The Spiritual Death of Jesus a Pentecostal Investigation 1nbsped 9789047425311 9789004171992 Compress

The ‘Spiritual Death’ of Jesus
Global Pentecostal
and Charismatic Studies
Edited by
Andrew Davies, Mattersey Hall Graduate School
,
William Kay, Bangor University
Advisory Board
Allan Anderson, University of Birmingham
Mark Cartledge, University of Birmingham
Jacqueline Grey, Southern Cross College, Sydney
Byron D Klaus, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary,
Springfield, MO
Wonsuk Ma, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
Cecil M Robeck, Jr, Fuller Theological Seminary
Calvin Smith, Midlands Bible College
VOLUME 1
The ‘Spiritual Death’
of Jesus
A Pentecostal Investigation
by
William P. Atkinson
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2009
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Atkinson, William, 1961-

The "spiritual death" of Jesus : a Pentecostal investigation / by William P. Atkinson.
p. cm. -- (Global Pentecostal and charismatic studies ; v. 1)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.
ISBN 978-90-04-17199-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Jesus Christ--Crucifixion. 2. Kenyon,
Essek William, 1867-1948. 3. Faith movement (Hagin) 4. Pentecostalism. I. Title. II. Series.
BT450.A84 2009
232.96’3--dc22
2008051634
ISSN 1876-2247
ISBN 978 90 04 17199 2
Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. The JDS debate and debaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. The Word-faith movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Three foremost JDS teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. JDS teaching in theological context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. Categories of participant in the JDS debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6. Growing opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7. Dissenting voices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8. Mediating positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
9. Chapter conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2. Scope, criteria and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2. Scope and limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3. Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4. Conformity with the biblical witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5. Kenyon’s contemporary influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6. Reference to Christian theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3. Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ and its necessity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2. Biblical references to ‘spiritual death’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3. Historical references to ‘spiritual death’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4. JDS teaching’s terminology in modern Christian theology . . . . 125
5. The necessity of Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
vi contents
4. Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ as separation from God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
2. The JDS articulation of Jesus’ separation from God . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3. Criticisms of the JDS position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
4. The possibility of a separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5. The timing of a possible separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
6. The nature of a possible separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
5. Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ as partaking of a sinful, satanic nature . . . . 187

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
2. Satan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
3. Partaking of a sinful, satanic nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4. The responses of the critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
5. Kenyon’s, Hagin’s and Copeland’s sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
6. History of the tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
6. Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ as becoming Satan’s prey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
2. The views of Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
3. Responses of the critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
4. JDS sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5. Alternative proposals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
2. Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
3. Further responses to the critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
4. Sundry observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
5. Overall appraisal of JDS teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Index of references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Index of authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Index of subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
PREFACE
I am a minister in the Elim Pentecostal Church and for ten years was
part of the ministry team at Kensington Temple, an Elim church in
London. There I heard visiting speakers including Benny Hinn, Ray
McCauley, Morris Cerullo, John Avanzini, and others who were iden-
tified with the Word-faith movement. There too I first heard preached,
by a visitor, the belief that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ (JDS). While at Kens-
ington Temple I was also introduced for the first time to the critique of
the Word-faith movement offered by Dan McConnell. Although I was
impressed by his research, I was convinced neither by his association
of E.W. Kenyon with New Thought, nor by his seemingly reductionist
counter-arguments to JDS teaching.
My interest in JDS teaching has remained with me over the years.
The opportunity arose to research the doctrine at doctoral level, and
I engaged in this research under the supervision of the University of
Edinburgh, from 2004 to 2007. I thoroughly enjoyed the research, and
learned a great amount. The doctoral thesis title was, “A Theological
Appraisal of the Doctrine that Jesus ‘Died Spiritually’, as Taught by
Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland.” This book is a slightly edited version
of that thesis.
Recognising that the Word-faith movement has much in common
with Pentecostals, I felt potentially well placed to conduct this research.
I considered it from my own Pentecostal perspective, though with a
greater interest in historical theology than would perhaps be common
in my denomination. I expected to find more of value in JDS teach-
ing than its critics allow, and so was surprised to discover the extent to
which I disagree with JDS teaching. It is of some value in preventing
the ‘sanitising’ of the horrors of Christ’s crucifixion that can so eas-
ily bedevil Christianity. However, one does not need JDS teaching for
protection against this sanitisation. More significant than its value for
Pentecostals are its difficulties. In particular, it misrepresents the incar-
nation, the part Satan played in the crucifixion, and the time between
cross and resurrection. Thereby, it does not furnish Pentecostals with
a helpful contribution to understanding how Christ achieved salvation
for humanity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am most grateful for the contributions* of others who helped me in the

