DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY ?
Exposing the JDS Heresy
POINT 1
SIN, OR A SIN-OFFERING AT CALVARY?
If Jesus literally became sin as the JDS Doctrine teaches, this would have violated the Old Testament type.
The Old Testament animal type, which was to die as a substitute for the sinner, had to be without spot or blemish (Leviticus 4:3, 27-28; 9:3; Deuteronomy 15:21). This requirement, which was stated again and again, was for the purpose of teaching Israel (and the Church) the lesson, which is apparently lost to the JDS teachers, that a substitute which would be acceptable to God had to be holy and guiltless itself in order to bear the punishment for the guilt of the sinner.
This truth was ritually depicted in the Old Testament requirement that the animal substitute must be without spot or blemish; this fact was actually realized in Jesus, the Lamb of God, who "...offered himself without spot to God..." (Hebrews 9:14).
When the JDS teachers insist that Jesus literally became sin and had to be born again, they expose the basic flaw in their heretical doctrine which stems from their apparent ignorance of the nature of the Old Testament sacrifices, especially the sin-offering. In addition, as will be shown, there seems to be a lack of knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible which is also reflected in their erroneous teachings.
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" (II Corinthians 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 it 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 (Leviticus 6:25-29; cf. 7:1f.)
Note: In the case of the sin-offering for the priest, it was burned in clean place without the camp, signifying it too 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 (Leviticus 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 word as used in II Corinthians 5:21: "For he hath 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."
Note: Transliterations in this book follow the modern Hebrew (Sefardic), rather than the "classical" pronunciation generally taught in religious schools, because of the revival of spoken Hebrew (Sefardic) in Israel.
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.
Note: The term "curse" (Galatians 3:10-13) is also to be understood in this sense. Death was the curse of the Law (Deuteronomy 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.
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.
Note: Other Hebrew terms meant: "iniquity," "transgression." "rebellion," and so on. The basic term, however, was chatta't, meaning sin or 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 II 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," aJmartiva (hamartia), to translate the Hebrew term for the sin-offering in their translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek (cf. Leviticus 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; 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 II 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 II Corinthians 5:21 as "sin-offering," or as the equivalent choice in the margin (The New Testament, Williams; R.V., 1881; NIV; Greek-English New Testament, 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. I Corinthians 1:18).
Note: 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.
Since he obviously would not contradict himself, then II 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..." (Hebrews 9:14; cf. I Peter 1:18-19).
Note: 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.