The Word of Faith & Heresy
regarding Jesus' Blood Atonement at the Cross

[IMAGE]

Atonement Where? by Moreno Dal Bell

A Biblical Analysis of the Disturbing Claims Put Forward by the Faith Movement, Which Include the Inefficiency of Christ's Blood, Alone, to Atone for the Sins of Man; the Need for Christ's Spiritual Death, and that the Redemption of Mankind was Completed in Hell

"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself."
Irenaeus

The doctrines of the Faith movement which will be investigated in this publication would not normally deserve a response, were it not for the fact that multitudes of sincere people have fallen prey to, and unknowingly accepted, a false view of the events leading up to and including the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is to these people, primarily, I declare foremost, that the precious blood of Christ alone did atone for our sins!

The Faith movement had its beginnings in 1963 in Garland, Texas, at the home of Kenneth E. Hagin, where he had set up his own office from which he distributed his tapes and books for approximately three years. The origin of most of the Faith movement's doctrines, however, have a much longer history, as will be borne out in a later chapter.

The Faith movement is also known by the titles 'The Word movement', and, 'The Word of Faith movement'. It is sometimes referred to by it's detractors as 'The Faith-Formula movement' and 'The Hyper-Faith movement'. It's acknowledged 'father' is Kenneth E. Hagin, also known as 'dad Hagin'. Kenneth Copeland, reckoned by many in the movement as 'God's man of the hour', is Hagin's heir apparent. Other leading identities of the Faith movement are: Kenneth Hagin, Jr., Gloria Copeland, Fred Price, Jerry Savelle, Charles Capps, Norvel Hayes, John Osteen, Robert Tilton, Lester Sumrall, John Avanzini, Marilyn Hickey, Buddy Harrison and Morris Cerullo

It may surprise those Christians who believe the Faith movement to be a by-product of the Charismatic movement, to learn that this is not the case. The Faith movement did not spring from either the Charismatic or Pentecostal movements, but their roots. In fact, it can be traced back to the metaphysical cults, specifically New Thought. Though many charismatics have warmly welcomed and adopted certain Faith practices and beliefs, it is interesting to note that some charismatics actually frown upon the Faith movement, and view the Hagin/Copeland gospel as a gross distortion of true Bible doctrine, and have opposed it, virtually, from it's inception.

Many believe the Faith movement is a true moving of the Holy Spirit, simply because of numerous purported healings and supernatural occurrences for which it claims to be responsible.Experiences and results, as is increasingly the case, are what many people are forming their beliefs on, often at the expense of true Bible doctrine. What many fail to realize is the fact that every major religion produces 'results' and 'experiences'. D.R. McConnell, author of the outstanding book, A Different Gospel: A Historical and Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement explains:

Results can never be the criterion by which the truth of an idea is proven. If that were the case, charismatics would have to admit that Mary Baker Eddy is a prophetess and that Christian Science is true gospel. Likewise, the numerous healings and miracles occurring in the Faith movement are not necessarily signs from God that the Faith gospel is the Gospel of the New Testament. Charismatics who naively assume that healings vindicate truth are overlooking the fact that almost every major religion and cult the world has ever known has produced healings. For every god there is a religion, and in every religion there are healings." 1



As will be detailed in a later chapter, the major doctrines of the Faith movement were plagiarized by Kenneth Hagin from the teachings of E.W. Kenyon.Kenyon (1867-1948), gained much of his theology from the mind-science cults, predominantly metaphysics. He incorporated these teachings with his Christian beliefs in an attempt to satisfy the desires for, as he termed it, a new type of Christianity which people had been longing for. Hagin adopted many of these ideas, adding his own theological views gained from his days in classical Pentecostalism and healing revivalism. The five central doctrines of the Faith movement: Revelation Knowledge, Identification, Faith, Healing and Prosperity, however, were all taken from Kenyon's writings, a man who often drank from the well of the Metaphysical cults, particularly, New Thought and Christian Science.



In the ensuing pages we will learn of the Faith movement's iniquitous assertions of Jesus coming to earth only as man; that Christ took on the satanic nature upon the cross; that His precious blood, alone, did not atone for our sins; that Jesus suffered a double-death upon the cross--spiritual as well as physical; and that man's redemption was completed in hell, where Jesus, it is alleged, became the first born-again man!



It has been said that, 'Christianity is Christ'! "Christianity centers on the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth: His deity, His humanity, and His atoning death as a substitute for sinners. To fool around with the Biblical material at these points is to engage in error at the level of eternal loss." 2



As we enter now into a Biblical analysis of the relevant Faith doctrine, the Faith follower is reminded that we follow the Lord Jesus Christ and no other. The Christian is not to be hesitant or become apprehensive of any investigation into the teachings of those they listen to and love. Salvation is not gained by our loyalty to a man, but by our acceptance of the truth. Let us recall the words of A. Lindsley, "The Christian has nothing to fear from thoughtful investigation."

KENOTIC THEOLOGY

"Why didn't Jesus openly proclaim Himself as God during His 33 years on earth? For one single reason. He hadn't come to earth as God, He'd come as man."
Kenneth Copeland.

Kenotic theology, the contention that Jesus Christ divested Himself of His deity during His incarnation, is in essence, heretical theology. Although Kenneth Copeland does not subscribe to the belief that Jesus was not God, he does however believe that Jesus did not come to earth as God. Nor is he of the opinion that Jesus even claimed to be God during His earthly ministry. Copeland claims to have received a direct revelation from God during which Jesus allegedly told him, "...I didn't claim I was God; I just claimed I walked with Him and that He was in Me..." In addition, Copeland asserts that, "This man--Jesus, was a carbon copy of the one who walked through the Garden of Eden." 5 He gives his reason as to why it had to be this way, in the following statement, "He (God) has to have a man like that first one. It's got to be a man. He's got to be all man. He cannot be a God and come storming in here with attributes and dignities that are not common to man. He can't do that. Its not legal." 6 At the time of the alleged revelation from Jesus that Copeland 'received', it produced great concern among a number of Christians, one of whom was the late cult researcher, Walter Martin, who actually wrote Copeland expressing his concern at this 'revelation'. Sadly, "Copeland refused correction or even correspondence on the subject and re-issued his position, standing by his alleged revelation." 7 In the August, 1988 issue of Copeland's Believer's Voice of Victory magazine, Kenneth Copeland made these disquieting remarks:

"Jesus hadn't come to earth as God; He'd come as man. He'd set aside His divine power and had taken on the form of a human being--with all its limitations." And, that Jesus lived on earth, "...not as God but as a man." He also teaches that Jesus prayed, "...not as the divine One who had authority as God but as a man..." And that Jesus never believed Himself to be "...the Most High God."



The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology informs us of the orthodox Church view on the kenotic theory: "...all forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic theology. This is because God must be affirmed to be changeless(Heb. 13:8); any concept of the incarnation that would imply change would mean that God would cease to be God."

In contrast with Copeland's belief that Jesus did not claim to be God while on earth, the Bible clearly teaches that He did. In John 8:58 Jesus says of Himself, "...Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM." The term I AM, is of course one that God has assumed as His name, and was recognized by the Jews as a title of deity (see Ex. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:6; 47:8). Also, the high priest's reaction to Jesus' use of the title, in the Gospel of Mark, suggests that he considered Jesus' utterance of it as being a blasphemous claim to deity (Mark 14:61-63). Jesus makes it perfectly clear in John 8 that He is most certainly God (cf. John 3:13; 5:18; 10:33; 17:5). Noted American theologian A.A. Hodge, speaks truly on this matter of the Person of Christ:

"Jesus of Nazareth was very God, possessing the divine nature and all its essential attributes. He is also true man, His human nature derived by generation from the stock of Adam. These natures continued united in His Person, yet ever remain true divinity and true humanity, unmixed and as to essence unchanged. So that Christ possesses at once in the unity of His Person two spirits with all their essential attributes, a human consciousness, mind, heart and will.... Yet it does not become us to attempt to explain the manner in which the two spirits mutually affect each other, or how far they meet in one consciousness, nor how the two wills cooperate in one activity, in the union of one person. Nevertheless, they constitute as thus united one single Person, and the attributes of both natures belong to the one Person."8



The Scripture most widely used to support the view that Christ emptied Himself of His divinity is Philippians 2:7: "But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." The Revised Version has it, 'But emptied Himself, taking the form...' The Greek here means literally to empty. The question we have before us is: In what manner did Jesus empty Himself? Some contend that the kenosis (an emptying), was merely a concealment, a veiling of His divine attributes, not unlike the sun as when veiled by clouds still gives its light but the full radiance is concealed. John 1 shows clearly that Jesus, the second Person of the Godhead, was made flesh, maintaining His divinity and attributes. The Unger's Bible Dictionary informs us that, "The ancient Church, with but few exceptions, taught that the Son did not retain the divine glory for Himself, for His own advantage, while yet He did not cease even in the flesh to be what He eternally was." Luke 2:49, "How is it that ye sought Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" indicates that even as a Child, Jesus was conscious of His divinity, as well as during the years of His ministry (John 8:58; 10:30; 14:9-11; 17:25).



Philippians 2:6 speaks of Jesus, being in the form of God... The word "form" (morph), is best defined by Gifford in his book The Incarnation, "morph is...properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists...Thus in the passage before us morph Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ."



Perhaps the strongest verse which attests to Christ's divinity is Colossians 2:9: "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." This verse plainly states that the fullness of the Godhead ie., divinity or divine essence, became incarnate and indwelt the body of Jesus Christ. It does not mean that only the will of God dwelt in Him, nor even of the divine knowledge alone, but that the whole deity had become incarnate and dwelt in human form. Jesus was not just a man who had God dwelling in Him, He was wholly God and wholly man. Hebrews 13:8, an oft used verse by both Faith movement teachers and followers alike, is proof that Jesus was wholly divine, and yet in human form during His ministry on earth, for He is forever unchangeable. According to Philippians 2:6-8, Jesus came to earth in the form of God, and in the form of a servant. "The eternal, infinite form of God took upon Himself flesh" (John 1:1, 14).

Kenneth Copeland has, in clear contradiction to his earlier statements in this chapter, on occasion taught correctly that Jesus "...was and is God manifested in the flesh." Yet, as we have seen,Copeland elsewhere denies Christ's having come to earth as wholly man and wholly God. We hope that Mr. Copeland would soon realize his own confusion and inconsistency and teach only the truth, that Jesus came to this earth as God manifested in the flesh (see Isa. 9:6; Rom. 8:3; 1Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14).