development of this book. My doctoral supervisors in the University of
Edinburgh School of Divinity, Professors David Fergusson and Larry
Hurtado, made innumerable suggestions, large and small, all of which
are much appreciated. Kenyon researchers Geir Lie, Jim McIntyre
and Dale Simmons answered my various questions with kindness and
patience. David Woodfield supplied a number of important Word-faith
sources, and Robert Forrest brought certain early church sources to my
attention.
I also want to thank members of the research community at Regents
Theological College, Nantwich. Various people there made helpful
suggestions in response to papers that I gave, including particularly
Keith Warrington, Neil Hudson, Julian Ward, and Martin Clay.
Once the PhD was gained, Robert Graves helped me invaluably
in the task of finding a willing publisher. I am most grateful. Brill
is of course that publisher. My thanks go to Ingeborg van der Laan,
Maarten Frieswijk, Andrew Davies, William Kay and all involved staff
for their help in transforming a doctoral thesis into a published book.
Lastly, I want to thank my wife Alison for her wonderful patience in
reading this project as it developed.
* The permission of the original publishers is gratefully acknowledged for the reuse
in this book of material that has previously been published as follows:

Chapter 3: “Spirit, Soul and Body: The Trichotomism of Kenyon, Hagin, and
Copeland” Refleks 5:1 (2006): 98–118.
Chapter 5: “The Nature of the Crucified Christ in Word-Faith Teaching” Evangelical
Review of Theology 31:2 (2007): 169–184.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB The Anchor Bible

ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Volumes I–VIII: editors Alexander Roberts
and James Donaldson; Volume X: editor Allan Menzies)
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
CD Church Dogmatics
ICC The International Critical Commentary
INTC The IVP New Testament Commentary Series
JDS Jesus ‘died spiritually’
IVP Inter-Varsity Press
JEPTA The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association
JPT Journal of Pentecostal Theology
KJV King James Version
LW Luther’s Works (editors Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann)
LXX Septuagint
NCBC The New Century Bible Commentary
NICNT The New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary
NKJV New King James Version
NovT Novum Testamentum
NPNF The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (editors Philip Schaff and Henry
Wace)
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NTS New Testament Studies
ORU Oral Roberts University
pb paperback
RSV Revised Standard Version
TDNT The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Volume VI: Gerhard
Friedrich)
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
UK United Kingdom
US(A) United States (of America) (standard abbreviations of US states
are used in bibliographical information)
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
INTRODUCTION
This book offers an appraisal of the doctrine that Jesus ‘died spiritu-
ally’ (JDS), as taught by E.W. Kenyon, Kenneth E. Hagin and Ken-
neth Copeland. It ascertains what these authors teach about the alleged
‘spiritual death’ of Jesus, and assesses whether there is value for Chris-
tianity in these ideas. JDS teaching has been widely regarded by its
reviewers as ‘heretical’, but the satisfactoriness of this critique requires
detailed investigation, which it has hardly yet received. The hypothesis
tested by the research is that JDS doctrine is more congruent with bib-
lical and historic Christian affirmations about the death of Christ than
its detractors suggest. The research concludes that, while this hypothe-
sis is to a limited extent true, nevertheless there is much in JDS teaching
of which Christians may be rightly wary.
The research is important for several reasons. First, it contributes
to scholarly debate into the lives and teaching both of E.W. Kenyon
and of the Word-faith movement, of which Kenneth Hagin and Ken-
neth Copeland are major proponents. Research of this type is neces-
sary, because Word-faith doctrines are widely influential and often in
distinct contrast to ideas traditionally held by Christians. To date, lit-
tle detailed research into either Kenyon or the Word-faith movement
has occurred. Dale Simmons’ doctoral work lays an important founda-
tion for Kenyon research,1 and James Kinnebrew’s unpublished thesis
is an example of doctoral research into one aspect of the Word-faith
movement’s teaching and practice: positive confession.2 However, most
of the movement’s distinctive ideas and practices have so far only been
subjected to the scrutiny of evangelical (often Pentecostal/ charismatic)
Christians writing for a popular market and doing so in little detail.3
1 Dale H. Simmons, E.W. Kenyon and the Postbellum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and Plenty
(Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1997).

