DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY ? Part 2 of 6. Continued.
As the Old Testament clearly shows, the sin-offering at no point became an unholy sacrifice, either before or after its death. Obviously, this fact is diametrically opposed to the JDS Doctrine which contends that Jesus actually became "sin" (2 Cor. 5:21) by taking upon Himself Satan's evil nature, and became an unholy sacrifice consigned to Hell. In Leviticus 6:25-29 we are clearly informed that the sin-offering was MOST HOLY to God both before and after its death. In fact, even after its death in substitution for the sinner it remained most holy. Only the anointed priest could touch it and eat it (he could not touch or eat anything unclean), and it was to be eaten in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle. Moreover, anything or anyone that touched the sin-offering after it had been sacrificed also became holy! This fact alone is evidence of the sacredness of the sin-offering in God's sight, for even after its death it remained most holy to Him. JDS teaching which attempts to make Jesus unholy and unregenerate is clearly out of harmony with the Word of God. For example, in Leviticus 6 God says:
Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, this is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that offereth if for sin shall eat it; in the holy place shall it be eaten in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy ...All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy (Lev. 6:25-29; cf. 7:1f.) In the case of the sin-offering for the priest, it was burned in a clean place without the camp, signifying it was holy. It was burned without the camp and not on the altar to keep from confusing it with the whole burnt-offering. Although the sin-offering of an individual was eaten by the priests, he could not eat of his own as it was most holy to God, and so it was burned in a clean place (Lev. 4).
This passage in itself is sufficient to disprove the false which teaches that Jesus became sin with man's sinfulness and had to be born again. He was a Sin-offering, not sin, and was, therefore, holy in the cross and after His death in fulfillment of the Old Testament type. Why all the stress on the Old Testament animal type being holy unto God if the antitype, the Lamb of God, was to become "sin" and constitute an unholy sacrifice? The JDS Doctrine does not have Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament prophetic type at the most vital point--in His sacrificial death as a holy, sinless Substitute for sinners. The Word of God states clearly that the sin-offering, a type of God's Lamb, was most holy to God in its death; the JDS Doctrine teaches that the antitype, the actual Lamb of God, became sin and unholy, and was totally abandoned and rejected by God in His death. The contradiction between God's Word and man's theories should be evident to all.
THE HEBREW TERM
The JDS Doctrine overlooks another fact which has to do with the Hebrew term for "sin" and "sin-offering." Evidently the JDS teachers are unaware of the fact that these two English terms are one and the same term in the Hebrew language! As a consequence, the JDS ministers stress the "letter" of the world as used in 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For he has made him sin, who knew no sin..." However, the Apostle Paul knew, as did every other Hebrew, that when one spoke in the Hebrew language about the sin-offering he used the Hebrew term, chatta't, which was also the word for "sin." Transliterations in this whole study follow the modern Hebrew (Sefardic), rather than the "classical" pronunciation generally taught in religious schools, because of the revival of spoken Hebrew. That is, the term translated as "sin-offering" and "sin" in one and the same in Hebrew. It was the context in which the term was used which expressed whether one was speaking about the sin-offering of sin itself.
For example, if the context concerned the subject of sacrifices, then the "sin-offering" was understood to be meant by the Hebrew term chatta't; the sacrifice was called by the name of the offense (sin) for which it was to die on the sinner's behalf. If sin itself was under discussion, then the same term, chatta't, could be used, but in this instance with the obvious meaning of "sin," not the sin-offering. In Leviticus, for instance, the term chatta't is used for sin itself on several occasions, but it also stands for the sin-offering over 50 times. As an Israelite, the Apostle Paul clearly had the sin-offering in view in 2 Corinthians 5:21, inasmuch as the term for sin and the sin-offering is identical to Hebrew. The Apostle simply follows here the customary practice of the Jewish translators when rendering Hebrew into Greek.
This is confirmed also by the Jewish Septuagint translators who used the Greek term for "sin," hamartia, to translate the Hebrew term for the sin-offering in their translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek (cf. Lev. 5:11; 6:25, and 7:27 in the Greek Septuagint). No Jewish Christian, unlike the JDS teachers, would have confused "sin" with the sin-offering, even though they are expressed by the same term in Hebrew. This is also true with regard to the terms trespass and trespass-offering;
1. The term "curse" (Gal. 3:10-13) is also to be understood in this sense. Death was the curse of the Law (Deut. 28). Thus, Christ was made a "curse" in the sense that He suffered the curse of the Law (death) on our behalf. However, He was not cursed as sin as the JDS Doctrine erroneously teaches. 2. Other Hebrew terms meant: "iniquity"; "transgression"; "rebellion," and so on. The basic term, however, was chatta't, meaning sin or sin-offering.
This is also true with regard to the terms trespass and trespass-offering; They are the same term in Hebrew--'asham. The substitutionary offering of Christ is called a trespass-offering ('asham in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:10). The KJV and the ASV translate this term as "an offering for sin," indicating thereby that His death on the cross is to be regarded as a "trespass-offering" for sinners, not that He Himself became a "trespass" of "sin" as the JDS teachers incorrectly assert (note ASV margin: Heb. "a trespass-offering"). In addition to the Septuagint translators using the Greek term for "sin" to translate the Hebrew term for "sin-offering," this usage is also found in the Book of Hebrews. This is evident from Hebrews 10:6 where we read: "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin..." Here again only the Greek term for "sin" occurs in the Greek New Testament, but it is used in the sense of "sin-offering."
The translators of the English version are aware of the fact, inasmuch as they translate the term "sin" as meaning "sin-offering." This is evident in that they supply (in Italics) the word "sacrifices," signifying that the term "sin" is being used by the writer of Hebrews to express the sacrifice for sin (sin-offering) and not actual sin itself. This is in harmony both with the context in which burnt-offerings are mentioned, and with common Hebrew usage as shown earlier. Likewise the ASV (margin) on Romans 8:3 also supplies the words "as an offering" for sin. The Apostle Paul here, as he does no doubt in 2 Corinthians 5:21 , uses the term "sin" in the sense of the "sin-offering." Furthermore, in support of this usage some of the versions either translate 2 Corinthians 5:21 as "sin-offering," or as the equivalent choice in the margin. See the N.T., Williams; R.V., NIV; Greek-English N.T., Marshall.