THE BLOOD ATONEMENT

The cross of Christ is the most central doctrine of the Christian faith. It was there that Jesus' work of atonement for mankind was completed, a fact evidenced by Jesus' own words, found in John 19:30, "...it is finished..." and by Paul in Colossians 1:20: "...having made peace through the blood of His cross..."
"It is this doctrine, perhaps more than any other, that has been repeatedly attacked by non-Christian cults and false religions. These concentrated attacks, however, can no longer be confined to the enemies the Church, but are quickly beginning to surface within the broad walls of Christendom."



The Faith movement is one of these enemies which has surfaced and presented, to the Church at large, a different account of what occurred and what was achieved upon the rugged cross. Kenneth Copeland states quite emphatically in a taped sermon entitled, 'What Happened From The Cross To The Throne?'"...if it had been a physical death only, it wouldn't have worked." Consequently, Copeland teaches that our redemption was not completed on the cross, but in the pit of hell! (more on this later).



The Faith movement employs what is known as a metaphysical view of salvation, which spiritualises the atonement and deifies man. The completion of the atonement is located in hell rather than the cross, thus depriving the physical death of Christ of the power to atone for our sins, which the Bible attributes solely to the blood of Christ (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 10:10). The central doctrine of the Christian faith has been plundered.

Although there are several theories as to how the atonement was achieved, we are interested only in the Faith movement's view and why it is a false teaching. Most Christians would agree that our sins were fully atoned for by the physical death of Jesus upon the cross. The Faith movement has other ideas. We shall be dealing specifically in this chapter with their belief in Kenneth Copeland's claims that,"Since He (Jesus) was made to be sin, He had to pay the penalty for sin. He had to die spiritually, which took Him into the regions of the damned, before He could redeem us."He also says, "...When His blood poured out, it did not atone. It did away with the handwriting of the ordinances that were against us."

Faith movement theology concerning the cross was known to the early Church as the 'Devil Ransom Theory' or 'The Classical Theory' or 'The Fishhook Theory'. The early Church fathers who subscribed to this thesis, believed that because of sin man belonged to Satan. In order to save mankind, God is purported to have offered His Son Jesus as a ransom to the Devil. This is in sharp contrast with the Bible's teaching that Christ had given Himself as an offering for us, and as a sacrifice to God not Satan (Eph. 5:2; cf. 1Cor. 5:7; Heb. 10:12). The theory that Christ was a ransom paid to the Devil, did not originate with the Faith movement. It was taught as early as A.D. 230 by Origen and more emphatically by Gregory of Nyssa A.D. 370. This doctrine however was always met with the strongest opposition and denial by theologians such as Athanasius A.D. 370; and Gregory of Nazianzum A.D. 390. Never did it become the official and accepted view of the Church.

The Devil Ransom Theory gradually faded from view due to its lack of intelligent support, and after Anselm (1033-1109), an 11th century scholastic theologian, subjected it to criticism in his book Cur deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man?).

Another historic atonement theory that parallels, at least in part, the Faith movement view is called 'The Example Theory'. It was promulgated by the Socinians, a 16th century movement founded by Faustus Socinus, who was to later become the leader of Unitarianism. The Socinians denied the Trinity, the deity of Christ, that men are fallen, and also claimed that Christ's death on the cross did not atone for the sins of mankind.

Two centuries later another group emerged which denied the efficacy of Christ's atoning blood. Swedenborgianism, founded by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), also discarded the concept of the Trinity. The vicarious atonement is considered an "abomination" and "mere human invention", while the death of Christ is considered "a climax to a life of service", not "a debt of blood."

A more recent group of dissenters from the Biblical teaching that the atonement for sin was fulfilled by Christ's death upon the cross, is The Seventh-Day Adventist Church. They teach that the atonement is an ongoing event! Ellen G. White, the group's 'prophetess', has this to say of the precious blood of Christ, "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin...It will stand in the sanctuary until the final atonement." 13 Ephesians 1:7 assures the Christian that his sins have been cancelled, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins..."(cf. Rom. 8:1).

Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, believed that the shed blood of Christ was ineffectual for sin. She stated in her 'divinely inspired' book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, that, "The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree' than when it was flowing in His veins." She even denied the need for a physical sacrifice, labelling it as a 'heathen conception'.

The Biblically alert Christian will instantly recognize these claims as blasphemous and a direct attack upon the effectiveness of Christ's physical death in atoning for our sins. The reader may have already noticed an affinity between Copeland's teachings and some of these others just mentioned. We propose to present to the reader in the following pages, irrefutable evidence that the Faith movement is no less a dissenter from the true Biblical doctrine of the atonement than are these others.

Though Copeland and other Faith teachers do not totally discount the blood from being a necessary part of the atonement 'package', they do not, however, believe that the blood--the physical death of Jesus--alone, was sufficient to complete our redemption.

E.W. Kenyon, the originator of most Faith movement doctrine, teaches that the shed blood of Christ did not effect the sin issue at all! Kenyon states that the physical death of Jesus could never eradicate sin and sickness, as these were of spiritual origin. He also declares, as does Kenneth Copeland, that Jesus' physical death was only the beginning of His redemptive work, and not a mark of its completion.

Let us now briefly turn to the Scriptures and hear what the Word of God teaches about the cross and the atonement. The apostle Paul said, "God forbid that I should glory, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ..."(Gal. 6:14). Paul did not glory in any mythical spiritual death of Christ, nor did he ever speak of a glorious redemption completed in hell. It was in the cross that Paul centred his attention and gloried. And it is the cross which the church of Jesus Christ has always gloried in. It has been wisely stated that the Church's roots are in the cross--in the atonement (cf. 1Cor. 1:18).

Revelation 1:5, "...To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood", describes the cleansing and purifying power of the atoning blood of Jesus. Revelation 7:14 states, "...These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb." The usage of the word blood in the Bible is evidence of the fact that it is synonymous with physical life given in death. Leon Morris explains:

"Of the 362 uses of the Hebrew word for blood (dam) in the O.T., 103 refer to sacrificial blood and 203 refer to violent physical death of some kind. Likewise, of the 98 uses of the Greek word for blood (haima) in the N.T., 25 refer to violent physical death, 12 refer to animal sacrifice, and 37 refer to the physical death of Christ." 15 (see 1Pet. 1:18,19; cf. Heb. 10:19,20; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:7).

Therefore, we are to understand that when the Bible speaks of Christ's blood, it is talking about His physical death and His physical death ONLY. When Copeland denies the sufficiency of Christ's physical death alone to deal fully with man's sin, he not only diminishes the full redeeming power of the blood, but also its role in God's plan of salvation for mankind, as set out in the Bible. The shedding of Christ's blood which secured the forgiveness of sins, was made possible because it was blood poured forth in a violent sacrificial death made on our behalf (Rom. 5:8,9; 8:32; Eph. 5:2; Gal. 3:13; 1Thess. 5:10; cf. Isa. 53).

Several Scriptures which refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; John 1:29), clearly portray a familiar image found in the O.T. sacrificial system, which included the sacrifice of a lamb as a sin offering (Lev. 4:32,33). It is a well known fact that without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness, for ...the life of the flesh is in the blood...it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul (Lev. 17:11; see also Heb. 9.22). One would be hard pressed to find a clearer statement in support of the fact that the word blood in the Bible speaks expressly of physical death. In O.T. times it was the physical death of an animal that would atone for a man's sin. Hebrews 9:14 tells us that if this was the case then, How much more shall the blood of Christ...purge your conscience from dead works...?In other words: How much more would the physical death of Christ atone for the sins of mankind?

The Old Testament sacrifices were a mere shadow of the one true Sacrifice which was to come. In O.T. times, the sacrificial system was set up in order, primarily, to atone for sin. The blood of the sacrificial offering was brought into the presence of God (Heb. 9:6,7; cf. Heb. 9:12), and was necessary in satisfying (stilling), the anger of God. The Hebrew word kippûr, (propitiation or atonement), denotes the covering of sin or the sinner by means of an atonement. The blood of the sacrifice was placed between man and God, thus 'shielding' the man from the wrath of God, much like the blood on the doorpost kept those inside the house safe from the angel of death in Exodus 12.

According to Hebrews 10:4, animal sacrifice had no merit in itself to take away sin, this was made possible only because of God's choosing it as the way (Lev. 17:11). How the O.T. sacrificial system was a foreshadowing of the N.T. sacrifice of Jesus will be discussed in greater detail in a later chapter.

<

The point in mentioning the Old Testament sacrifice here, is to show that the way sins were atoned for in the past was by the physical death of animals. Now, of course, there is no further need for such animal sacrifices for we have the physical death of Jesus, the one, true and only sacrifice by which the sins of man are atoned. Jesus said it Himself when at the Last Supper He declared, "This is My blood...which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). Notice He did not say 'this is My Spirit...' Again, the blood here denotes His physical death. In this verse, Jesus is signifying that His physical death on the cross would be the means whereby men's sins shall be forgiven.

Christ's physical death on the cross effected a universal forgiveness of sins. "It is finished," was His cry from the cross. The atonement was completed. The resurrection which followed was God's seal of approval on Christ's atoning work upon the cross. There are many Scriptures which confirm this fact. Here are just a few: Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32; John 10:11-17; Acts 17:1-3; 20:28; Rom. 8:1-3; 1Cor. 6:9-11; 2Cor. 5:14,15; Gal. 3:13; 1Pet. 3:18; 1Jn. 1:7; 2:1-3.

One can only imagine what the saints of Revelation 5 and 12 would say to the Faith teacher's claims of the insufficiency of Christ's blood, alone, to atone for our sins. Those who cry so loudly, overcame Satan by the blood of the Lamb, denoting His sacrificial atoning death. They were redeemed by His shed blood (His physical death), and by virtue of that blood atonement were enabled to achieve victory, And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony... (Rev. 12:11).

We turn our attention now to the Faith movement's 'ransom theory', the belief strongly adhered to by Copeland and co. that Christ's alleged spiritual death was the price that was paid to Satan in order to win mankind back to God D.R. McConnell sets the record straight as to who Jesus was a sacrifice to:

"The central focus of any doctrine of atonement should be on the fact that Christ's death is a sacrifice to God. The righteous and Holy God is the party that must be satisfied by atonement, not Satan. Paul tells the Ephesians that "Christ loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma"(Eph. 5:2). Elsewhere, Paul writes, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1Tim. 2:5,6). As the Mediator, Christ's 'ransom' was to God, not to Satan."

There are only three verses in the N.T. which speak of a 'ransom', 1Timothy 2:6, Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 (cf. Lev. 5:14-7:1-7; Num. 5:5-8; Isa. 53:10). The word ransom literally signifies a means of loosing. The Bible teaches that the ransom that would release mankind from sin and death was to be the sacrificial death of a sinless man. Only God made flesh could fulfill this role. Jesus gave His life a ransom for many. He died in the sinner's stead, and God accepted the pains of His death in place of and on behalf of sinful man.