2 James M. Kinnebrew, “The Charismatic Doctrine of Positive Confession: A His-
torical, Exegetical, and Theological Critique” (Th.D. diss., Mid-America Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary, 1988).
3 Single chapters or sections on JDS teaching occur in such works as: Andrew
Brandon, Health & Wealth (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1987); Dan McConnell, The Promise
2 introduction
Secondly, another reason why this research into JDS teaching is worth-
while is that some of the best known responses to the teaching have
been markedly polemical, and a sense is thereby created that research
which listens respectfully to both sides of the debate might reach rather
different conclusions from the more robustly polemical contributions.
Thirdly, research conducted so far has exhibited certain methodologi-
cal insufficiencies or weaknesses, most noticeable of which is a marked
lack of interaction with historical Christian theology. This lack will be
rectified in the present work. Fourthly, the influence of the Word-faith
movement has been greatest among Pentecostal and charismatic Chris-
tians, for the Word-faith movement sits within, or ‘beyond’, the Pente-
costal end of the evangelical spectrum. Therefore research conducted
from a Pentecostal viewpoint, as this is, can be sensitive to those doc-
trinal distinctives that are common to Pentecostalism, and those which
are genuinely unique to JDS teaching. Finally, this research is impor-
tant because questions surrounding the cross of Christ are, by defini-
tion, ‘crucial’ to Christianity, and deserve careful study by or on behalf
of professing Christians.
JDS doctrine will be studied in the forms taught by E.W. Kenyon,
widely recognised as its progenitor, Kenneth E. Hagin, widely regarded
as the founder of the Word-faith movement, and Kenneth Copeland,
widely seen as the main living proponent of the Word-faith move-
ment and of JDS doctrine. In fact, JDS doctrine is taught fairly widely
throughout the Word-faith movement, but with some variety. A full
study of every nuance of JDS teaching as it emanates from each expo-
nent of the Word-faith movement would not be possible within a book
of this size. Therefore some selection is imperative. The three authors
have been chosen for this work because of their renown and signifi-
cance, because of the relative uniformity of the versions of JDS teach-
ing that they espouse, and because they teach JDS doctrine in some
of its most distinct forms. Most other expressions of the doctrine are
‘toned down’ versions, that have accommodated certain aspects of JDS
teaching with more traditional ideas about Christ’s death.
This project lies within the field of theology, drawing on biblical and
historic sources to inform one detailed subsection of systematic theol-
of Health and Wealth (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1990); Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity
in Crisis (Milton Keynes: Nelson Word Ltd: UK edn, 1995 [1993]); Robert M. Bowman,
Jr, The Word-Faith Controversy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001); Andrew Perriman,
ed., Faith, Health & Prosperity (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003).
introduction 3
ogy. It self-consciously furthers an already existing debate. As such, it