It is significant that the Apostle Paul states in I Corinthians 1:30 that Christ was made, not sin, but "righteousness" unto us in a passage where he deals with the cross (cf. 1:18). Since he obviously would not contradict himself, then 2 Corinthians 5:21 should have been translated according to Hebrew usage as "sin-offering." For he hath made him a sin-offering for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The sin-offering did not typify something sinful at death to the Jews as the JDS ministers depict Christ, but it typified a sinless sacrifice for sin. This is precisely the New Testament view concerning the death of Jesus Christ Who "...offered himself without spot to God..." (Heb. 9:14; cf. I Peter 1:18-19).
Another example of how the JDS teachers twist the intended meaning of a passage is seen here. They substitute for the statement that Christ has become our righteousness the erroneous concept that He had to be made righteous Himself since he had become sin! The Apostle is clearly stating here that Jesus is our means of right standing with God. The KJV rendering Hebrews 9:28 as Jesus will"...appear the second time without sin unto salvation" is clear in meaning. However, the term "without" is choris in Greek with the meaning here of "apart from." That is, the First Advent was to bear away sin; the Second will be with reference to the realization of our salvation. Many versions give a clearer translation of the Greek term as: "apart from sin"; "not to deal with sin"; "not as a sin bearer," etc.
Point 2 IDENTIFICATION, OR SUBSTITUTION ON THE CROSS?
The JDS teachers contend erroneously that Jesus had to become "sin" on the cross in order to identify with sinners at all points. Only in this way could He redeem them. This inaccurate conclusion also stems from a lack of understanding concerning the meaning of the Old Testament sacrifices. The second lesson God was teaching Israel (and the Church) through the sin-offering, as well as all the sacrifices, was the Doctrine of Substitution--not identification. The distinction is very important. Aside from the obvious fact that God's Word shows that no sinner could redeem another sinner (seen in the O.T. requirement for the animal substitute to be without spot, as well as the N.T. stress upon the holy, spotless nature of Jesus and His sacrifice, Heb. 9;14), the Scriptures do not teach identification with sinners on the cross, but substitution. No acceptable substitute could possibly identify with the sinful, guilty individual he was to redeem.
Jesus identified with mankind in His birth when the Son of God took upon Himself human nature; but in His sacrificial death He became the sinner's substitute. The Scriptures clearly teach that He identified with humanity at His birth, not in His death. This is seen, for example, in Hebrews 2;14-18. Verse 14 reads: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same... This passage shows that the Son of God took upon Himself human nature for two reasons: (1) so that through His endurance of temptations He could succour us in our temptations; and (2) so that He could offer His body as a sacrifice in order to reconcile man to God. The Scriptures just as clearly teach that His death signifies substitution FOR sinners, not identification WITH sinners. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).
It was substitution, not identification at Calvary,"...the just for the unjust..." (I Peter 3:18). While we were sinners, Christ, the sinless One, died for us. Nothing could be clearer. A sinner on the cross would be dying for his own sins; thus, Jesus became a sin-offering, not sin, in order to fulfill the Old Testament type. If Jesus actually became "sin" with our sinfulness on the cross He would have been dying for Himself. This is such an obvious fact that one JDS teacher was compelled to admit this conclusion. This individual said: Jesus did not merely die for us, He died for himself. He died twice--once for himself when he became sin, and once for us. Of course, this teacher did not see the glaring contradiction in this statement. Anyone who had to die for himself because he had become sin would thereby be disqualified to be a substitute for other sinners.
But then, the whole JDS Doctrine is a contradiction to the biblical Doctrine of Christ and His substitutionary Atonement. Identification with sinners? What saith the Scripture? God's Word declares that Jesus was ...holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners (Heb. 7;26). Thus, the JDS teachers erroneously misuse the terms "substitution" and "identification." They teach that when Jesus became "sin" He identified with sinners; then, as unregenerate and sinful in nature, He suffered God's punishment in Hell as the sinner's substitute. That is, contrary to the biblical requirement that the substitute be (and remain) holy, the JDS Doctrine teaches that Jesus substituted Himself as the unregenerate, guilty person, Who took into His spirit all the sin and evil of the human race, and was punished in place of the sinner. On the contrary, the Scriptures show that Jesus, as the Old Testament type also indicated, did not become "sin," but was a holy sin-offering.
He did not identify with sinners, but was a sinless substitute for them on the cross. Jesus was not a SUBSTITUTE SINNER, but the SINNER'S SUBSTITUTE on the cross. The JDS teachers contend, on the basis of Numbers 21, which presents the account of the lifting up of the brazen serpent for the healing of those bitten by the fiery serpents, that Jesus was also lifted up as a "serpent" when He was made "sin" on the cross and took on the evil nature of Satan. Quoting John 3:14, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up," they contend that Jesus became one with the serpent, Satan, and died spiritually. The account in Numbers 21, however, does not support this fantasy. God sent fiery serpents as punishment against the rebellious Israelites. As a result of the intercession of Moses, God directed him to make a figure of a serpent, in brass, to be elevated on a pole so that it could be seen from all quarters in the camp.
All who looked in faith in its direction were healed. The brazen serpent did not produce healing; it was merely an emblem. it spoke of their sin and the nature of divine judgment sent to punish it. Their faith in God's promise to heal brought deliverance when they obeyed this requirement. Without question, merely to look upon an inanimate object, the serpent of brass, would not have produced healing for an individual unless faith was also present. By analogy, if Jesus became a "serpent" in nature as the JDS error teaches, then healing was provided by Satan, the Serpent, in Numbers 21, and not God, since healing came as they looked to the serpent on the pole! Clearly, then, Jesus had reference to the manner of His death in John 3:14--He was to be "lifted up" on the cross; he was not referring to a change in His nature, from holy to unholy and sinful. 1. JDS teachers sometimes cite Ephesians 2:5, "Even when we were dead in sins Bwambale Gilbert hath quickened us together with Christ" as meaning that Christ, as we, also being dead in "sin' had to made alive! However, verse 6 indicates clearly that the Apostle speaks here of the resurrection.