The ransom, in Scripture, is more commonly referred to as the atonement (cf.Rom. 5:11), meaning reconciliation (see Rom. 11:15, 2 Cor. 5:18,19). The word atonement is actually mentioned only once in the N.T. (Rom. 5:11), and usually means a ransom or sacrifice which has effected a reconciliation between God and man. It is never spoken of as a ransom paid to Satan. In point of fact, Scripture does not say to whom the ransom was paid, only that Christ was a ransom for many, however, Ephesians 5:2 clearly states that Christ, ...hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God...

God did not, nor has He ever, owed Satan a ransom. In fact, God has never owed Satan a thing except to cast him down to the bottom of the burning lake. Millard Erickson writes:

"It was not the payment of a ransom to Satan that ensured his defeat and the triumph of God, but Christ's taking our place to free us from the curse of the law. By bearing the penalty of our sin and thus satisfying once and for all the just requirements of the law, Christ nullified Satan's control over us at its root--the power to bring us under the curse and condemnation of the law. Christ's death, then, was indeed God's triumph over the forces of evil, but only because it was a substitutionary sacrifice."

The cross holds central place in the N.T., for it is there that Jesus Christ--the Lamb of God--was to make the atonement for man's sin. It was the 'altar' whereon His body was to be slain. It was the physical death of the Messiah on the cross that accomplished, in full, the once and for all atonement of mankind (Heb. 9:26; 10:10).

Ephesians 2:13 states ,"But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes were far off are made near by the blood of Christ." We are made near to God. We are able, with boldness, to approach the Living God by means of Christ's shed blood, signifying the physical death of Jesus Christ which, according to the Bible, was all that was needed, indeed, all that could atone for our sins (see Heb. 10:19; cf.1Jn. 1:7; Rev. 1:5).

Kenneth Copeland, in the November, '93 issue of his magazine The Believer's Voice of Victory, has written a letter to his 'partners', in an apparent attempt to quell any doubts or questions his own followers might have on his views of the blood of Christ. He heads the letter, "Faith in the blood of Jesus demands honor for the blood!" Copeland proudly declares that, "I have faith in His blood to guarantee my redemption and forgiveness." This statement is inconsistent with others he has made, such as "...when the blood poured forth it did not atone..." and, "If it had been a physical death only it wouldn't have worked", (these comments are documented above). Upon further investigation, it has been ascertained that when Copeland makes the statement that he has faith in the blood to guarantee his redemption, he is including in this the erroneous belief of Christ's spiritual death. The two cannot be separated according to Faith movement teachings. Much of what is heard from the mouths of Faith movement teachers sounds like the Gospel, but upon closer examination one discovers that it is in reality a different gospel.

In a taped sermon Copeland joyously exclaims, "You're free, you're free. Set free by the blood of Jesus." Although Copeland makes such a remark, if pressed for more detail one would learn that it is no an atonement by Jesus' blood alone that he rejoices in, but one in which the blood is only a part of God's redemption 'package'. The language remains the same but the meaning is variant.

Kenneth Hagin, too, has made contradictory statements concerning the blood atonement. In his pamphlet entitled The Precious Blood of Jesus, Hagin's position appears to be orthodox. He fails, however, to inform his readers of such prominent Faith teachings as the spiritual death of Christ and of His taking on the satanic nature, events which play a vital role in the Faith movement's account of the atonement. Hagin has taught often concerning the blood, openly denying the efficiency of Christ's physical death. In a letter dated April 23, 1986 Hagin wrote that, "because Jesus was made sin with our sins He had to pay the penalty for sin... This, as we know, cannot be referring to natural, physical death or else any sinner following his death could say he had paid the penalty for his sins." What an amazing statement to make. How could the death of 'any sinner' pay the penalty for sin? If that were true, then why did Jesus come to this world all the way from heaven to do what, according to Hagin, any one of us could do?

...The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin (1Jn. 1:7). The blood atonement, according to Scripture, is critical to the Christian faith, and anyone who would diminish its role, treads on extremely dangerous territory (Gal. 1:9, 10 ). In conclusion to this chapter, Hank Hanegraaff writes this warning to all those who would dare do so:

That Jesus died spiritually, is a key doctrine so vital to the Faith movement that many of its leaders have pronounced divine judgment on any who dare question it. Kenneth Copeland, in commenting on one minister who rigidly opposed the teaching, states, "That fellow is dead today. Now I said that to warn you. Don't criticize people for preaching (Identification). If you don't understand it, keep your mouth shut and pray." 21 My suggestion is that you pray and study the Word of God with diligence to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). The spiritualization of Jesus' death strikes at the heart of the true Gospel, and must be seen for what it is, an heretical doctrine.

Both Copeland and Hagin are strong advocates of the spiritual death theory, as is evidenced by the following quotes. First, Kenneth Hagin states: "He (Jesus) tasted spiritual death for every man. And His spirit and inner man went to hell in my place. Can't you see that? Physical death wouldn't remove your sins. He's tasted death for every man. He's talking about tasting spiritual death." 22 By claiming that physical death would not remove our sins, Hagin is in conflict with everything that the Bible teaches concerning the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). Copeland agrees with his mentor: "Now it wasn't the physical death on the cross that paid the price for sins, because if it had've been, any prophet of God that had died for the last couple of thousand years before that could've paid that price. It wasn't the physical death. Anybody could do that."

With such an abhorrent declaration, Copeland flies in the face of everything the Bible teaches concerning the death of our Lord, and also ignores what the Church has believed and taught on the death of Christ for nearly two thousand years. Not to mention the great cloud of witnesses in the Bible who attest to the fact that only Jesus' spotless (sinless) sacrifice could have made our redemption possible (Acts 4:12; Acts 10:43; 1Tim. 2:5,6). Copeland's blasphemous statement dispossesses the Lord Jesus of His unique role in history.

One of the reasons the Faith movement believes in a spiritual death of Jesus, is because of their view that all disease is of a spiritual origin, therefore, the method that God uses to heal must be spiritual as well. The conclusion arrived at is that the atonement had to be a spiritual and not a physical act. The concept of physical disease having a spiritual origin comes straight from the metaphysical cults.

There are many verses in Scripture which attest to our redemption being fully accomplished by the physical death of Jesus. For example " ...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10; cf.Rom. 7:4; Col. 1:22; 1Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 4:1). No mention is made in the Bible of this mythical spiritual death. Galatians 3 also teaches that it was His physical death on the cross that did away with the curse.

Another passage which strongly supports the efficacy of Christ's physical death is Colossians 1:20-22. In this passage we notice the following, "And having made peace through the blood of His cross..." v20; and in v22 we are told, " ...yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death..." What other death could a body of flesh experience apart from a physical death? These verses could not speak in a more unmistakable manner concerning the kind of death that Jesus suffered. How can any Christian say and believe in his heart that it was not a physical death alone which secured our redemption in light of these verses?

One Scripture which is highlighted by Kenneth Hagin, in support of the spiritual death theory, is Psalm 22:6, "But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people." Hagin's claim is that the words I am a worm and no man, refer to the spiritual death of Christ. In an article entitled Christ our Substitute, from the March 1975 issue of The Word of Faith magazine, Hagin says, "He utters the strange words, 'But Thou art holy.' What does that mean? He is becoming sin...His parched lips cry, 'I am a worm and no man.' He is spiritually dead--the worm." The words in the Psalm mean nothing of the kind! Hagin's statement is a prime example of eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. This passage simply refers to Jesus having been ridiculed and considered a worm and not a man during His life on earth, and especially during His time upon the cross. If one reads on in this passage from Psalm 22, it will be seen that verses 7 and 8 contain words familiar to the Gospel of Matthew 27:39,43 (see also Mark 15:29,30; Luke 23:35). Jesus was slandered during His life. He was despised and accused of being in league with Beelzebub (Matt. 10). Even in His sufferings upon the cross He was ridiculed and cursed, taunted and made sport of. "David was sometimes taunted for his confidence in God; but in the sufferings of Christ this was literally and exactly fulfilled."

Rather than alluding to a spiritual death of Christ, Psalm 22:6 is actually another verse which speaks of His physical death. Henry M. Morris, in his book Sampling the Psalms, provides us with a fascinating insight into the Hebrew word for worm (tolath), and its frequent use in the O.T. to mean scarlet (e.g. Ex. 25:4), or crimson (Isa. 1:18). The reason he gives for this equivalence is due to the scarlet worm being the source of a fluid from which people of ancient times made their scarlet dyes. This prophetic verse in Psalm 22 is Christ's own portrayal of His body stained crimson by the cross (cf.Col. 1:20). Morris explains:

"...no doubt the deeper significance of His identification of Himself as the Scarlet Worm lies in the remarkable life-death cycle of this unique animal. For when the mother worm of this species is ready to give birth to her baby worms, she will implant her body in a tree somewhere, or a post, or a stick of wood, so firmly that she can never leave again. Then, when the young are brought forth, the mother's body provides protection and sustenance for her young until they reach the stage where they can leave home and fend for themselves. Then the mother dies. And as she dies, the scarlet fluid in her body emerges to stain her body and the bodies of her progeny and the wood of the tree where they were given life by their dying mother."

What an amazing analogy we have here of Christ's crimson-stained body upon the tree.

The Faith movement also contend that when Jesus uttered the heart wrenching words, "My God, My God. Why hast Thou forsaken Me?"(Matt. 27:46), He was speaking of a separation between Himself and the Father. God, it is affirmed, had to turn His head from the Son when He 'became sin'. In the next chapter we'll learn of the Faith leaders' monstrous teaching that on literally becoming sin, Jesus actually took on the satanic nature in His own spirit and that it was at this precise moment that God turned from Him and Jesus was heard to cry the words found in Matthew 27:46, thereby heralding His spiritual death.

There are many Bible teachers, aside from the Faith leaders, who teach that God hid His face from His sin-laden Son. Psalm 22:24, however, repudiates the belief that God had hidden His face from His Son on the cross. You'll notice that it states just the opposite, "For He has not despised, nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Neither has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him for help, He heard." Jesus was not forsaken in the sense that He ceased to be the second Person of the Trinity, for He and His Father are one (John 10:30). Christ's spiritual relationship with the Father can never be broken. "...as God poured out His wrath and judgment upon Jesus, He (Jesus), sensed that His fellowship with the Father was severely hindered."Jesus was not aided on the cross as He had been at the Mount of Temptation and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 4:11; Luke 22:43).



The alleged spiritual death of Christ and what exactly this teaching entails, will be looked at in finer detail in the succeeding chapter. Suffice it to say, that whatever Jesus meant by his words, "Why hast Thou forsaken me?", Jesus did not for a moment cease to be God either before, during or after His time on the cross. Though, in our finiteness, we are not able to understand the full import of Jesus' statement, we may be certain that it did not mark the moment of His 'spiritual' death, nor does it signify the Father's having abandoned Him (John 16:32).