respects and largely remains confined to the assumptions and methods
underlying the debate. The most obvious of these is the place given to
biblical teaching, and the way(s) it is understood. This book is written
from my Pentecostal perspective: I am a minister within the Elim Pen-
tecostal Church. In common with many protestant groups, Pentecostal
churches including Elim regard the Christian scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments as the finally authoritative canon against which any
putatively Christian idea is to be gauged.4 This work will follow suit.
Each chapter will contain a section in which the aspect of JDS doctrine
under examination will be compared to relevant biblical texts. Beyond
that, the project will consider aspects of historical theology: specifically,
what Kenyon’s immediate theological sources may have been, and what
major thinkers have written on the subjects under review. As a theolog-
ical project, it will not primarily be interested in a Christian group as
an exercise in religious studies. Therefore, no sustained attempt will
be made to define or delineate the Word-faith movement, which is an
informal and amorphous group.
The work which follows is organised into seven chapters. Chap-
ters 1 and 2 are preliminary. Chapter 1 introduces the context for fur-
ther study, by surveying the Word-faith movement, the authors under
review, JDS teaching, and the criticisms of JDS teaching that have so
far been offered. Chapter 2 sets out the scope, criteria and methods
that this book utilises. Chapters 3 to 6 consider JDS teaching in detail.
Chapter 3 reviews the claims that Jesus ‘died spiritually’, and that he
had to do this in order to save humanity from sin and sickness. There-
after, chapters 4, 5, and 6 discuss three interlocking aspects of the teach-
ing: the ‘spiritual death’ of Jesus as separation from God; as partaking
in a sinful, satanic nature; and as becoming Satan’s prey. Finally, chap-
ter 7 summarises the research findings and assesses their implications.
Each of chapters 1 to 6 presents its own conclusions in a final section,
organised into three subsections: ‘summary’; ‘implications’; and ‘key
observations’. The final subsections, ‘key observations’, do not seek to
4 The first of twelve ‘Fundamental Truths’ of the Elim Church reads: “THE
BIBLE: We believe the Bible, as originally given, to be without error, the fully inspired
and infallible Word of God and the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith
and conduct.” (Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance, The Constitution of the Elim Pentecostal
Church [Cheltenham: The Elim Pentecostal Church, 2000], 1). For other representative
Pentecostal statements of belief, see Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (London:
SCM, 1972), 513–521.
4 introduction
summarise or reflect upon the findings of each whole chapter. Instead,

especially for the sake of those familiar with JDS teaching and its
surrounding debate, they emphasise ways in which this work advances
that debate, and thus offers a significant contribution to research into
JDS doctrine.
chapter one
THE JDS DEBATE AND DEBATERS
1. Introduction
This chapter is designed to serve three main purposes. First, it devel-

ops a rationale, already briefly mentioned in the introduction, for the
importance of this research, especially for Pentecostalism, by demon-
strating that JDS teaching’s theological ‘home’, the Word-faith move-
ment, is influential, that the JDS teachers under review are themselves
significant to the Word-faith movement, that JDS teaching is important
to these teachers, and that it needs to be considered by Pentecostals
because of the potential influence of JDS teaching on Pentecostalism.
The second aim of this chapter is perform some ‘personal introduc-
tions’. Brief biographical information about the three JDS teachers
under review, E.W. Kenyon, Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland,
will be offered. Thereafter, significant critics of JDS teaching will also
be introduced, as will the theological and sociological clusters into
which they can be grouped. The third aim of this chapter is to intro-
duce themes. JDS teaching and its theological context itself will be
briefly presented, though of course later chapters of the book will offer
far greater detail than that given here. Criticisms of JDS teaching will
also begin to emerge.
In order to achieve these aims, the chapter consists of eight sec-
tions. First, section 2 considers the ecclesiastical context of JDS teach-
ing by describing that section of Christianity where it flourishes most:
the Word-faith movement. It considers the Word-faith movement as a
whole, its growing influence and its relationship with Pentecostalism.
Next, section 3 introduces the three JDS proponents whose teaching on
the subject is reviewed in this research. Their relationship both with the
Word-faith movement and with JDS doctrine is examined. Thereafter,
section 4 offers a preliminary survey of JDS teaching itself, placing it in
its theological context, and mentioning the variety that exists between
the versions of the three teachers, and among other JDS teachers. Later
sections consider the contributions to the debate about JDS teaching
6 chapter one
from those who do not hold to it: section 5 introduces significant cate-
gories of debater; sections 6 to 8 consider major debaters individually,
in three groups under the headings ‘growing opposition’, ‘dissenting
voices’ and ‘mediating positions’. Finally, section 9 concludes the chap-
ter by summarising its findings and considering its implications for the
rest of the book.
At this point, ‘JDS teaching’ requires definition. For the purposes of
this work, it is any teaching that fulfils two criteria. First, it states in so
many words that Jesus ‘died spiritually’, refers to the ‘spiritual death’ of
Christ, or uses precisely equivalent terminology. Secondly, it uses such
phrases in accounts of salvation history in general and Christ’s death
in particular that bear some sustained resemblance to at least some
of the distinctive teaching of Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland. Thus, for
instance, the exposition by Billy Graham (1918–) of Christ’s death is
not regarded as JDS teaching on account of his writing the “awful
suffering of Jesus Christ was His spiritual death”,1 because Graham’s
overall teaching on the subject does2 not reflect Kenyon’s, Hagin’s or
Copeland’s distinctives. It must be conceded that this working definition
creates two potential difficulties. The first is that, in characterising
Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland as JDS teachers, it creates a definition
based on circular reasoning. This turns out not to be problematic,
however, for these three all share in a clearly distinct view of Christ’s
death, and have already been designated JDS teachers by a variety
of commentators. The second potential difficulty is that an arbitrary
distinction between ‘JDS teaching’ and ‘not JDS teaching’ is created,
whereas in fact a spectrum of perspectives is discernible, in which
different authors offer increasingly diluted versions, until hardly any
‘JDS’ element is to be seen. As the primary focus of this project is on
just three teachers, whose versions of JDS teaching are not dilute, this
arbitrariness is also not in practice problematic.
1Billy Graham, Peace With God (Kingswood, Surrey: The World’s Work, 1954), 83.
2Throughout the book, except where the context demands, the present tense is
used of authors known to be alive at the time of writing, the past tense of those already
dead, and the present tense when both living and dead authors are referred to.
the jds debate and debaters 7
2. The Word-faith movement
This section will present a brief overview of the movement’s origins

