
the beginning, if not of Victory, yet of Rest, of the End. [xliv]
What Edersheim is pointing out is that moment after the Lord's
cry of desolation, He says, simply, "I thirst." This turning
of attention from the spiritual agony to mere physical needs is
a strong indicator that the real suffering was indeed over.
St. John alone records this utterance
["I thirst"], prefacing it with this distinctive statement, that
Jesus so surrendered Himself to the human feeling, seeking the
bodily relief by expressing his thirst: 'knowing that all
things were now finished, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.'
In other words, the climax of Theanthropic
[xlv] suffering in His feeling of God-forsakenness, which had
led to the utterance of Psalm 22:1, was now, to His consciousness,
the end of all which in accordance with Scripture-prediction He
had to bear.
He now could and did yield Himself to
the mere physical wants of His body. [xlvi] Jesus appears to be
conscious of the end of His redemptive suffering. Furthermore,
it seems evident that His conscious fellowship with God the Father
was restored because of His subsequent self-committal: "Father,
into thy hands I commit My spirit" (Luke 23:46). Therefore, it
seems clear that His proclamation, as recorded in John 19:30,
is not merely an announcement of the end of "the Abrahamic covenant"
as the "Faith" teachers say (which, by the way, has not been done
away with), but truly the end of His redemptive sacrificial work.
Noted New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie
writes: In line with this approach to death is the cry from the
cross which John records in 19:30, 'It is finished!' This
is certainly not a cry of despair, but of accomplishment.
It marked the completion of the mission which Jesus came to do.
That mission included the uplifting on the cross. [xlvii] John
Gill's words, from his work A Body of Divinity offers a succinct
recap of the evidence against the idea that Jesus went to hell
to suffer, and a brief summary answer to our second question.
But it is certain, that the soul of
Christ upon separation of his body, went not to hell, but to heaven,
being committed by him into the hands of his Father: nor
need he go thither to complete his sufferings, which ended on
the cross, when he said, 'It is finished.' [xlviii]
So, in answer to our second question
as to whether Jesus, as mortal man, descended to hell to suffer
at the hands of the devil, we have clearly seen that there is
no sound biblical base for such a teaching and that the redemptive
work of the Lord was indeed finished at the cross. Our last question
-- whether, subsequent to His death, Jesus became a born again
resurrected immortal man -- should now be relatively easy to deal
with.
To reach the conclusion that the "Faith"
teachers have, one must accept the premise that Jesus died a "spiritual
death" that resulted in His becoming simply a mortal man who was
in need of being born again. As we have seen, it is clear
that there was no need for such a radical change in nature, nor
did such a change occur.
Therefore, since Jesus' "new birth"
is predicated on His "spiritual death" and, we have found that
He did not die such a "spiritual death," the idea that He was
born again is biblically unwarranted. Biblically, being "born
again" is the result of putting personal faith and trust in Jesus
Christ, relying on His atoning work for one's redemption from
sin (Galatians 3:26; John 1:12,13). With this in mind, perhaps
one of the most challenging questions that the "Faith" teachers
need to answer is on what basis did Jesus, who they say was a
mortal man having our sin nature (and thus Satan's nature -- spiritual
death) as His own, receive the new birth? How
was Jesus born again?
Obviously, from Scripture, such a question
is unwarranted because there was no need for the Lord to be born
again. We therefore have found answers to our three questions.
1) The scriptures do not teach that Jesus suffered a "spiritual
death" on the cross that severed Him from union with God resulting
in His becoming a mere mortal man. 2)
The scriptures do not teach that Jesus
descended into hell to there suffer at the hands of Satan for
three days and nights. 3) The scriptures do not teach that Jesus
was, subsequent to His death on the cross, born again, and is
now an exalted, resurrected man. In discussing his ministry, the
Apostle Paul wrote the Corinthians that he "determined to know
nothing . . . except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (I Corinthians
2:2). He made it abundantly clear that the heart of the
Gospel was the truth about Christ "and Him crucified" (I Corinthians
1:23; 15:3,4; Galatians 6:14; I Timothy 1:15).
It would seem clear that to err in teaching
in such a crucial area as the nature of our Lord Jesus and His
work on the cross is a grave and serious matter. If
one bases the gospel he preaches on speculation and the teachings
of men rather than the sure word of God in the Scriptures, then
he is likely moving away from the biblical teaching and into error.
To move in such a direction is to risk being found guilty of preaching
"another gospel" -- the ultimate heresy (II Corinthians 11:4).
In this day of doctrinal "winds," Paul's
words to Timothy prove to be sound advice: "Pay close attention
to yourself and your teaching . . . Retain the standard of sound
words which you have hear from me . . . " (I Timothy 4:16; II
Timothy 1:13). We need to be extremely careful about what
is being preached and taught; we need to examine everything, holding
fast only to that which is good (I Thessalonians 5:21). In his
brief letter to the saints, Jude exhorts believers everywhere
to contend for the faith because "certain persons have crept in
unnoticed," teaching things other than the truth about our Lord
and His gospel.
It would appear as though the church
today faces a similar situation and, therefore, Jude's words are
ones we urgently need to hear. The church must no longer tolerate
teaching that simply sounds good or tickles ears. We need
sound doctrine and instruction in the truth (II Timothy 4:1-5).