Not all Faith movement leaders agree that the cross was the location of Christ's 'spiritual death'. Frederick K.C. Price believes that His spiritual death occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane. He says, "Somewhere between the time He (Jesus) was nailed to the cross and when He was in the Garden of Gethsemane--somewhere in there--He died spiritually. Personally, I believe it was while He was in the garden." 27 An interesting sidenote concerning Mr. Price is that he was reared in a Jehovah's Witness environment. Also worth noting is the fact that the above spiritual death teaching is the same opinion that James E. Talmage, an apostle of the Mormon Church, taught in his book, Jesus the Christ!



It is quite obvious to the Bible student that Jesus Christ, in His physical death, achieved all that was needed to be achieved in order to gain the redemption of mankind. Ephesians 2:15, "Having abolished in the flesh the enmity...", and Hebrews 10:10, "...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all", are just two verses which confirm this fact.



The Faith movement has another verse, probably the chief text, which is utilized to support their double-death theory. Faith movement leaders have made a grave error in their interpretation of Isaiah 53:9, "He made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death..." It is noted that the Hebrew word for death in this verse is in the plural form, deaths. This is taken as proof that Jesus suffered a double-death, physical and spiritual upon the cross! There is much at fault in this misinterpretation, not the least of which is the fact that it is based upon one word taken from one verse of Scripture. McConnell explains the use of the Hebrew plural in this text:



"Plural nouns are extremely common in the Hebrew Scriptures. They are not just used to denote numerical plurality, but also to emphasize a particular meaning of the noun. In Hebrew, plural nouns express majesty, rank, excellence, magnitude and intensity. In Isaiah 53:9, 'deaths' is a plural of intensity used by the writer to indicate that the death mentioned was a particularly violent one. It no more means that the king of Tyre died two deaths than that the Messiah died two deaths." 28



Another example of this is found in Ezekiel 28:8-10, which depicts the violent and certain death of the king of Tyre: "you will die the death of those who are slain." Keil and Delitzsch, in their Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 7, Isaiah, inform us that in both the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages, the plural form for death is an example of pluralis exaggerativus: "it is applied to a violent death, the very pain of which makes it like dying again and again." I'm sure the reader will be familiar with the Eastern phrase, "You will die a thousand deaths". It does not mean that you will literally die more than one death, but speaks instead of the intensity of that one death.



The truth of what did happen to Christ's spirit may be clearly seen in passages such as Luke 23:46, "Father, into Thy hands I commit My Spirit" (cf. Matt. 27:50; John 19:30). He yielded up His spirit to God, and then breathed His last. He gave His body for us, and committed His spirit to God. His spirit did not die.



Gloria Copeland makes the following proclamation concerning the 'death' of Christ's spirit, "He (Jesus) paid the price for Adam's sin. He suffered in His own body, and more important, in His own spirit. Jesus experienced the same spiritual death that entered man in the Garden of Eden." 29 This is an extremely unenlightened statement to say the least. The spiritual death of man came because he had sinned. Jesus was no sinner, as I'm sure Mrs. Copeland would agree. He suffered but one death and it was a physical death. Jesus spoke often of His impending physical death, yet never once did He refer to a spiritual death (Mark 9:31). Notice also in her statement how Christ's physical suffering is considered not as important in comparison with His spiritual suffering. When error is mixed with truth, it quickly becomes the more prominent of the two. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.



Jesus Himself told us to remember Him by partaking in the body and blood; both, you will notice, are physical matter not spiritual (cf. Luke 22:19,20; 1Cor. 11:24-26). In 1Corinthians 11 we are told that as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup we are proclaiming the Lord's death till He comes. You'll notice that it is only one death which we proclaim, not two. This Scripture speaks of His physical death. This is the death we are to remember Him by. He suffered only one death on the cross, the death of His flesh, the only death He became obedient to (Phil. 2:8).



It is interesting to note, in considering the teaching that Jesus died spiritually, the marked absence of any element which symbolizes this death at the Lord's supper. The bread--a symbol of His body--and the wine--symbolic of Christ's blood--are clear reminders to us of Christ's physical death (see 1Cor. 10:16; Heb. 10:19-24). We observe no element at the Lord's supper which is used to put us in remembrance of his 'spiritual' death, for the simple reason that Jesus did not die spiritually. Jesus spoke of laying down His life in John 15:13, not His Spirit.



In John 6:51, Jesus describes Himself as, "...the living Bread which came down from heaven, and the bread which I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." This is the Jesus of the Bible speaking! He speaks not of giving His spirit, as does the jesus of the Faith movement, but rather HIS FLESH for the life of the world. The Greek word flesh denotes the body as opposed to the soul or spirit.



There are a multitude of Scriptures that verify the fact that Christ's death upon the cross was purely a physical death. Here are just a few for your private study: John 2:19-21; Eph. 2:15; Col. 1:22; Heb. 10:10; 1Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 4:1.





- 4 -

THE SATANIC NATURE



The Faith movement claims that at the Fall, Adam and Eve lost their Godly nature and were infused with the very nature of Satan. In this chapter we will be looking at the validity of such a claim, as well as the contention that our Lord Jesus took upon Himself the satanic nature when He died 'spiritually'.



Contrary to what the Faith movement believes, Adam and Eve were as distinctly human as you and I are. Their nature was not replaced by that of Satan's, rather it was damaged or distorted at the Fall. The Bible still refers to man, even after the Fall, as being made in the image of God (Gen. 9:16; 1Cor. 1:7; Jas. 3:9). Calvin pictured the image of God in man as shattered after the Fall, yet as with the reflection of one's face in a cracked mirror, a distorted image of God's glory can still be seen in mankind today.



Kenneth E. Hagin believes that, "spiritual death means something more than separation from God. Spiritual death also means having Satan's nature... Jesus tasted death--spiritual death--for every man."30 Hagin also writes, "...just as receiving eternal life means that we have the nature of God in us, spiritual death means having Satan's nature." 31 Does eternal life mean that we have the nature of God in us? Does spiritual death mean that we have the nature of Satan? And where does human nature fit into all this? Let us turn to the Scriptures for some words we can depend upon. Paul spoke the following words to those who were of the opinion that he and Barnabas were gods, "Sirs, why do you do these things? we also are men of like passions with you..." The word passions here is translated, of like feelings or affections. The revised Version has the word nature in the margin. Here was Paul, a born-again man of God saying that he had the same affections, the same nature in fact as those who were yet unsaved heathen. No satanic or Godly natures here. According to Paul, they were all of one nature, human. Paul was saying that he and Barnabas were not to be treated as gods, for their nature was as the nature of men. It is also clearly taught in the Scriptures that when a man is born-again, he does not put off a satanic nature, but in fact put's off the old man. Accordingly, he does not put on the divine nature, but simply a new man (Eph. 4:24; cf. Eph. 2:10; 4:22). Note that both are human natures, the former fallen, the latter redeemed. Michael Moriarty, author of the book The New Charismatics, writes:



"Although people are born in sin, or born with a sin nature, there is no evidence that they are born with a satanic nature, or that a sin nature is equal to a satanic nature. Saying that humans have Satan's nature makes them little more than demonic entities imprisoned in human bodies. This sounds more like Scientology than Christianity. While people are born with sinfully corrupt natures, all are still made in the image of God (Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9), not in the nature of Satan ...when Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 8:44, 'You are of your father the Devil', he was referring to their spiritual and ethical bankruptcy, not to their ontological union with Satan....Human beings are born with a sin nature, but are made in the image of God. They are not demonic spirits clothed in flesh. The teaching that humans have the nature of Satan is an unbiblical deposit from the fertile imagination of E.W. Kenyon. It is not taught in Scripture." 32



The Faith movement adopts 2 Corinthians 5:21 to substantiate their claim that Jesus literally became sin upon the cross, and by doing so, took upon Himself the very nature of Satan. "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." What Hagin does not seem to realize is the fact that, if Jesus had taken upon Himself the satanic nature, He too would have needed a Saviour. Hebrews 1:3 says in part, "He had by Himself purged our sins..." How could He have accomplished this if He had literally become sin? (cf. Heb. 9:14).



According to Romans 8:3, Jesus was sent by the Father in the likeness of sinful flesh, or with the nature of man yet without any sin. It was human nature without any of its sinfulness. Albert Barnes comments, "The atoning sacrifice was made in the likeness of sinful flesh that thus He might meet sin, as it were, on its own ground and destroy it." 33 In order to understand 2 Corinthians 5:21 properly, we need to take a closer look at the word sin as it is used in this verse, a verse which is central to the Faith movement's satanic nature theory. Hank Hanegraaff helps us in our comprehension:



"...scholars agree that the word 'sin' in this passage is used in an abstract sense. They are virtually unanimous in pointing out that the phrase 'to become sin' as used here is a metonym (a word or phrase substituted for another associated word or phrase), for Christ 'bearing the penalty of our sins'. Expositor, T.J. Crawford, maintains that 'there can be no doubt that the expression is metonymical, since it is impossible that Christ, or any person, could be literally made sin'." 34



The verse teaches that Christ has been considered as though He were a sinner. As with the lamb in the O.T. sacrificial system, sin was imputed to Christ. According to Isaiah 53:4,5, the sin of man was laid to the account of Christ. Our sin was imputed to Jesus, and His righteousness was imputed to our favour. The Levitical concepts of both substitution and imputation will ably assist us in understanding more accurately the true meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21. The reason Christ's sacrifice was acceptable to God was because He was without blemish, i.e., without sin. Prominent commentator Phillip E. Hughes writes:



"But God made Him sin: that is to say that God the Father made His innocent Son the object of His wrath and judgment, for our sakes, with the result that in Christ on the cross the sin of the world is judged and taken away. In this truth resides the whole logic of reconciliation....Not for one moment does he cease to be righteous, else the radical exchange (the just for the unjust 1Pet. 3:18), envisaged by the apostle here, whereby our sin is transferred to Him and His righteousness is transferred to us, would be no more than a fiction or an hallucination." 35



God treated Christ as if he were a sinner, just as He now treats the Christian as if he had never sinned. If Jesus had literally become sin, His offering would have been unacceptable to God. The N.I.V. has 2 Corinthians 5:21 footnoted with the translation, 'or be a sin offering'. Michael Moriarty grants us an even deeper insight into the word sin:



"The Hebrew term for 'sin' and 'sin offering' is one and the same. The Hebrew term, hatt't can be translated either 'sin' or 'sin offering'; the context determines the meaning. When hatt't was used in reference to the O.T. animal substitute (which remained holy before and after its death), it was understood by the Jewish people as a 'sin offering'. The same is true in reference to the Greek term for 'sin', harmartia, in 2Cor. 5:21. The apostle Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews, clearly had sin offering in mind and not literal sin....The O.T. sin offering did not typify something 'sinful' at death to the Jews as Hagin and other charismatics depict Christ; it typified 'a sinless sacrifice for sin'. Jesus did not become unholy on the cross, but was a holy sin offering who 'gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma' (Eph. 5:2)."36



Insistence upon Christ's sinful nature on the cross is evidence of the Faith movement's ignorance of the Levitical image of the substitutionary sacrifice. According to the O.T., a sin offering, being a substitute, was required to be perfect and unblemished (Lev. 4:3,28; 9:3; cf. Deut. 15:21). The animals chosen for the sin offering were, according to Leviticus 4:32, a bull without defect; Lev. 4:23, a goat without defect; Lev. 4:32, a lamb without defect (see 1Cor. 5:7, Jesus as the Paschal Lamb). The one offering up the sacrifices would place his hand on the beast, signifying a symbolic transfer of sin and guilt (Lev. 4:4, 24,33; see Isa. 53:6 "...and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" cf.John 1:29). Death was then inflicted vicariously upon the sacrifice (Lev. 17:11). The atonement, or covering of the sin, was what God saw rather than the sin. With the sin covered or atoned for, the sinner was made free from his sin. If this imputation of sin upon the offering were to render it unholy, causing it to literally become sin, it could never have been accepted by a Holy God. The sin offering which was to be killed was called holy, and anyone who touched or ate of it also became holy (Lev. 6:25-27,29). "The sacrificial animal did not become sin; sin was symbolically imputed to it. It was a substitute for sin; a holy offering that atoned for sin by virtue of its perfection and consecration to the Lord."



A sin offering was to be WITHOUT DEFECT!! What made Jesus' offering acceptable to God was that His was a sinless offering, a Holy and unblemished offering to God. How could Jesus have literally become sin when Hebrews 9:14 tells us that He offered Himself "without blemish to God". " Leviticus 6:25-29 clearly shows that the sin offering was "most holy" to God both before and after its death! 1Peter 1:19 describes Christ as ...a Lamb without blemish. "Without blemish (anomos)," says J.N.D. Kelly, "recalls the Jewish requirement that such an offering must be faultless," and, "spotless" (aspilos) emphasizes "that in Christ's case the faultlessness must be understood in terms of sinlessness and holy consecration." 37



The jesus of the Faith movement literally became sin; and had literally taken on the nature of Satan. How could this have been a sacrifice holy unto God (Eph. 5:2)? Kenneth Copeland, in a recorded sermon, has correctly stated, "He went to the cross as the spotless Son of the living God." 38 Although Copeland here makes the truest of statements, he then makes the following contradictory claim on the same taped message, "He accepted the sin nature of Satan in His own Spirit..." Obviously Copeland believes that although Jesus went to the cross spotless, He did not remain so. What we have here is a truly horrific picture; a blend of both satanic and divine natures resident in the eternal Son of God. This is the gospel according to Kenneth Copeland. As with the O.T. offering, Jesus was Holy unto God both before and after His death. There is nothing in Scripture that even remotely suggests anything to the contrary.



If there are those who are still not convinced that Jesus did not literally become sin, perhaps Isaiah 53:12 will persuade you. God says here that "...He was numbered with the transgressors; and He bore the sins of many..." Again, in Isaiah 53:11, God says of His Son, "...for He shall bear their iniquities..." (cf.1Pet. 2:24). Jesus carried our sins, He did not become them. Jesus is also referred to in v.11 as God's Righteous Servant.



Not only does Kenneth Copeland teach that Jesus literally became sin on the cross, he also adds another dimension to this perverse theology, by insisting that Jesus became a sign of Satan upon the cross! Copeland expounds:



"The righteousness of God was made to be sin. He accepted the sin nature of Satan in His own Spirit. And at the moment that He did so, 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, upon instruction from God, raised the serpent upon that 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 a 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.'" 39



One would suspect that the only light that has been turned off is the one inside Mr. Copeland. Not only does he teach this blasphemous concept, but he dares attribute these words as having been uttered by God Himself! The Scriptures that are used to support this unholy doctrine come from Numbers 21:8, 9 and John 3:14. Copeland makes the erroneous comparison of Jesus' being lifted up on the cross and Moses' lifting up of the bronze serpent on the pole in the desert, as proof that Jesus had taken on the satanic nature, the serpent being the symbol of Satan. The reality that these two passages show is simply the manner of Christ's death i.e., His being lifted up on the cross. Jesus said that He would be "lifted up from the earth", and, Scripture says, that He said this ...signifying what death He would die (John 12:32,33). John 3:14, is where Jesus gives Nicodemus an analogy between the lifting up of the serpent--something he would have been familiar with being a Jewish teacher--and His own death. Moriarty explains:



"In Numbers 21 we are told that the rebellious Israelites were plagued by fiery serpents that killed off many of the people. Moses interceded with God on behalf of those who repented of their sins, and God directed him to make a bronze serpent and elevate it on a pole. All who were bitten by a poisonous serpent could look at the bronze serpent and live (see Num. 21:5-9). The bronze serpent did not produce the healing, it was merely a symbol that reminded them of their sin and the divine judgment sent to punish their sin. It was the saving grace of God in response to the genuine faith of the repentant Israelites that brought deliverance. They believed God's Word and obeyed His command and were healed. By turning from their sins and trusting in God's specific provision for deliverance, the Israelites felt as if they received a new surge of life and had been born all over again. Jesus uses this profound story of deliverance to illustrate God's provision for receiving spiritual life. The elevation of the bronze serpent on a pole in the midst of the camp of Israel is a picture of Jesus Christ being elevated on the cross (Jn 3:14,15)....Nicodemus would have been thoroughly confused if he understood Jesus to be teaching that He would soon become united with the Devil on the cross. In fact, by analogy, if Jesus became a 'serpent' in nature as Copeland and his followers teach, then healing was provided by Satan, the Serpent, in Numbers 21 and not by God, since healing came as they looked to the elevated bronze serpent." 40



The final Scripture we shall be looking at which is used by Faith teachers to bolster the idea that Jesus had taken on the satanic nature is 1Timothy 3:16, "...God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit..." Kenneth Copeland believes the verse teaches the following, "In 1Timothy 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." 41 (Notice how Copeland subtly adds the words made righteous in his commentary). Jesus' being justified in the Spirit means nothing of the kind. This Scripture is simply telling us that Christ's claims of being the Son of God were justified or vindicated by the Holy Spirit. A recognized authority on the Greek New Testament, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, makes this observation:



"The two phrases in 1Tim. 3:16 must be taken together: 'God was manifest in the flesh,' that was His Incarnation. And then immediately after that we read, 'justified in the Spirit.' This means that through the manifestation of the Holy Spirit which came upon Him, His claims for Himself as the God-Man were confirmed" (Matt. 3:16; Rom. 1:4).

He was also shown to be right by His holy life, and because of His resurrection. The New American Standard Bible says that he was 'vindicated by the Spirit.' New Testament scholar, William Hendrickson, sums it up best when he says, "Not everyone saw His glory. 'He was despised and rejected of men' (Isa. 53:3). By His enemies His claims were denied, and He Himself was cast out (Heb. 13:12). But by the Spirit He was vindicated: His own perfect righteousness and the validity of His claims were fully established."



Any teaching that would take from the eternal righteousness of Jesus Christ, is anti-Christian and is to be shunned by every true believer.





- 5 -

REDEMPTION IN HELL?



The Faith leaders hold that the work of redemption was not finished upon the cross, but was rather completed in the bowels of hell. As was mentioned earlier, they believe in the ancient Ransom Theory and have added a few new ideas of their own. Their claim is that Jesus was tortured in hell by the Devil and his demons, and that this was the ransom price which God paid to Satan in order to enable Him to resume His place in the universe from which He had previously been banished. It was Kenneth Hagin who first introduced this teaching into Faith doctrine, though he was not the originator of it. E.W. Kenyon first embraced this lie after being influenced by numerous Metaphysical cults such as Unity Thought.



Kenneth Copeland, who began his ministry by memorizing the sermons of Kenneth Hagin, gives his version of what 'really' happened, "When Jesus cried, 'It is finished!' He was not speaking of the plan of redemption. There were still three days and nights to go through before He went to the Throne....Jesus' death on the cross was only the beginning of the complete work of redemption." 42 Again, we are confronted with a direct and open attack on the effectiveness of Christ's physical death upon the cross, a subject of which the Bible speaks clearly. It is curious how many Christians would normally recognize a teaching such as this as being heretical, and a direct assault upon the central doctrine of the Church, yet when it is preached by people who claim Jesus as their Lord and quote the Bible, most remain in a numbed silence. I would remind Copeland and his devotees that our redemption is through Christ's blood--His physical death (Col. 1:14; cf. Gal. 3:13; Heb. 9:12). Christ's physical death marked the end of His work. There is no such thing as the cross and...



Robert Tilton, currently facing a variety of lawsuits in America, assures us that our redemption was accomplished in the pit of hell. He says, "For three days and three nights He (Jesus), was in the pit of hell, breaking the powers of darkness to set us free." 43 The danger of such a teaching is realized in the fact that it shifts the central focus of the Christian away from the cross, and not to it. It also implies that the powers of darkness were not conquered at the cross as the Bible clearly teaches (Heb. 2:15). The following statement is a prime example of the focus being shifted from the cross to hell. Frederick Price, who has added his own 'twists' to faith theology, has this to say:



"Do you think that the punishment for our sin was to die on a cross? If that were the case, the two thieves could have paid your price. No, the punishment was to go into hell and to serve time in hell separated from God....Satan and all the demons of hell thought that they had Him bound and they threw a net over Jesus and they dragged Him down to the very pit of hell itself to serve our sentence."44



By urging that our redemption could have been paid by the two thieves if the punishment for our sins was to be the death of the cross, Price demonstrates a distinct lack of ability to comprehend the significance of what occurred upon Calvary's hill. This Faith movement doctrine, without a doubt, qualifies the Faith leaders as advocates of a different gospel. The late Paul Billheimer was another Faith teacher who promoted this tenet. He once gave this abhorrent account of what happened on the cross, and then later in hell:



"Because He (Jesus) was 'made sin,' impregnated with sin, and became the very essence of sin on the cross, He was banished from God's presence as a loathsome thing. He and sin were made synonymous....It was not sufficient for Christ to offer up only His physical life on the cross. His pure human spirit had to descend into hell....His spirit must not only descend into hell, but into the lowest Hell....The Father turned Him over, not only to the agony and death of Calvary, but to the satanic torturers of His pure spirit as part of the just dessert of the sin of all the race. As long as Christ was 'the essence of sin' He was at Satan's mercy in that place of torment....While Christ identified with sin, Satan and the hosts of Hell ruled over Him as over any lost sinner. During that seemingly endless age in the nether abyss of death, Satan did with him as he would and all Hell was 'in carnival'." 45



To believe this fable, one would have to do away with several passages from the Bible, not to mention its most major doctrines such as the sovereignty of God and the fact that Jesus is the same (in essence), yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8). Billheimer introduces us to an almighty Satan and a hell where, amidst all the agonies and torments, demons are able to party and celebrate and be 'in carnival'! He also teaches that the cross just wasn't enough, that more was needed to be done if mankind was to be fully atoned for. This line of teaching is a sure and reliable sign that the ones promoting it are not professing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, however strongly they may hold to such beliefs; however sincere their intentions.