(2.1), beliefs (2.2), organisation (2.3) and influence (2.4).
2.1. Origins
The Word-faith movement3 is the theological ‘home’ of JDS teaching.
It is a loose affiliation4 of churches, informal fellowships and individuals
which started in the United States of America, and has now spread to
several continents. The movement has a number of identifiable roots.
One is Pentecostalism. Another is the healing ‘revival’ in the United
States after World War Two. A third important root is the teaching of
a certain E.W. Kenyon (1867–1948). Kenyon did not found a denom-
ination or movement. However, his influence has been considerable,
not least through his books, many of which remain in print. It was he
who first developed and taught JDS doctrine in the form in which it
still exists today. While it is not historically accurate to regard Kenyon
as part of the Word-faith movement, he nevertheless influenced its ori-
gins significantly, through his impact on the ‘father’ of the movement,
Kenneth E. Hagin (1917–2003). It was through Hagin that the various
strands behind Word-faith were threaded together. Hagin was a Pen-
tecostal;5 he was associated after the Second World War with healing
3 ‘Word-faith’ is the term preferred by Bowman, Controversy and Judith A. Matta,
The Born Again Jesus of the Word-Faith Teaching (Bellevue, WA: Spirit of Truth, 2nd
edition 1987 [1984]); cf. ‘Word of Faith’, the term employed by Perriman, Faith and
Milmon F. Harrison, Righteous Riches: The Word of Faith Movement in Contemporary African
American Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). Members of the movement
often prefer ‘Faith’ teacher (e.g. Kenneth Hagin Ministries’ publishing arm is ‘Faith
Library Publications’). McConnell and Kinnebrew follow this nomenclature, referring
to the ‘Faith movement’ (Promise and Doctrine). The movement is also known as the
‘Positive Confession’ movement (e.g. by Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon, The Seduction
of Christianity [Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1985]), as ‘Faith-formula’
theology (e.g. by Charles Farah, Jr, “A Critical Analysis: The ‘Roots and Fruits’ of Faith-
Formula Theology,” Pneuma 3.1 [1981]: 3–21), and less formally as ‘Prosperity theology’
or the ‘Health and Wealth’ movement.
4 For discussion about whether Word-faith can be validly regarded as a single
‘movement’, and his affirmative conclusion, see Bowman, Controversy, 28–29.

5 Kenneth E. Hagin, How You Can Be Led By The Spirit Of God (Tulsa, OK: Faith
Library Publications, 1978), 39; McConnell, Promise, 60; Perriman, Faith, 3.