This fact is clearly stated in the same Gospel of John and proves that the phrase "lifted up" has reference to the manner of His death, not a change in nature, from sinless to serpent. He was signifying that He was to be "lifted up" on a cross. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die (John 12:32-33). The reader should not be deluded by the use of biblical terminology at times by the JDS teachers, such as the use of terms like "substitution," "blood atonement," "identification," "justification," "firstborn," "Abrahamic covenant," and so on.
This caution is necessary because the JDS ministers most definitely do not use these terms and concepts according to their biblical meaning and usage many times. For example, they destroy, by their erroneous interpretations, the validity of these terms and concepts in their scriptural sense when they teach that Jesus was sinful "substitute"; or that Jesus' death fulfilled the "Abrahamic Covenant," when in actual fact it was the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant of the Law as will be shown. By teaching that Jesus was a sinful substitute, Who identified with sinners on the cross, the biblical meaning of the term "substitute" is perverted; and by making Jesus evil in nature Who needed to be born again Himself, they have robbed His blood of its purity and atoning power.
WHAT CONSTITUTES BEING A SINNER?
To answer this question will indicate why Jesus was not identified with sinners, becoming one in nature with them, on the cross. What constitutes being a sinner? (1) He is sinful by nature. All men are said to be"...by nature the children of wrath..." (Eph. 2:3; cf. Rom. 3:9-23; 5:12f.). However, Jesus, in His human nature, was holy. His birth did not come through Joseph, but was supernaturally wrought by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:33-35). (2) He is sinful in his actions, thoughts, and speech. According to the Scriptures men sin in thought, word, and in deeds (Gen. 6:5; Ps. 14; Rom. 1-3). However, Jesus lived without the commission of any act of sin (Heb. 4:15). Jesus, therefore, lacks the "qualifications" to act as the sacrifice for the JDS teachers; they will have to look elsewhere than to the sinless Son of God! Their "substitute" is precisely that--a substitute--who is not the Jesus of the Bible.
Confronted with this fact, some JDS ministers have begun to say, "Well, Jesus did not personally sin; he was made to be sin by God. He took upon himself the sinfulness of the human race and became evil in nature with Satan's nature." This is impossible inasmuch as sin is a personal act of disobedience to the will of God. Jesus never once disobeyed His Father, and most certainly not on the cross, for here He was in God's perfect will (John 3:16), and in nature, He was sinless. And yet, it is here--on the cross that the JDS teachers make Him to be sin and unregenerate. Moreover, they actually charge the heavenly Father with the act of making His Son to be "sin." However, if God, according to His own Word, cannot tempt any man to sin (James 1:13), then how could He conceivably be charged with making His sinless Son to become actual sin? Sin is moral in nature.
Jesus could not have become immoral or unregenerate merely by a divine fiat; it would require Him to commit an act of sin personally by His own choice. One cannot arbitrarily make someone else a sinner or cause him to become sin simply by declaring it to be so, ipso facto, as the JDS supporters attempt to do with regard to Jesus on the cross. Sin is not something tangible like a coat of black paint with which God painted His Son; nor is it like an inoculation of germs which some scientist could inject into the bloodstream as the Nazis did to some of their victims during the last World War. Sin is an act, whether in deed, word, or thought, which one must personally commit. This rules out all possibility that Jesus could be made "sin." He was a holy "sin-offering" unto God just as the Old Testament type depicted.
Furthermore, if, as the JDS teachers contend, Jesus were required to become "sin" so that He could identify with the fallen human race at all points, then He failed to accomplish such a complete identification. Why? Because He would have had to submit to temptations and to commit some sin during His lifetime just as all men do--if He were required to identify with men at all points. But the Scriptures are emphatically clear on this matter--Jesus Christ was without sin (John 8:46; Heb. 4:14-15). The JDS teachers completely ignore this fact. In addition, it would have been necessary for Jesus to have identified with sinful humanity at His birth also.
To be Continued.
God willing, more will be posted soon. All glory to Jesus alone.
As the Old Testament clearly shows, the sin-offering at no point became an unholy sacrifice, either before or after its death. Obviously, this fact is diametrically opposed to the JDS Doctrine which contends that Jesus actually became "sin" (2 Cor. 5:21) by taking upon Himself Satan's evil nature, and became an unholy sacrifice consigned to Hell. In Leviticus 6:25-29 we are clearly informed that the sin-offering was MOST HOLY to God both before and after its death. In fact, even after its death in substitution for the sinner it remained most holy. Only the anointed priest could touch it and eat it (he could not touch or eat anything unclean), and it was to be eaten in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle. Moreover, anything or anyone that touched the sin-offering after it had been sacrificed also became holy! This fact alone is evidence of the sacredness of the sin-offering in God's sight, for even after its death it remained most holy to Him. JDS teaching which attempts to make Jesus unholy and unregenerate is clearly out of harmony with the Word of God. For example, in Leviticus 6 God says:
Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, this is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that offereth if for sin shall eat it; in the holy place shall it be eaten in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy ...All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy (Lev. 6:25-29; cf. 7:1f.) In the case of the sin-offering for the priest, it was burned in a clean place without the camp, signifying it was holy. It was burned without the camp and not on the altar to keep from confusing it with the whole burnt-offering. Although the sin-offering of an individual was eaten by the priests, he could not eat of his own as it was most holy to God, and so it was burned in a clean place (Lev. 4).
This passage in itself is sufficient to disprove the false which teaches that Jesus became sin with man's sinfulness and had to be born again. He was a Sin-offering, not sin, and was, therefore, holy in the cross and after His death in fulfillment of the Old Testament type. Why all the stress on the Old Testament animal type being holy unto God if the antitype, the Lamb of God, was to become "sin" and constitute an unholy sacrifice? The JDS Doctrine does not have Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament prophetic type at the most vital point--in His sacrificial death as a holy, sinless Substitute for sinners. The Word of God states clearly that the sin-offering, a type of God's Lamb, was most holy to God in its death; the JDS Doctrine teaches that the antitype, the actual Lamb of God, became sin and unholy, and was totally abandoned and rejected by God in His death. The contradiction between God's Word and man's theories should be evident to all.