Another Faith teacher who believes in the rejoicing in Hell theory is Charles Capps, a man who believes Jesus was the product of God's Positive Confession;



Here are his thoughts on the matter:



"In the place of the wicked dead, all the demons of Hell and Satan rejoiced over the prize. The corridors of Hell were filled with joy. 'We've done it! We've captured the Son of God! We'll no longer be in the pit of the damned! The earth and all that is therein is ours! Forever it will be ours!' Rejoicing in hell had never been so great as it was that day. But it was short-lived." 46



Capps speaks as though rejoicing was a daily occurrence in Hell! My Bible speaks of that place in no other way but a place of darkness and indescribable agony. Where Capps has acquired such 'knowledge' is any ones guess, I only know that he didn't get it from the Bible. Jesus did not need to go to hell at any time to conquer the enemy, for that task was achieved on the cross (Col. 2:15). Satan was defeated on the cross! The jesus of the Faith movement had to go to hell and suffer at Satan's mercy. The true Jesus, the One Supreme Commander of the hosts of heaven (1Pet. 3:22), completely triumphed over Satan and his minions upon the cross (cf. Heb. 2:14,15). Jesus bore our sins in His body ON THE CROSS, not in hell! The cross was not just the place where Jesus died, but was His Mount of Triumph! Here are just some of many Scriptures for Faith movement adherents to follow up: John 19:30; Col. 2:13-15; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:20,21; cf. Matt. 26:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Eph. 2:13; Heb. 9:22; 13:12; 1Pet. 1:19; 1Jn. 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 5:9.



A valid question that may be asked at this juncture is: Did Jesus ever enter into Hell? It is of a certainty that Jesus went into Paradise to be with the Father (Luke 23:46), and not with Satan to Hell. Hades was a place separated by a great chasm, on one side there were those in torment, and on the other those at rest in Abraham's bosom (Luke 16).



1Peter 3:18 has often been applied as proof that Jesus did in fact enter Hell and preached the Gospel to its inhabitants. Closer examination shows this to be a presumption. Though vv.18-20 is a difficult passage, one thing is clear--Jesus did not preach the Gospel to those prisoners. The original Greek word for preached as used in v.19 is ekeruxen. The correct translation is that He proclaimed His great victory over the Devil, sin, death and all evil, and that this news reached even the bowels of hades. The Vines Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, says it is a proclamation of His victory made after His resurrection to fallen angelic spirits (cf. 2Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). "Recent scholars teach that the resurrected Christ, during His ascension to heaven, proclaimed to imprisoned spirits His victory over death. The exalted Christ passed through the realm where the unbelieving spirits reside, or where the fallen angels are kept, and proclaimed His triumph over them (see Eph. 6:12; Col. 2:15)." 47 Moreover, there is nothing in this passage which describes the spirits mentioned as being human.



The teaching that claims Jesus preached the Gospel to those in hell, was set forth as early as the 2nd century by Marcion and the Shepherd of Hermes, who were espousers of the purgatory lie. The Roman Catholic Church erroneously teach that Jesus went into Purgatory (a temporary place of torment), to deliver the imprisoned spirits of men.



Both Copeland and Hagin would have us believe that Christ was a prisoner of hell, yet this passage in 1Peter 3 says only that Jesus preached to the prisoners, not that He was one. Though it is difficult to fully comprehend the meaning of the passage, it is clear that there is no mention at all made of Jesus suffering in hell, or of being tormented by Satan in the pit of darkness.



One source of support that the Faith teachers employ to add credence to their redemption in hell theory, is the fact that some ancient Christian Creeds make mention of Christ's descension into hell. The phrase descended into hell, did not appear, however, in such Creeds as the Apostle's and Athanasian until the 4th century and was not included in the originals. One can be sure that neither the early Church fathers or the writers of the Creeds did not, for one moment, believe that Jesus suffered in hell under the direction of Satan.



Another of the more frequently used texts implemented by Faith leaders as proof of Jesus' descension into hell, is Matthew 12:40, "...so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The Jewish use of the word heart was to indicate the interior of a thing or of being in it. Here it is referring to the grave or tomb. The verse is simply speaking of Jesus' body in the tomb, and can in no way be considered by the serious Bible student as evidence that Jesus went into hell and there suffered its torments.



"Now that he ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth" (Eph. 4:9). This verse is speaking of Christ's ascension into heaven after His resurrection and 40 days on earth, and His initial descension to earth from heaven as the Incarnate God. Some see this as denoting Jesus' humiliation in enduring death (see Phil. 2:6-8). Others believe it refers to hades (the underworld). The most likely interpretation is that of Christ's coming to earth in His incarnation. The key to understanding this passage is that His descension to the lower parts of the earth is contrasted with His ascension far above the heavens (Eph. 4:10; see also Isa. 44:23). Importantly, the contrast is between heaven and earth, not heaven and hell (cf. John 3:13,31; 8:23). The Faith movement conveniently interpret lower depths as a reference to hell, and then add their innovative idea of Christ's having been tortured by demons.



Interestingly, David uses the same expression, lowest parts of the earth, in Psalm 139:15ff. David here states that he was in fact made in the depths of the earth. If the Faith movement is correct in their interpretation of this phrase as referring to hell, then we must conclude that David was created in Hell! Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The passage in Psalm 139:15,16 is purely a metaphor for the deepest concealment i.e., the womb (cf.Eccl. 11:5).



Acts 2:31, "...His soul was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption" (cf. Acts 2:27), is another verse used to show that Jesus did enter the portals of Hell. This verse is taken from Psalm 16:10. The King James Version has the word hell, though a more accurate translation would be sheol in Hebrew and hades in Greek. Sheol is used 65 times in the O.T., yet seldom is it used to denote a place of torment. The customary meaning is, realm of the dead, meaning the state of death or the grave (cf. Gen. 37:35; 42:38; 1Sam. 2:6; Psa. 141:7). As in the O.T. Hebrew, the N.T. Greek term for hades is usually interpreted the realm of the dead. According to Luke 16:23,25 hades may mean a place of torment, though it may equally be described as a place of rest, in Abraham's bosom.



Acts 2:27, "...neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption", is an obvious reference to God's refusal to allow the body of Jesus to undergo the normal process of decomposition. Jesus' body was not to return to dust nor even begin to see corruption, but was to be restored to life. The earlier part of the verse says, "...Thou wilt not leave My soul in Hell..." The term My soul here may mean nothing more than Me or Myself. In other words, Thou wilt not leave Me in the grave. A more precise meaning would be breath, life, a living being (see Psa. 11:1; 35:37; Job 9:21). Throughout Scripture the word soul is nowhere used to mean a separate state, or separated from the body.



Acts 2:24 is another verse which the Faith movement has taken to show that Jesus did suffer the pain and torments of hell. It says, "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death..." Pains of death, or pangs of death has the meaning here of the Hebrew, the cords or snares of death (cf.Psa. 18:4; 116:3; 2Sam. 22:6), or the cords of sheol (Psa. 18:5). Albert Barnes writes:



"The word translated 'pains' denotes, properly, the extreme sufferings of parturition, and then any severe or excruciating pangs. Hence it is applied also to 'death', as being a state of extreme suffering. A very frequent meaning of the Hebrew word, of which this is the translation, is 'cord' or 'band'. This perhaps was the original idea of the word; and the Hebrews expressed any extreme agony under the idea of 'bands' or 'cords' closely drawn, binding and constricting the limbs, and producing severe pain. Thus death was represented under this image of a 'band' that confined men; that pressed closely on them; that prevented escape; and produced severe suffering (see Psa. 119:61; Isa. 66:7; Jer. 22:23; Hos. 13:13)....We are not to infer from this that our Lord suffered anything after death. It means simply that He could not be held by the grave, but that God loosed the 'bonds' which had held Him there, and that he now set Him free who had been encompassed by these pains or bonds, until they had brought Him down to the grave." 48



Despite efforts by several concerned Christians to speak with Kenneth Copeland, he remains resolute in his beliefs. The Bible speaks of Jesus' having made Himself obedient to death (Phil. 2:8). Copeland adds

to this truth by teaching that Jesus also became obedient to Satan, "He allowed the Devil to drag Him into the depths of Hell as if He were the most wicked sinner who ever lived. He submitted Himself to death. He allowed Himself to come under Satan's control....For three days in the belly of the earth, He suffered as if He'd sinned every sin that exists." 49 Again, we see here a subtle blending of the truth with error, of the "leaven with the dough."



The best way to answer these outrageous claims is for me to allow the words of Jesus Himself to speak and defend the truth. Jesus said that, "...the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me" (John 14:30). This verse speaks of the innocence of Christ. Satan had no ground by which to destroy Him. Jesus experienced physical death upon the cross because of His willingness to die, not because of any legal ground Satan had. According to Luke 22:53, Satan was permitted to do his worst, to employ his authority for a time. Jesus however was not dragged into hell by Satan, there is no Scripture that will substantiate this claim. Jesus became obedient to the death of the cross, for it was God's eternal plan and that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (cf.Isa. 63:16; Eph. 1:3; 2Tim. 1:9,10; 1Pet. 1:18-20; Rev. 13:8).



In this next passage, Jesus shows clearly whose 'lordship' was to be prominent at the cross, "...I lay down My life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment I have received of My Father" (John 10:17,18; cf. Jn. 2:19). No man--or devil--took Jesus' life from Him, He laid it down voluntarily. Jesus says that He has power to lay His life down, and power to take it up again. These words show plainly that Jesus was sovereign over His own death. He was in full control. Anything Satan did at Calvary's hill, was permitted him to do. Jesus was divine and remained divine even after the death of the cross. No dead man has power to revive himself, only God can restore life, only God can raise the dead. Jesus reveals here that He had the power to take it again, to restore life to His body, thus demonstrating the unchangeableness of His eternally divine essence.