8 chapter one
revivalists such as Oral Roberts;6 and he plagiarised Kenyon in much of

his teaching.7
It is impossible to state that the Word-faith movement began in a
particular year, but it is safe to say that it was during the 1960s that
Hagin’s ministry grew from that of a relatively unknown travelling
evangelist to that of an influential leader with a radio programme,
to which was soon added a regular magazine (The Word of Faith), a
television ministry, and a Bible college.8 Other significant leaders in the
movement, such as Kenneth Copeland, F.K.C. Price, Charles Capps,
and John Osteen, all acknowledge the profound impact of Kenneth
Hagin on their lives and ministries.9
2.2. Beliefs
The movement has been described as “Pentecostal” and as “a radical
form of Pentecostalism”,10 and certainly shares some key beliefs with
the latter group. With regard to its attitude to the Christian scriptures,
6 Kenneth E. Hagin, Praying To Get Results (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1983), 4; McConnell, Promise, 60–61, 67–69. Roberts (1918–) is a retired Pentecostal

healing evangelist, and founder of Oral Roberts University (ORU). He pioneered the
use of television in his ministry. See David E. Harrell, Jr., Oral Roberts: An American Life
(San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1985).
7 McConnell, Promise, 6–12; and see sections 3.2; 6.3; chapter 6, section 2.2.
8 N.a., “History,” http://www.rhema.org/about/history.cfm; Harrison, Righteous
Riches, 6–7; Perriman, Faith, 3.

9 McConnell, Promise, 4.
10 Bowman, Controversy, 7, 11; also 94; Perriman, Faith, 10, 14. It has also been
described as “a subdivision of the charismatic movement” by J.F. MacArthur Jr in

Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 265. The
terms ‘Pentecostal’ and ‘charismatic’ are usefully discussed by Stanley M. Burgess
and Gary B. McGee, “The Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements,” in Dictionary
of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 1–6. What the movements
have in common, they suggest, is that “both emphasize the present work of the
Spirit through gifts in the life of the individual and the church” (1). Yet they can
be distinguished both ecclesiologically and theologically. Ecclesiologically, Pentecostals
have grouped into denominations, while charismatic Christians are found throughout
the historic denominations, or in independent groups. Theologically, Pentecostal groups
characteristically hold to a belief in a ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ as a work of grace
subsequent, at least logically, to regeneration. This is often associated with a belief
that speaking in tongues is evidence of this work of grace (1). Charismatic views
about ‘baptism in the Spirit’ and speaking in tongues are more diverse. Pentecostal
denominations, many of which arose in the early decades of the twentieth century,
are sometimes known as ‘classical Pentecostals’, while charismatics, whose movement
is often dated back to the 1950s or 1960s (e.g., with regard to Britain, by P. Hocken,
for instance, it can probably best be regarded as ‘fundamentalist’,11 in