THE HEBREW TERM
The JDS Doctrine overlooks another fact which has to do with the Hebrew term for "sin" and "sin-offering." Evidently the JDS teachers are unaware of the fact that these two English terms are one and the same term in the Hebrew language! As a consequence, the JDS ministers stress the "letter" of the world as used in 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For he has made him sin, who knew no sin..." However, the Apostle Paul knew, as did every other Hebrew, that when one spoke in the Hebrew language about the sin-offering he used the Hebrew term, chatta't, which was also the word for "sin." Transliterations in this whole study follow the modern Hebrew (Sefardic), rather than the "classical" pronunciation generally taught in religious schools, because of the revival of spoken Hebrew. That is, the term translated as "sin-offering" and "sin" in one and the same in Hebrew. It was the context in which the term was used which expressed whether one was speaking about the sin-offering of sin itself.
For example, if the context concerned the subject of sacrifices, then the "sin-offering" was understood to be meant by the Hebrew term chatta't; the sacrifice was called by the name of the offense (sin) for which it was to die on the sinner's behalf. If sin itself was under discussion, then the same term, chatta't, could be used, but in this instance with the obvious meaning of "sin," not the sin-offering. In Leviticus, for instance, the term chatta't is used for sin itself on several occasions, but it also stands for the sin-offering over 50 times. As an Israelite, the Apostle Paul clearly had the sin-offering in view in 2 Corinthians 5:21, inasmuch as the term for sin and the sin-offering is identical to Hebrew. The Apostle simply follows here the customary practice of the Jewish translators when rendering Hebrew into Greek.
This is confirmed also by the Jewish Septuagint translators who used the Greek term for "sin," hamartia, to translate the Hebrew term for the sin-offering in their translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek (cf. Lev. 5:11; 6:25, and 7:27 in the Greek Septuagint). No Jewish Christian, unlike the JDS teachers, would have confused "sin" with the sin-offering, even though they are expressed by the same term in Hebrew. This is also true with regard to the terms trespass and trespass-offering;
1. The term "curse" (Gal. 3:10-13) is also to be understood in this sense. Death was the curse of the Law (Deut. 28). Thus, Christ was made a "curse" in the sense that He suffered the curse of the Law (death) on our behalf. However, He was not cursed as sin as the JDS Doctrine erroneously teaches. 2. Other Hebrew terms meant: "iniquity"; "transgression"; "rebellion," and so on. The basic term, however, was chatta't, meaning sin or sin-offering.
This is also true with regard to the terms trespass and trespass-offering; They are the same term in Hebrew--'asham. The substitutionary offering of Christ is called a trespass-offering ('asham in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:10). The KJV and the ASV translate this term as "an offering for sin," indicating thereby that His death on the cross is to be regarded as a "trespass-offering" for sinners, not that He Himself became a "trespass" of "sin" as the JDS teachers incorrectly assert (note ASV margin: Heb. "a trespass-offering"). In addition to the Septuagint translators using the Greek term for "sin" to translate the Hebrew term for "sin-offering," this usage is also found in the Book of Hebrews. This is evident from Hebrews 10:6 where we read: "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin..." Here again only the Greek term for "sin" occurs in the Greek New Testament, but it is used in the sense of "sin-offering."
The translators of the English version are aware of the fact, inasmuch as they translate the term "sin" as meaning "sin-offering." This is evident in that they supply (in Italics) the word "sacrifices," signifying that the term "sin" is being used by the writer of Hebrews to express the sacrifice for sin (sin-offering) and not actual sin itself. This is in harmony both with the context in which burnt-offerings are mentioned, and with common Hebrew usage as shown earlier. Likewise the ASV (margin) on Romans 8:3 also supplies the words "as an offering" for sin. The Apostle Paul here, as he does no doubt in 2 Corinthians 5:21 , uses the term "sin" in the sense of the "sin-offering." Furthermore, in support of this usage some of the versions either translate 2 Corinthians 5:21 as "sin-offering," or as the equivalent choice in the margin. See the N.T., Williams; R.V., NIV; Greek-English N.T., Marshall.
It is significant that the Apostle Paul states in I Corinthians 1:30 that Christ was made, not sin, but "righteousness" unto us in a passage where he deals with the cross (cf. 1:18). Since he obviously would not contradict himself, then 2 Corinthians 5:21 should have been translated according to Hebrew usage as "sin-offering." For he hath made him a sin-offering for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The sin-offering did not typify something sinful at death to the Jews as the JDS ministers depict Christ, but it typified a sinless sacrifice for sin. This is precisely the New Testament view concerning the death of Jesus Christ Who "...offered himself without spot to God..." (Heb. 9:14; cf. I Peter 1:18-19).
Another example of how the JDS teachers twist the intended meaning of a passage is seen here. They substitute for the statement that Christ has become our righteousness the erroneous concept that He had to be made righteous Himself since he had become sin! The Apostle is clearly stating here that Jesus is our means of right standing with God. The KJV rendering Hebrews 9:28 as Jesus will"...appear the second time without sin unto salvation" is clear in meaning. However, the term "without" is choris in Greek with the meaning here of "apart from." That is, the First Advent was to bear away sin; the Second will be with reference to the realization of our salvation. Many versions give a clearer translation of the Greek term as: "apart from sin"; "not to deal with sin"; "not as a sin bearer," etc.
Point 2 IDENTIFICATION, OR SUBSTITUTION ON THE CROSS?
The JDS teachers contend erroneously that Jesus had to become "sin" on the cross in order to identify with sinners at all points. Only in this way could He redeem them. This inaccurate conclusion also stems from a lack of understanding concerning the meaning of the Old Testament sacrifices. The second lesson God was teaching Israel (and the Church) through the sin-offering, as well as all the sacrifices, was the Doctrine of Substitution--not identification. The distinction is very important. Aside from the obvious fact that God's Word shows that no sinner could redeem another sinner (seen in the O.T. requirement for the animal substitute to be without spot, as well as the N.T. stress upon the holy, spotless nature of Jesus and His sacrifice, Heb. 9;14), the Scriptures do not teach identification with sinners on the cross, but substitution. No acceptable substitute could possibly identify with the sinful, guilty individual he was to redeem.