Now back to a statement made earlier by Kenneth Copeland concerning Jesus' final words upon the cross, "It is finished". Copeland asserts that, "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." Astute readers will notice that Jesus' words were, "It is finished", and not, it has just begun! The Greek word for this term is tetelestai, which means it is paid; the debt has been paid in full. "The finality of Jesus' accomplishment upon the cross is made crystal clear by the tearing of the temple curtain that veiled God's earthly sanctuary, the holy of Holies, from man, thus signifying that access to God had been restored at that precise moment" 50 (Mark 15:38; cf. Heb. 9:1-14; 10:19-22). Likewise, noted Bible scholar Merrill C. Tenney says, "The use of the perfect tense in 'It is finished' signifies full completion of Jesus' work and the establishment of a basis for faith." 51



Copeland and some charismatics refute this by believing that the final words of Jesus were merely the announcement of the close of the Abrahamic covenant. Scripture, however, does not speak of the Abrahamic, but rather the Mosaic covenant of the law as being the one fulfilled, or brought to a close, in Christ's sacrificial death upon the cross. "The law of sacrifice, which provided an atonement for sin, had been given to Moses at Mount Sinai, not to Abraham. It was the Mosaic covenant of the law and sacrifice that was fulfilled and done away with at the cross by the atoning sacrifice of Christ, as the New Testament clearly states" 52 (Matt. 5:17-19; Col. 2:13, 14; Heb. 8-10).



The Faith movement openly teach a different gospel. They teach a redemption not fully achieved upon Christ's cross of triumph, but one which was fulfilled in the pit of Hell. Hank Hanegraaff alerts us to:



"The fact...that virtually every cult, in one way or another, denies the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through the sinless sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The Bible plainly states that your eternal salvation rests on what you personally believe about the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. It is at the cross--not in Hell--that your salvation is either won or lost. And that is precisely the problem with the most notorious of the Faith teachings. These teachings have transferred the saving work of Christ from the cross to the deepest dungeons of hell." 53





- 6 -

JESUS: THE FIRST BORN-AGAIN MAN?



Here is the picture as painted by the Faith movement thus far: The satanic nature entered Jesus at the point of spiritual death upon the cross. It was then that He literally became sin and was separated from God. The spiritual death of Jesus transformed Him from a man into a mortal and satanic creation. Kenneth Copeland 'enlightens' us, "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." 54



Furthermore, we are told by Copeland that while in hell Christ's "...emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit..." 55 was tortured by Satan and every demon in hell without legal right. The reason given by Copeland as to why Jesus could not be detained in hell is that Jesus was not an actual sinner but was only made sin as the result of the sins of others, plus the fact that Satan had forgotten this detail. Copeland says, "The Devil forgot to take into consideration that Jesus hadn't sinned Himself but, rather, had merely become sin as a result of the sin of others." 56 I don't know how stupid Copeland thinks Satan is, but it is very difficult to perceive how the wisest of God's creatures could simply forget such a truth. Where is the evidence to sustain all of this in Scripture anyway? Conveniently, what Copeland and others fail to find support for in the Bible is attributed to personal conversations with God or His Son, as has so often been the case with other espousers of 'new truth'.



This apparently was the opening God had been awaiting. We are told that God spoke forth words of faith into hell, and as Copeland articulates:



"...that Word of the Living God went down into the pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life. He began to look like something the Devil had never seen before. He was literally being reborn before the Devil's very eyes. He began to flex his spiritual muscles....Jesus was born again--the first born from the dead." 57



This is nothing but sheer fantasy. Copeland twists the meaning of first born from the dead (Col. 1:18), from that of pre-eminence, to the false notion of Christ's being born again. What possible need would Jesus, the sinless and Holy Son of the Holy God have to be born again? This teaching, perhaps more than others we have discussed, does away with the truth that Jesus is unchangeable, and strips Him of His eternal deity! (Heb. 13:8). This false teaching unveils Copeland's ignorance and distinct lack of understanding of Biblical terminology, his total disregard for Bible scholars, the most eminent theologians and Church history. Not surprisingly, these sources are often ridiculed by Copeland and other Faith leaders.



The fable does not end here. Charles Capps teaches that the outcome of all this was the birth of the Church! Capps says, "Jesus was born again in the pit of hell. He was the firstborn, the first begotten, from the dead. He started the Church of the firstborn in the gates of hell... He went down to the gates and started His Church there....The Church started when Jesus was born again in the gates of hell." 58 Not only was the Incarnate Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ born again in hell, but, according to Capps, the very Church of Christ can trace its roots to the gates of hell! This teaching is so preposterous that I will give only the briefest response by answering with the truth that the birth of the Church, as any Christian knows, began on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2.



Best-selling author Benny Hinn gives this piece of 'revelation knowledge' to his hearers:



"My, you know, whoosh! The Holy Ghost is just showing me some stuff. I'm getting dizzy! I'm telling you the truth--it's, it's just heavy right now on me....He's (referring to Jesus) in the underworld now. God isn't there, the Holy Ghost isn't there, and the Bible says He was begotten. Do you know what the word begotten means? It means reborn. Do you want another shocker? have you been begotten? So was he. Don't let anyone deceive you. Jesus was reborn. You say, 'What are you talking about?' ...He was reborn. He had to be reborn. ...If He was not reborn, I would never be reborn. How can I face Jesus and say, 'Jesus you went through everything I've gone through, except the new birth?'"59



Despite Hinn's claims to divine revelation, the word begotten does not mean reborn. The true meaning of the word begotten is simply born, or to be born. It has nothing to do with being reborn. A moment of basic Bible study will reveal that Jesus is referred to as the only begotten from the Father (NASB), or, the one and only Son who came from the Father (NIV) (John 1:14; cf. John 1:18; 3:16), which stresses the unique nature of our Lord. Hebrews 1:5, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," is a reference to Christ's resurrection. God raised up Christ from the dead and imparted life to His body, and, as Albert Barnes notes, "By His own power restored Him; and hence is said figuratively to have begotten Him from the dead" 60 (cf. Psa. 2:7; Acts 13:33). The resurrection was a type of begetting to life, or its beginning (Rev. 1:5).



Copeland accentuates the issue (note his subtle changing of the word firstborn to reborn), by saying "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."61



The original Greek word for firstborn (prototokos), speaks not of being born again, but of primacy; headship and pre-eminence. Colossians 1:18 (cf. Rom. 8:29), simply denotes Christ's supremacy over all creation, as the context of Colossians 1 will bare out (cf. Col. 1:15). The remainder of v.18, ...among the dead, is a reference to Christ's bodily resurrection, not of a mythical spiritual death from which He needed to be reborn. Michael Moriarty expounds:



"Scripture is clear that the term 'firstborn' is used to refer to the physical birth of the first child born into a family, but also speaks of a person's position, rank or status. For example, in Israel the firstborn son had special birthrights and privileges. He succeeded his father as head of the house and received a larger portion of the inheritance; these were his birthrights. The nation of Israel is also called God's 'firstborn' and received special blessings and privileges as compared with the heathen nations (Ex. 4:22). In this same way Jesus is called the firstborn (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:6). The term has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus being born again; such an option is completely foreign to the Biblical text and is much closer to the Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding of this word (firstborn = first-created), than it is to orthodox Christianity's. Jesus Christ is the Pre-eminent One, the first Heir to all creation. The N.T. calls Jesus the firstborn in reference to His exalted position and firstborn rights of inheritance. He is first in rank and has first place in everything. 'And He is the Head of the body, the Church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the pre-eminence." (Col. 1:18).62



Kenneth Hagin, who on occasion has denied that he has ever taught such things, clearly does so in this statement, "Why did He (Jesus) need to be begotten, or born? Because He became like we were: separated from God. Because He tasted spiritual death for every man....Jesus was the first person that was ever born again." 63



Gloria Copeland, in her book God's Will, says, "After Jesus was made sin, He had to be born again....(Therefore) Jesus is a born again man. This is the same new birth that the Good News of the Gospel still offers to any man who will accept it." To teach that Jesus needed to undergo a new birth is to teach that He at one time had an unregenerate and sinful nature, which is precisely what these Faith teachers would have us believe. It is to deny the indisputable fact that Jesus is the eternal God and has always been God. According to Hebrews 13:8, Jesus cannot change in essence. He is eternal. There is no beginning, no end and NO INTERRUPTION to His Godhood! (cf. Mal. 3:6; John 5:26; Phil. 2:6).



As we approach the next chapter, one may be thinking, 'where are all these extraordinary teachings leading to? The following statement made by Kenneth Copeland will show exactly where. It will take us to the precipice and then plunge us head first into an age old lie. The Serpent's lie!! Copeland declares:



"The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, 'Son, realize this. Now follow me in this and don't let your tradition trip you up.' He said, 'Think this way--a twice-born man whipped Satan in his own domain.' And I threw my Bible down...like that. I said, 'What?' He said, 'A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him.' He said, 'You are the very image, the very copy of that one.' I said, 'Goodness, gracious sakes alive!' And I began to see what had gone on in there, and I said, 'Well now you don't mean, you couldn't dare mean, that I could have done the same thing?' He said, 'Oh yeah, if you'd had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could've done the same thing, cause you're a reborn man too.'" 64



If ever there was an absolute departure from the Word of God, from the most basic understanding of what the Bible teaches, this is it. Kenneth Copeland, a mere man, not only claims that he could have redeemed mankind by defeating Satan in hell, but he dares attribute this nonsense as being communicated to him directly by the Holy Spirit!!



If Copeland could have redeemed us, then we also could have done the same thing. We could all have been our own saviours were it not for our lack of knowledge! The Christian is to be on guard against false doctrine, especially when it is presented to him with a smile and in an authoritative manner. Oftentimes, such 'new truth' is presented to the eager listener as God's very own Words.





- 7 -

THE DEIFICATION OF MAN



Thus far, we have investigated the Faith movement's claims that Christ's death on the cross was not enough to atone for our sins; that Christ had to die spiritually for every man; that He took upon Himself the satanic nature; and that He needed to suffer the agonies of hell and become born again in order to acquire the redemption of mankind. And the outcome of all this, so Kenneth Copeland believes, is that, "He (Jesus) was the pattern of a new race of men." 65



One always needs to be aware of the origins of a doctrine and where it leads. Perhaps the underlying reason for this massive straying from Scriptural soundness on the part of Faith leaders, has been to lead us to the subject at hand: The Deification of Man!



No words can better illustrate what the Faith leaders teach concerning the rebirth and what it means for us, than the following statement made by Benny Hinn:



"When you were born again the Word was made flesh in you. And you became flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone. Don't tell me you have Jesus. You are everything He was and everything He is and ever shall be.... It (the new man) says, 'I am as He is.' That's what it says.. As He is, so are we in this world. Jesus said, 'Go in My name, go in My stead.' Don't say, 'I have.' Say, 'I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.'" 66



The demotion of Jesus, the deification of man!