keeping with much Pentecostalism.12 Moreover, like Pentecostalism, it
is definitely charismatic, in the sense that it expects ‘supernatural gifts’,
such as are listed by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:8–10, to occur
today.13
Beyond these fundamentalist and charismatic beliefs, however, lies
a cluster of ideas with which not all Pentecostals would agree. The
Word-faith movement is perhaps best known for its focus on faith, as
a quality of Christian life which must be spoken out and acted upon
in order to become a channel for receiving God’s blessings, and on
abiding health and wealth as two key examples of those blessings. In
particular, its positive attitude to material prosperity has brought it
considerable notoriety. However, while these are its best known beliefs,
its main proponents also adhere to a distinctive and debatable view of
salvation history. In short, humanity was created as a spiritual, God-
like being. Its fall into sin represented ‘high treason’, in which the first
humans gave away the authority which God had granted them to their
enemy the Devil. Christ came to win their forgiveness, and to regain
their authority. Christ’s atoning work involved His ‘spiritual death’, in
which He was not only separated from God, but took on ‘the satanic
nature’ and became Satan’s prey for the three days which He spent in
hell. Redeemed humanity is destined to share God’s nature, a destiny
into which it is possible by faith to enter in this life.
Streams of Renewal [Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2nd edition 1997 (1986)]) are also known
as neo-Pentecostals.
11 For useful descriptions of fundamentalism, see J.I. Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the
Word of God (Leicester: IVP, 1958), chs 1 and 2 (writing in defence of the view) and James
Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM Press, 1977), ch. 1.
12 For Pentecostalism’s relationship to fundamentalism, see H.V. Synan, “Funda-
mentalism,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 324–327. For an assessment of fun-
damentalism’s legacy in current Pentecostalism, see William P. Atkinson, “Pentecostal
Hermeneutics: Worth a Second Look?” Evangel 21:2 (2003): 49–54.
13 Thus neither the Word-faith movement nor Pentecostalism, while both funda-
mentalist, is part of the historic Fundamentalist movement per se. Early American Fun-
damentalism aligned itself significantly with dispensationalism, which was cessationist
(Synan, “Fundamentalism,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 324–327). Barr dis-
tinguishes between ‘Fundamentalism’ as applied to “a fairly central and orthodox current
of Protestant conservatism” and “[f]undamentalist attitudes to the Bible . . . shared by
a wide variety of groups and religious currents, which may be primarily interested in
faith healing, in speaking with tongues, or in forecasting the end of the world” (Funda-
mentalism, 7, italics original). Cf. Perriman, Faith, 88, 100.
10 chapter one
The idea that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ was first called ‘JDS’ doctrine
by the late Hobart E. Freeman,14 a prominent Word-faith teacher.15 It
is also sometimes known as the ‘dual death’ or ‘double death’ theory,16
as it refers to Christ’s ‘two deaths’, physical and spiritual. This view
of Christ’s death, in its various forms, seems to be relatively common
in the movement, so much so that the movement’s critics generally
regard JDS doctrine as one of its defining characteristics. Nevertheless,
it has not been held by all. In fact, Hobart Freeman is among those
who refute JDS doctrine, in Did Jesus Die Spiritually? Exposing the JDS
Heresy.17 However, Troy Edwards perhaps goes too far when he claims
of Word-faith teachers, regarding JDS doctrine: “There are many who
either have never taught it or who once taught it but have rejected
this particular teaching.”18 It is not surprising that he provides no
substantiation for this possibly exaggerated claim.
Whether these views of Christ’s death are to be regarded as ‘ortho-
dox’ Christian ones, let alone Pentecostal ones, is a matter of heated re-
cent debate among, particularly, other fundamentalist and more broad-
ly ‘evangelical’19 Christians. Opinions vary from, at one extreme, view-
14 Hobart Freeman, “Exposing the JDS Heresy,” http://achristiancounselor.com/
false.html.
15 For Freeman’s links to the Word-faith movement, see Watchman Fellowship,
“Faith Assembly (Hobart Freeman),” Watchman Expositor (2000), http://www.watchman

.org/cults/freeman.htm; and Bruce Barron, The Health and Wealth Gospel (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), ch. 2.
16 Brandon, Health, 121; McConnell, Promise, 128. E.W. Kenyon himself used the term
‘dual death’ (The Father and His Family [Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing
Society, 1998 (1916, 1937)], 137).
17 Warsaw, IN: Faith Ministries Publications, n.d. Also available electronically as
“Exposing the JDS Heresy.” See n. 14 above. Further references are to the electronic
version.
18 Troy J. Edwards, Sr., “The Divine Son of God Tasted Death In All It’s [sic] Phases
So You Don’t Have To: Part 1,” http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/

jds/tenrsn3.html.
19 For the purposes of this book, David Bebbington’s famous characterisation of
evangelicalism will suffice: it is marked by conversionism, activism, biblicism, and cru-

cicentrism (Evangelicalism in Modern Britain [London: Routledge, 1989], 3). While Barr
argues for the near synonymity of ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘conservative evangelical’ (Barr,
Fundamentalism, ch. 1), and Packer uses the terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘evangelical’
interchangeably (Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’, ch. 1), not all within the wider evangelical
community would agree. For example, Nigel Wright sides with conservative evangeli-
calism against fundamentalism (The Radical Evangelical: Seeking a Place to Stand [London:
SPCK, 1996], 9–10): “Along with conservative evangelicalism, we reject fundamental-
ism on account of its suspicion of scholarship, its literalist and wooden approaches to
ing Word-faith views as “occultic,”20 through seeing them as “heresy”21