Jesus identified with mankind in His birth when the Son of God took upon Himself human nature; but in His sacrificial death He became the sinner's substitute. The Scriptures clearly teach that He identified with humanity at His birth, not in His death. This is seen, for example, in Hebrews 2;14-18. Verse 14 reads: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same... This passage shows that the Son of God took upon Himself human nature for two reasons: (1) so that through His endurance of temptations He could succour us in our temptations; and (2) so that He could offer His body as a sacrifice in order to reconcile man to God. The Scriptures just as clearly teach that His death signifies substitution FOR sinners, not identification WITH sinners. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).
It was substitution, not identification at Calvary,"...the just for the unjust..." (I Peter 3:18). While we were sinners, Christ, the sinless One, died for us. Nothing could be clearer. A sinner on the cross would be dying for his own sins; thus, Jesus became a sin-offering, not sin, in order to fulfill the Old Testament type. If Jesus actually became "sin" with our sinfulness on the cross He would have been dying for Himself. This is such an obvious fact that one JDS teacher was compelled to admit this conclusion. This individual said: Jesus did not merely die for us, He died for himself. He died twice--once for himself when he became sin, and once for us. Of course, this teacher did not see the glaring contradiction in this statement. Anyone who had to die for himself because he had become sin would thereby be disqualified to be a substitute for other sinners.
But then, the whole JDS Doctrine is a contradiction to the biblical Doctrine of Christ and His substitutionary Atonement. Identification with sinners? What saith the Scripture? God's Word declares that Jesus was ...holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners (Heb. 7;26). Thus, the JDS teachers erroneously misuse the terms "substitution" and "identification." They teach that when Jesus became "sin" He identified with sinners; then, as unregenerate and sinful in nature, He suffered God's punishment in Hell as the sinner's substitute. That is, contrary to the biblical requirement that the substitute be (and remain) holy, the JDS Doctrine teaches that Jesus substituted Himself as the unregenerate, guilty person, Who took into His spirit all the sin and evil of the human race, and was punished in place of the sinner. On the contrary, the Scriptures show that Jesus, as the Old Testament type also indicated, did not become "sin," but was a holy sin-offering.
He did not identify with sinners, but was a sinless substitute for them on the cross. Jesus was not a SUBSTITUTE SINNER, but the SINNER'S SUBSTITUTE on the cross. The JDS teachers contend, on the basis of Numbers 21, which presents the account of the lifting up of the brazen serpent for the healing of those bitten by the fiery serpents, that Jesus was also lifted up as a "serpent" when He was made "sin" on the cross and took on the evil nature of Satan. Quoting John 3:14, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up," they contend that Jesus became one with the serpent, Satan, and died spiritually. The account in Numbers 21, however, does not support this fantasy. God sent fiery serpents as punishment against the rebellious Israelites. As a result of the intercession of Moses, God directed him to make a figure of a serpent, in brass, to be elevated on a pole so that it could be seen from all quarters in the camp.
All who looked in faith in its direction were healed. The brazen serpent did not produce healing; it was merely an emblem. it spoke of their sin and the nature of divine judgment sent to punish it. Their faith in God's promise to heal brought deliverance when they obeyed this requirement. Without question, merely to look upon an inanimate object, the serpent of brass, would not have produced healing for an individual unless faith was also present. By analogy, if Jesus became a "serpent" in nature as the JDS error teaches, then healing was provided by Satan, the Serpent, in Numbers 21, and not God, since healing came as they looked to the serpent on the pole! Clearly, then, Jesus had reference to the manner of His death in John 3:14--He was to be "lifted up" on the cross; he was not referring to a change in His nature, from holy to unholy and sinful. 1. JDS teachers sometimes cite Ephesians 2:5, "Even when we were dead in sins Bwambale Gilbert hath quickened us together with Christ" as meaning that Christ, as we, also being dead in "sin' had to made alive! However, verse 6 indicates clearly that the Apostle speaks here of the resurrection.
This fact is clearly stated in the same Gospel of John and proves that the phrase "lifted up" has reference to the manner of His death, not a change in nature, from sinless to serpent. He was signifying that He was to be "lifted up" on a cross. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die (John 12:32-33). The reader should not be deluded by the use of biblical terminology at times by the JDS teachers, such as the use of terms like "substitution," "blood atonement," "identification," "justification," "firstborn," "Abrahamic covenant," and so on.
This caution is necessary because the JDS ministers most definitely do not use these terms and concepts according to their biblical meaning and usage many times. For example, they destroy, by their erroneous interpretations, the validity of these terms and concepts in their scriptural sense when they teach that Jesus was sinful "substitute"; or that Jesus' death fulfilled the "Abrahamic Covenant," when in actual fact it was the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant of the Law as will be shown. By teaching that Jesus was a sinful substitute, Who identified with sinners on the cross, the biblical meaning of the term "substitute" is perverted; and by making Jesus evil in nature Who needed to be born again Himself, they have robbed His blood of its purity and atoning power.
WHAT CONSTITUTES BEING A SINNER?
To answer this question will indicate why Jesus was not identified with sinners, becoming one in nature with them, on the cross. What constitutes being a sinner? (1) He is sinful by nature. All men are said to be"...by nature the children of wrath..." (Eph. 2:3; cf. Rom. 3:9-23; 5:12f.). However, Jesus, in His human nature, was holy. His birth did not come through Joseph, but was supernaturally wrought by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:33-35). (2) He is sinful in his actions, thoughts, and speech. According to the Scriptures men sin in thought, word, and in deeds (Gen. 6:5; Ps. 14; Rom. 1-3). However, Jesus lived without the commission of any act of sin (Heb. 4:15). Jesus, therefore, lacks the "qualifications" to act as the sacrifice for the JDS teachers; they will have to look elsewhere than to the sinless Son of God! Their "substitute" is precisely that--a substitute--who is not the Jesus of the Bible.