The leaders in the church must take a stand, "holding fast the
faithful word," and refute those who are teaching error.
False teachers "must be silenced because they are upsetting whole
families, teaching things they should not teach" (Titus 1:7-11).
There are many brothers and sisters
in Christ who are deeply involved in the "Faith" movement, people
who truly love the Lord and want to serve Him. And yet,
the evidence is clear that the message herein described and being
taught by leaders of the movement is unbiblical. A choice
needs to be made.
It is spiritually dangerous to sit under
the teaching of anyone who so distorts the basic gospel message.
This is especially true when we consider
the progressive, evolving nature of these teachings. The
ultimate extent of error that the "Faith" teachers will reach
has likely not yet been revealed. Next issue, we will look
at some additional problems in the more recent "Faith" teachings,
and we will consider the lethal problems to which these teachings
could easily lead.
Reference: Bibliography
of Material Consulted Reflecting the "Faith" Message on the Atonement
Copeland, Gloria. God's Will For You. Fort Worth,
Texas: Kenneth Copeland Publications, 1972. Copeland, Kenneth.
"Absolute Life!" Believer's Voice of Victory, September
1980. Copeland, Kenneth. "And God Said . . . " Believer's
Voice of Victory, September 1981. Copeland, Kenneth. "A
Winning Attitude in Christ." Believer's Voice of Victory,
April 1981. Copeland, Kenneth. "Jesus: Our Lord of
Glory." Believer's Voice of Victory, April 1982. Copeland,
Kenneth. "Jesus Was Our Substitute." Believer's Voice
of Victory, March 1981. Copeland, Kenneth. Now Are We in
Christ Jesus. Fort Worth, Texas: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, 1980. Copeland, Kenneth. Our Covenant With God.
Fort Worth, Texas: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1976. Copeland,
Kenneth. "What Happened From the Cross to the Throne?" (tape)
Fort Worth, Texas: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d. Copeland,
Kenneth. "You Are the Righteousness of God in Christ."
Believer's Voice of Victory, March 1982. Hagin, Kenneth E.
The Authority of the Believer. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Kenneth
Hagin Evangelistic Association, 1974. Hagin, Kenneth E.
How You Can Know the Will of God. Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Kenneth Hagin Evangelistic Association, 1975. Hagin, Kenneth E.
"The Incarnation," The Word of Faith, December 1980. Hagin,
Kenneth E. In Him. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Faith Library
Publications, 1978. Hagin, Kenneth E. "Made Alive,"
The Word of Faith, April 1982. Hagin, Kenneth E. The Name
of Jesus. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Faith Library Publications,
1981. Hagin, Kenneth E. The New Birth. Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Faith Library Publications, 1978. Hagin, Kenneth E. Redeemed
From Poverty, Sickness, Death. Tulsa, Oklahoma, Faith Library
Publications, 1978. Bibliography of Other Works Consulted
Anderson, Norman. The Mystery of the Incarnation.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1978. Barnes,
Albert. The Atonement. Minneapolis, Minnesota:
Bethany Fellowship, n.d. Bruce, Alexander B. The Humiliation of
Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1955. Buswell,
J. Oliver. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976. Chafer, Lewis Sperry.
"Soteriology," Biblioteca Sacra, 104 (1947), 263-281. ---------------.
BS, 103 (1947), 135-153. ---------------. BS, 102 (1947),
3-24. ---------------. BS, 101 (1946), 140-160. Chemnitz,
Martin, translated by J.A.O. Preus. The Two Natures of Christ.
St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1971).
Crawford, Thomas J. The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting
the Atonement. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House, 1954. Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus
the Messiah. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1976.
Garrie, A.E. "The Desolation of the Cross,” The Expositor
VII, 3(1907), 507-527. Gill, John. A Body of Divinity.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971.
Grounds, Vernon C. "The Atonement." Baker's Dictionary
of Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,
1960. Guillebaud, H.E. Why the Cross? London, England:
InterVarsity Fellowship, 1950. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament
Theology. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
1981. Hammond, T.C., edited and revised by David Wright.
In Understanding Be Men. Downers Grove, Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 1968. Hodge, Archibald A. The Atonement.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Guardian Press, n.d. Hodge, Charles.
Systematic Theology (3 vols.). Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Eerdmans, 1977. Hughes, Philip E. Paul's Second Epistle to the
Corinthians (NIC). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,
1962. Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of Matthew.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg, 1961. ---------------.
The Interpretation of First and Second Corinthians. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Augsburg, 1963. ---------------. The Interpretation
of Romans. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg, 1961.
Little, Paul. Know What You Believe. Wheaton, Illinois:
Victor Books, 1970. McDonald, H.C. Jesus: Human and
Divine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1968. Morris,
Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1965. Muenscher, Joseph.
"On the Descent of Christ into Hell," Bibliotheca Sacra
16 (1859), 309-353. Packer, James I. Knowing God.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1973. Robertson,
A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville,
Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1931. Turrettin, Frances, translated
by James Wilson. The Atonement of Christ. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1978. Wilson, William.
"Our Lord's Cry on the Cross," Expository Times, 31(1920),
519-520.