More recently, Hinn has declared, "When you say, 'I am a Christian,' you are saying, 'I am mashiach' in the Hebrew. I am a little messiah walking on earth, in other words. That is a shocking revelation....May I say it like this? You are a little god on earth running around." 67



The Faith movement and certain charismatics hold that upon being born again, Jesus' divine nature returned to Him, and subsequently every born again person has also been infused with God's own nature. 2 Peter 1:4 is the verse that is quoted to prove that we have the nature of God, "...that by these (promises) you might be partakers of the divine nature..." Note that Peter here has said that we might be partakers of His divine nature not essence. The verse is simply saying that we may become partakers of God's attributes, His divine qualities not His divinity for God has said, "...I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me" (Isa. 43:10).



In order to better understand who Copeland says we are, we need to grasp just who he believes Adam was. Copeland believes that:



"God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself. I mean a reproduction of Himself and in the Garden of Eden He did just that. (Adam) was not a little like God. He was not almost like God. He was not subordinate to God even....Adam is as much like God as you could get, just the same as Jesus....Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh." 68



The Faith movement does not adhere to the Biblical teaching of Adam and what happened at the Fall. They believe that Adam inherited Satan's nature at the Fall and that this was our condition before becoming born again partakers of the divine nature. Kenneth Hagin expounds on this concept and believes that not only was Adam, God manifest in the flesh, but that we are all just as much incarnations of God as Jesus was!! Hagin states, "Every man who has been born again is an incarnation and Christianity is a miracle. The believer is as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth." 69 It would appear from this statement that Satan's lie in the Garden of Eden, "ye shall be as gods" (Gen. 3:5), has taken on yet another facade. Hagin's claim divests the word incarnation of its unique reference to Jesus Christ (John 1:14), and turns a one time act into a daily occurrence.



Hank Hanegraaff makes the observation that the whole idea of an incarnation only makes sense if a person existed prior to having a physical body. He explains:



"...while the Bible clearly declares Christ to be pre-existent (John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5), nowhere in Scripture do we find the concept of human pre-existence. In fact, human pre-existence remains a concept relegated largely to such cults as Mormonism. The fact that Christians are indwelt by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (John 14:17,23) in no way implies that the Bible endorses the concept of incarnation for Christians." 70



It is unsettling enough that many such claims are coming out of the Faith movement. What is of greater concern however, is the fact that they are being all too readily accepted as Christian teaching, which should make the disciple of Christ wonder just what is happening in Christianity today. One has commented that the Faith movement has infiltrated Christianity, not unlike the New Age invasion of the world's affairs. If there are any who doubt that the Faith leaders are proclaiming that all Christians are gods, please read on.



Kenneth Copeland makes the bold announcement that, "You don't have a God living in you, you are one!" 71 And again, "God has been reproduced on the inside of you." 72 Kenneth Hagin also promotes this tenet when he says,



"This eternal life He came to give us is the nature of God." He then adds, "It is, in reality, God imparting His very nature, substance, and being to one human spirit....Zoe, then, means eternal life, or God's life. This new kind of life is God's nature....Even many in the great body of Full Gospel people do not know that the new birth is a real incarnation....Jesus was first divine, and then He was human. So He was in the flesh a divine-human being. I was first human, and so were you, but I was born of God, and so I became a human-divine being!" 73



Hagin here elevates himself to the rank of a god. His view is that we are all god-men as was God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The view is similar to Nestorianism, a 5th century heresy which was condemned by Church leaders at the Council of Ephesus in A.D.431. Michael Moriarty explains:



"This view, developed by the scholarly monk Nestorius (ca.381-ca.452), taught that the Word did not actually become flesh (John 1:14) but only united Himself to a human being. Christ was in effect a God-bearer rather than the God-man. Nestorius ended up making Christ out to be a man in whom, in Siamese twin fashion, the divine and human natures were combined in a mechanical union rather than in an organic union of natures. Hagin's view of the incarnation is very similar to the fifth-century Nestorian heresy." 74

The concept which teaches that, at conversion, we become spirit-gods who merely reside in human bodies is Gnostic in origin and is also touted by Gloria Copeland. She states in her article 'A Fast Brings New Direction', in Christian Life magazine, "When we are born again we become a spirit being in a flesh body." Gnostic belief held that material creation is evil, but that sparks of divinity have been encapsuled in the bodies of certain 'spiritual' individuals who have been destined for salvation.



Kenneth Copeland makes his views quite clear when he says, "You need to realize that you are not a spiritual schizophrenic--half-God and half-Satan--you are all God." 75 One can easily identify whose fingerprints are impressed upon this teaching and others that we have mentioned specifically in this chapter, for they all promote the Devil's lie to Eve in the Garden "...ye shall be as gods..." (Gen. 3:5).



There has not been much analysis of these teachings in this chapter purely because they are self-damning. However, we will take a closer look at the most popular passage from Scripture applied by Faith teachers to support their 'little-gods' theory, John 10:31-39. In v.34 we see Jesus addressing the Jews and saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods?" Jesus is here responding to his opponents with an ironical use of Psalm 82:6, where God condemns the unrighteous judges of Israel for their self-righteous attitude and pride. These judges sinned by showing partiality towards the wicked rather than defending the weak. Psalm 82:7 is one verse you will never hear from the mouth of Faith leaders. After calling these judges gods, God says in the next verse, "But ye shall die like men..."



Jesus was reminding the Jews that the Scriptures called Israel's judges gods, not because they were in any way divine, but because of their roles as representatives of divine justice. Moses and the judges in Exodus were also referred to as gods because they, like God, held the power of life and death (Ex. 4:15,16; 6:28-7:2; 21:6; 22:8,9). The word gods is used symbolically to show that the judges were the representatives of God. God told Moses in Exodus 1, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh", an obvious reference to Moses' being as a god, not literally divine. Walter Martin comments on John 10:34, "Jesus mocks the people as if to say, 'You all think you're gods yourselves. What's one more god among you?' Irony is used to provoke us, not to inform us. It is not a basis for building a theology." 76



The idea that we, or any created being can be like God is a lie of Satan's. It was this very desire--to be like God--that brought the fall of Lucifer (Isa. 14:14). There is only one God-- there shall only ever be one God (Deut. 5:35,39; 32:39; 2Sam. 7:22; Isa. 43:10; 44:6; 45:5,6; 21-22; 1Cor. 8:4,6; Gal. 4:8). No one is as God is, neither is anyone even remotely like God.



The Faith movement doctrine which purports that being born again means we become as Christ was--a God-bearing people--a new race of men, was also presented to the Church during the 4th century, and is known as the Appolinarian heresy. John 1:12, 13 is used as a proof text that we share God's divinity. The fundamental difference between Jesus as the Son of God and the Christian as a son of God, is that He is the only begotten of God, and we are adopted sons. Contrary to Copeland's claim that, "Jesus is no longer the only begotten Son of God" 77, the Bible tells us that Jesus is God's only begotten Son (John 3:18; 1Jn. 4:9). Jesus remained the second Person of the Trinity when He became flesh. We are not an incarnation; we are not gods in the flesh. We are never spoken of in Scripture as being incarnations of God. The notion that man is, or ever will be, a god is only ever spoken of in Scripture as idolatry and blasphemy. These declarations of men are more at home with the ravings of Orange People guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who once exclaimed, "When you call Jesus, really you have called me. When you call me, really you have called Jesus." 78 Or that of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi of Transcendental Meditation fame, "Be still and know that you are God." 79 Faith teachings have yet another infamous comrade in Jim Jones, who taught, "It is written that ye are gods. I'm a god and you're a god....until I see all of you knowing who you are, I'm gonna be very much what I am--God, Almighty God." 80



Some might think we may be going overboard by likening the teachings of Yogis and a murderous madman with what the Faith teachers are professing. You may not think so after you read the following abominable and blasphemous claims of Kenneth Hagin and His students:



"Man...was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God's presence without any consciousness of inferiority....God has made us as much like Himself as possible....He made us the same class of being that He is Himself....The believer is called Christ....that's who we are; we're Christ!" 81



Morris Cerullo, whose claims include having being transported to heaven for a face-to-face meeting with God, has this to say, "...when we stand up here, brother, you're not looking at Morris Cerullo; you're looking at God. You're looking at Jesus." 82 Finally, and perhaps the worst and most obscene claim of them all, is made by Kenneth Copeland, who had this to say to his audience during a crusade on July 19, 1987: "I say this and repeat it so it doesn't upset you too bad....When I read in the Bible where He (Jesus) says, 'I Am,' I say, 'Yes, I Am too!'" (tape on file with CRI)



The 'little gods' theory of the Faith movement is a type of pagan-polytheism which constitutes doctrinal heresy. Walter Martin speaks wisely when he says, "Our identity is greater than any human concept of 'godhood.' We are the heirs of eternity, recipients of an indescribable gift. Let us not cheapen that inheritance or dilute it with perverted theology. The cost is far too great." 83





- 8 -

THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF

THE FAITH MOVEMENT



Many Christians believe that the Faith movement is a by-product of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Some even believe that it is the Charismatic movement, however, this is not historically correct. The Faith movement's roots can be traced to evangelist, pastor, Bible teacher and author E.W. Kenyon. Kenyon (1867-1948), was greatly influenced in his ministry by cultic sources such as New Thought metaphysics. He attended the Emerson college of Oratory in Boston, a veritable breeding ground for New Thought philosophy. The major doctrines of New Thought should be very familiar to Faith movement devotees: Health or healing, abundance or prosperity, w

"I cannot emphasize too strongly that the atonement is crucial to the historic Christian faith. Interestingly, the word 'crucial' comes from the Latin word 'crux' or 'cross'. So when I say that the atonement is the crux of Christianity, I am in effect saying that just as the cross stands at the centre of all history, so also our understanding of the atonement is central to the faith. Tampering with the doctrine of the atonement is the most direct road from Christianity into the kingdom of the cults--and, for some people, into the world of the occult."

CLAIMS OF A SPIRITUAL DEATH

There are many Faith movement leaders, and a growing number of charismatics, who claim that Jesus Christ needed to die spiritually in order to complete our redemption. Kenneth Copeland is one who holds to this tenet, and the following statement made during a taped sermon will give the reader a clear insight into his thoughts on the matter. Copeland proclaims most vehemently that:

"The death of Jesus Christ was not a physical death alone. If it had been a physical death and a physical death only, Abel would have paid the price for the sins of mankind. He's the first man that died because of honoring God in His Word....Every prophet that walked the face of the earth under the Abrahamic covenant could have paid the price if it were a physical death only."