Confronted with this fact, some JDS ministers have begun to say, "Well, Jesus did not personally sin; he was made to be sin by God. He took upon himself the sinfulness of the human race and became evil in nature with Satan's nature." This is impossible inasmuch as sin is a personal act of disobedience to the will of God. Jesus never once disobeyed His Father, and most certainly not on the cross, for here He was in God's perfect will (John 3:16), and in nature, He was sinless. And yet, it is here--on the cross that the JDS teachers make Him to be sin and unregenerate. Moreover, they actually charge the heavenly Father with the act of making His Son to be "sin." However, if God, according to His own Word, cannot tempt any man to sin (James 1:13), then how could He conceivably be charged with making His sinless Son to become actual sin? Sin is moral in nature.
Jesus could not have become immoral or unregenerate merely by a divine fiat; it would require Him to commit an act of sin personally by His own choice. One cannot arbitrarily make someone else a sinner or cause him to become sin simply by declaring it to be so, ipso facto, as the JDS supporters attempt to do with regard to Jesus on the cross. Sin is not something tangible like a coat of black paint with which God painted His Son; nor is it like an inoculation of germs which some scientist could inject into the bloodstream as the Nazis did to some of their victims during the last World War. Sin is an act, whether in deed, word, or thought, which one must personally commit. This rules out all possibility that Jesus could be made "sin." He was a holy "sin-offering" unto God just as the Old Testament type depicted.
Furthermore, if, as the JDS teachers contend, Jesus were required to become "sin" so that He could identify with the fallen human race at all points, then He failed to accomplish such a complete identification. Why? Because He would have had to submit to temptations and to commit some sin during His lifetime just as all men do--if He were required to identify with men at all points. But the Scriptures are emphatically clear on this matter--Jesus Christ was without sin (John 8:46; Heb. 4:14-15). The JDS teachers completely ignore this fact. In addition, it would have been necessary for Jesus to have identified with sinful humanity at His birth also.
To be Continued.
God willing, more will be posted soon. All glory to Jesus alone.
DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY ? Part 2 of 6. Continued.
As the Old Testament clearly shows, the sin-offering at no point became an unholy sacrifice, either before or after its death. Obviously, this fact is diametrically opposed to the JDS Doctrine which contends that Jesus actually became "sin" (2 Cor. 5:21) by taking upon Himself Satan's evil nature, and became an unholy sacrifice consigned to Hell. In Leviticus 6:25-29 we are clearly informed that the sin-offering was MOST HOLY to God both before and after its death. In fact, even after its death in substitution for the sinner it remained most holy. Only the anointed priest could touch it and eat it (he could not touch or eat anything unclean), and it was to be eaten in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle. Moreover, anything or anyone that touched the sin-offering after it had been sacrificed also became holy! This fact alone is evidence of the sacredness of the sin-offering in God's sight, for even after its death it remained most holy to Him. JDS teaching which attempts to make Jesus unholy and unregenerate is clearly out of harmony with the Word of God. For example, in Leviticus 6 God says:
Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, this is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that offereth if for sin shall eat it; in the holy place shall it be eaten in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy ...All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy (Lev. 6:25-29; cf. 7:1f.) In the case of the sin-offering for the priest, it was burned in a clean place without the camp, signifying it was holy. It was burned without the camp and not on the altar to keep from confusing it with the whole burnt-offering. Although the sin-offering of an individual was eaten by the priests, he could not eat of his own as it was most holy to God, and so it was burned in a clean place (Lev. 4).
This passage in itself is sufficient to disprove the false which teaches that Jesus became sin with man's sinfulness and had to be born again. He was a Sin-offering, not sin, and was, therefore, holy in the cross and after His death in fulfillment of the Old Testament type. Why all the stress on the Old Testament animal type being holy unto God if the antitype, the Lamb of God, was to become "sin" and constitute an unholy sacrifice? The JDS Doctrine does not have Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament prophetic type at the most vital point--in His sacrificial death as a holy, sinless Substitute for sinners. The Word of God states clearly that the sin-offering, a type of God's Lamb, was most holy to God in its death; the JDS Doctrine teaches that the antitype, the actual Lamb of God, became sin and unholy, and was totally abandoned and rejected by God in His death. The contradiction between God's Word and man's theories should be evident to all.
THE HEBREW TERM
The JDS Doctrine overlooks another fact which has to do with the Hebrew term for "sin" and "sin-offering." Evidently the JDS teachers are unaware of the fact that these two English terms are one and the same term in the Hebrew language! As a consequence, the JDS ministers stress the "letter" of the world as used in 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For he has made him sin, who knew no sin..." However, the Apostle Paul knew, as did every other Hebrew, that when one spoke in the Hebrew language about the sin-offering he used the Hebrew term, chatta't, which was also the word for "sin." Transliterations in this whole study follow the modern Hebrew (Sefardic), rather than the "classical" pronunciation generally taught in religious schools, because of the revival of spoken Hebrew. That is, the term translated as "sin-offering" and "sin" in one and the same in Hebrew. It was the context in which the term was used which expressed whether one was speaking about the sin-offering of sin itself.
For example, if the context concerned the subject of sacrifices, then the "sin-offering" was understood to be meant by the Hebrew term chatta't; the sacrifice was called by the name of the offense (sin) for which it was to die on the sinner's behalf. If sin itself was under discussion, then the same term, chatta't, could be used, but in this instance with the obvious meaning of "sin," not the sin-offering. In Leviticus, for instance, the term chatta't is used for sin itself on several occasions, but it also stands for the sin-offering over 50 times. As an Israelite, the Apostle Paul clearly had the sin-offering in view in 2 Corinthians 5:21, inasmuch as the term for sin and the sin-offering is identical to Hebrew. The Apostle simply follows here the customary practice of the Jewish translators when rendering Hebrew into Greek.
This is confirmed also by the Jewish Septuagint translators who used the Greek term for "sin," hamartia, to translate the Hebrew term for the sin-offering in their translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek (cf. Lev. 5:11; 6:25, and 7:27 in the Greek Septuagint). No Jewish Christian, unlike the JDS teachers, would have confused "sin" with the sin-offering, even though they are expressed by the same term in Hebrew. This is also true with regard to the terms trespass and trespass-offering;
1. The term "curse" (Gal. 3:10-13) is also to be understood in this sense. Death was the curse of the Law (Deut. 28). Thus, Christ was made a "curse" in the sense that He suffered the curse of the Law (death) on our behalf. However, He was not cursed as sin as the JDS Doctrine erroneously teaches. 2. Other Hebrew terms meant: "iniquity"; "transgression"; "rebellion," and so on. The basic term, however, was chatta't, meaning sin or sin-offering.
This is also true with regard to the terms trespass and trespass-offering; They are the same term in Hebrew--'asham. The substitutionary offering of Christ is called a trespass-offering ('asham in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:10). The KJV and the ASV translate this term as "an offering for sin," indicating thereby that His death on the cross is to be regarded as a "trespass-offering" for sinners, not that He Himself became a "trespass" of "sin" as the JDS teachers incorrectly assert (note ASV margin: Heb. "a trespass-offering"). In addition to the Septuagint translators using the Greek term for "sin" to translate the Hebrew term for "sin-offering," this usage is also found in the Book of Hebrews. This is evident from Hebrews 10:6 where we read: "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin..." Here again only the Greek term for "sin" occurs in the Greek New Testament, but it is used in the sense of "sin-offering."
The translators of the English version are aware of the fact, inasmuch as they translate the term "sin" as meaning "sin-offering." This is evident in that they supply (in Italics) the word "sacrifices," signifying that the term "sin" is being used by the writer of Hebrews to express the sacrifice for sin (sin-offering) and not actual sin itself. This is in harmony both with the context in which burnt-offerings are mentioned, and with common Hebrew usage as shown earlier. Likewise the ASV (margin) on Romans 8:3 also supplies the words "as an offering" for sin. The Apostle Paul here, as he does no doubt in 2 Corinthians 5:21 , uses the term "sin" in the sense of the "sin-offering." Furthermore, in support of this usage some of the versions either translate 2 Corinthians 5:21 as "sin-offering," or as the equivalent choice in the margin. See the N.T., Williams; R.V., NIV; Greek-English N.T., Marshall.
It is significant that the Apostle Paul states in I Corinthians 1:30 that Christ was made, not sin, but "righteousness" unto us in a passage where he deals with the cross (cf. 1:18). Since he obviously would not contradict himself, then 2 Corinthians 5:21 should have been translated according to Hebrew usage as "sin-offering." For he hath made him a sin-offering for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The sin-offering did not typify something sinful at death to the Jews as the JDS ministers depict Christ, but it typified a sinless sacrifice for sin. This is precisely the New Testament view concerning the death of Jesus Christ Who "...offered himself without spot to God..." (Heb. 9:14; cf. I Peter 1:18-19).
Another example of how the JDS teachers twist the intended meaning of a passage is seen here. They substitute for the statement that Christ has become our righteousness the erroneous concept that He had to be made righteous Himself since he had become sin! The Apostle is clearly stating here that Jesus is our means of right standing with God. The KJV rendering Hebrews 9:28 as Jesus will"...appear the second time without sin unto salvation" is clear in meaning. However, the term "without" is choris in Greek with the meaning here of "apart from." That is, the First Advent was to bear away sin; the Second will be with reference to the realization of our salvation. Many versions give a clearer translation of the Greek term as: "apart from sin"; "not to deal with sin"; "not as a sin bearer," etc.
Point 2 IDENTIFICATION, OR SUBSTITUTION ON THE CROSS?
The JDS teachers contend erroneously that Jesus had to become "sin" on the cross in order to identify with sinners at all points. Only in this way could He redeem them. This inaccurate conclusion also stems from a lack of understanding concerning the meaning of the Old Testament sacrifices. The second lesson God was teaching Israel (and the Church) through the sin-offering, as well as all the sacrifices, was the Doctrine of Substitution--not identification. The distinction is very important. Aside from the obvious fact that God's Word shows that no sinner could redeem another sinner (seen in the O.T. requirement for the animal substitute to be without spot, as well as the N.T. stress upon the holy, spotless nature of Jesus and His sacrifice, Heb. 9;14), the Scriptures do not teach identification with sinners on the cross, but substitution. No acceptable substitute could possibly identify with the sinful, guilty individual he was to redeem.
Jesus identified with mankind in His birth when the Son of God took upon Himself human nature; but in His sacrificial death He became the sinner's substitute. The Scriptures clearly teach that He identified with humanity at His birth, not in His death. This is seen, for example, in Hebrews 2;14-18. Verse 14 reads: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same... This passage shows that the Son of God took upon Himself human nature for two reasons: (1) so that through His endurance of temptations He could succour us in our temptations; and (2) so that He could offer His body as a sacrifice in order to reconcile man to God. The Scriptures just as clearly teach that His death signifies substitution FOR sinners, not identification WITH sinners. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).
It was substitution, not identification at Calvary,"...the just for the unjust..." (I Peter 3:18). While we were sinners, Christ, the sinless One, died for us. Nothing could be clearer. A sinner on the cross would be dying for his own sins; thus, Jesus became a sin-offering, not sin, in order to fulfill the Old Testament type. If Jesus actually became "sin" with our sinfulness on the cross He would have been dying for Himself. This is such an obvious fact that one JDS teacher was compelled to admit this conclusion. This individual said: Jesus did not merely die for us, He died for himself. He died twice--once for himself when he became sin, and once for us. Of course, this teacher did not see the glaring contradiction in this statement. Anyone who had to die for himself because he had become sin would thereby be disqualified to be a substitute for other sinners.
But then, the whole JDS Doctrine is a contradiction to the biblical Doctrine of Christ and His substitutionary Atonement. Identification with sinners? What saith the Scripture? God's Word declares that Jesus was ...holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners (Heb. 7;26). Thus, the JDS teachers erroneously misuse the terms "substitution" and "identification." They teach that when Jesus became "sin" He identified with sinners; then, as unregenerate and sinful in nature, He suffered God's punishment in Hell as the sinner's substitute. That is, contrary to the biblical requirement that the substitute be (and remain) holy, the JDS Doctrine teaches that Jesus substituted Himself as the unregenerate, guilty person, Who took into His spirit all the sin and evil of the human race, and was punished in place of the sinner. On the contrary, the Scriptures show that Jesus, as the Old Testament type also indicated, did not become "sin," but was a holy sin-offering.
He did not identify with sinners, but was a sinless substitute for them on the cross. Jesus was not a SUBSTITUTE SINNER, but the SINNER'S SUBSTITUTE on the cross. The JDS teachers contend, on the basis of Numbers 21, which presents the account of the lifting up of the brazen serpent for the healing of those bitten by the fiery serpents, that Jesus was also lifted up as a "serpent" when He was made "sin" on the cross and took on the evil nature of Satan. Quoting John 3:14, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up," they contend that Jesus became one with the serpent, Satan, and died spiritually. The account in Numbers 21, however, does not support this fantasy. God sent fiery serpents as punishment against the rebellious Israelites. As a result of the intercession of Moses, God directed him to make a figure of a serpent, in brass, to be elevated on a pole so that it could be seen from all quarters in the camp.
All who looked in faith in its direction were healed. The brazen serpent did not produce healing; it was merely an emblem. it spoke of their sin and the nature of divine judgment sent to punish it. Their faith in God's promise to heal brought deliverance when they obeyed this requirement. Without question, merely to look upon an inanimate object, the serpent of brass, would not have produced healing for an individual unless faith was also present. By analogy, if Jesus became a "serpent" in nature as the JDS error teaches, then healing was provided by Satan, the Serpent, in Numbers 21, and not God, since healing came as they looked to the serpent on the pole! Clearly, then, Jesus had reference to the manner of His death in John 3:14--He was to be "lifted up" on the cross; he was not referring to a change in His nature, from holy to unholy and sinful. 1. JDS teachers sometimes cite Ephesians 2:5, "Even when we were dead in sins [God] hath quickened us together with Christ" as meaning that Christ, as we, also being dead in "sin' had to made alive! However, verse 6 indicates clearly that the Apostle speaks here of the resurrection.
This fact is clearly stated in the same Gospel of John and proves that the phrase "lifted up" has reference to the manner of His death, not a change in nature, from sinless to serpent. He was signifying that He was to be "lifted up" on a cross. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die (John 12:32-33). The reader should not be deluded by the use of biblical terminology at times by the JDS teachers, such as the use of terms like "substitution," "blood atonement," "identification," "justification," "firstborn," "Abrahamic covenant," and so on.
This caution is necessary because the JDS ministers most definitely do not use these terms and concepts according to their biblical meaning and usage many times. For example, they destroy, by their erroneous interpretations, the validity of these terms and concepts in their scriptural sense when they teach that Jesus was sinful "substitute"; or that Jesus' death fulfilled the "Abrahamic Covenant," when in actual fact it was the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant of the Law as will be shown. By teaching that Jesus was a sinful substitute, Who identified with sinners on the cross, the biblical meaning of the term "substitute" is perverted; and by making Jesus evil in nature Who needed to be born again Himself, they have robbed His blood of its purity and atoning power.
WHAT CONSTITUTES BEING A SINNER?
To answer this question will indicate why Jesus was not identified with sinners, becoming one in nature with them, on the cross. What constitutes being a sinner? (1) He is sinful by nature. All men are said to be"...by nature the children of wrath..." (Eph. 2:3; cf. Rom. 3:9-23; 5:12f.). However, Jesus, in His human nature, was holy. His birth did not come through Joseph, but was supernaturally wrought by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:33-35). (2) He is sinful in his actions, thoughts, and speech. According to the Scriptures men sin in thought, word, and in deeds (Gen. 6:5; Ps. 14; Rom. 1-3). However, Jesus lived without the commission of any act of sin (Heb. 4:15). Jesus, therefore, lacks the "qualifications" to act as the sacrifice for the JDS teachers; they will have to look elsewhere than to the sinless Son of God! Their "substitute" is precisely that--a substitute--who is not the Jesus of the Bible.
Confronted with this fact, some JDS ministers have begun to say, "Well, Jesus did not personally sin; he was made to be sin by God. He took upon himself the sinfulness of the human race and became evil in nature with Satan's nature." This is impossible inasmuch as sin is a personal act of disobedience to the will of God. Jesus never once disobeyed His Father, and most certainly not on the cross, for here He was in God's perfect will (John 3:16), and in nature, He was sinless. And yet, it is here--on the cross that the JDS teachers make Him to be sin and unregenerate. Moreover, they actually charge the heavenly Father with the act of making His Son to be "sin." However, if God, according to His own Word, cannot tempt any man to sin (James 1:13), then how could He conceivably be charged with making His sinless Son to become actual sin? Sin is moral in nature.
Jesus could not have become immoral or unregenerate merely by a divine fiat; it would require Him to commit an act of sin personally by His own choice. One cannot arbitrarily make someone else a sinner or cause him to become sin simply by declaring it to be so, ipso facto, as the JDS supporters attempt to do with regard to Jesus on the cross. Sin is not something tangible like a coat of black paint with which God painted His Son; nor is it like an inoculation of germs which some scientist could inject into the bloodstream as the Nazis did to some of their victims during the last World War. Sin is an act, whether in deed, word, or thought, which one must personally commit. This rules out all possibility that Jesus could be made "sin." He was a holy "sin-offering" unto God just as the Old Testament type depicted.
Furthermore, if, as the JDS teachers contend, Jesus were required to become "sin" so that He could identify with the fallen human race at all points, then He failed to accomplish such a complete identification. Why? Because He would have had to submit to temptations and to commit some sin during His lifetime just as all men do--if He were required to identify with men at all points. But the Scriptures are emphatically clear on this matter--Jesus Christ was without sin (John 8:46; Heb. 4:14-15). The JDS teachers completely ignore this fact. In addition, it would have been necessary for Jesus to have identified with sinful humanity at His birth also.
To be Continued.
God willing, more will be posted soon. All glory to Jesus alone.
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek
हिन्दी