and as a “peculiar mix of truth and error”22 to, at the other extreme,
regarding such theology as “legitimately. . . placed within an evangel-
ical Holiness tradition.”23 While these varied opinions relate to many
aspects of Word-faith teaching, the majority of commentators and crit-
ics devote space to, among other subjects, JDS teaching. It is not true
to suggest that they prioritise this discussion over, say, expressions of
concern about the Word-faith movement’s views on physical healing
and material prosperity. Nevertheless, the space they devote to the sub-
ject indicates that they recognise that JDS theology is an important
contributor to the movement’s whole doctrinal system, and worthy of
discussion.
2.3. Organisation
Notwithstanding its historical links to Pentecostalism, the Word-faith
movement is not tight-knit ecclesiologically. There is no all-embracing
denomination.24 Instead, the movement revolves around the teaching of
a relatively small number of high-profile teachers,25 who have sought to
disseminate their teaching widely, not least through the consistent use
of a wide range of modern communications media.26 They typically
the Bible, its separatism and bondage to particular cultures, its apocalypticism and its
identification with right-wing political agendas.”
20 Hunt and McMahon, Seduction, e.g. 101.
21 E.g. Farah, “Analysis,” 21; McConnell, Promise, 20; R. Jackson, “Prosperity Theol-
ogy and the Faith Movement,” Themelios 15.1 (1989): 23; Hanegraaff, Crisis, 135; Thomas
Smail, Andrew Walker and Nigel Wright, “ ‘Revelation Knowledge’ and Knowledge of
Revelation: The Faith Movement and the Question of Heresy,” JPT 5 (1994): 70; Bow-
man, Controversy, 176.
22 Perriman, Faith, 209.
23 Geir Lie, “The Theology of E.W. Kenyon: Plain Heresy or Within the Bound-
aries of Pentecostal-Charismatic ‘Orthodoxy’?” Pneuma 22.1 (2000): 114, with specific

reference to Kenyon.
24 There are, however, certain support structures for ministers: the International
Convention of Faith Ministries; the Rhema Ministerial Alliance International; and the
Fellowship of Inner-City Word of Faith Ministries (Harrison, Righteous Riches, 15–18).
25 E.g. Hagin, Copeland, Kenneth Hagin Jr., F.K.C. Price, John Avanzini, Robert
Tilton, Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle. See Hanegraaff, Crisis, ch. 1: “The Cast of Char-
acters.” Another identifiable type of teacher does not adhere to all Word-faith tenets,
but propagates enough of them to be associated, at least by critics, with the movement
(e.g. Benny Hinn, Morris Cerullo. See Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowl-
edge,” 59).
26 Cf. the coined term, ‘televangelist’.
12 chapter one
lead independent churches, often with great numerical success, and

lead ‘ministries’ named after themselves.27
The dissemination of their teaching means that people are to be
found around the world who do not attend ‘Word-faith’ churches, but
who adhere closely to the teaching they receive through television,
radio, audio and video recordings, webcasts, magazines and books.
In turn, these people may gather small groups around themselves to
share in the same diet. This effective ‘cross-fertilisation’ between the
movement itself and other groups is compounded by the invitation
offered by the movement’s main advocates to people who do not adhere
to all the main Word-faith tenets to speak at, for instance, their many
conferences. Similarly, churches that do not whole-heartedly endorse
every Word-faith distinctive may yet invite its advocates as visiting
speakers.28
Such factors mean that the edges of the movement are blurred. As
previously noted, it has “much in common with Pentecostalism”, and
maintains, in Britain at least, an “existence on the fringe of Pentecostal-
ism.”29 It is thus not surprising that it is throughout the Pentecostal
movement and the wider charismatic world that its influence has most
notably pervaded. Nevertheless, some of the movement’s strongest crit-
ics are themselves charismatic.30
While the Word-faith influence has spread world-wide, and thus nec-
essarily displays cultural diversity, it remains strongest in the United
States of America. There, it presents a display of affluence and success
that has drawn the criticisms: “part of the success of the Faith Move-
ment is due to the fact that it feeds off the material longings of the
American dream,”31 and “[t]here is here also idolization of the Ameri-
can concept of success.”32
27 E.g. ‘Kenneth Hagin Ministries’; ‘Kenneth Copeland Ministries’; ‘Jerry Savelle
Ministries’; ‘Morris Cerullo World Evangelism’.

28 Much of the information in this paragraph is gained from my personal experi-
ence. For instance, during a ten year period of church ministry at Kensington Temple
in London, an Elim Pentecostal Church, I met several in the church who received
Word-faith teaching and its ilk in the manner described. Similarly, the church received
visits, to preach, from such speakers as Benny Hinn, Morris Cerullo, John Avanzini,
and Ray McCauley, all associated directly or indirectly with the Word-faith movement.
29 Perriman, Faith, 14, 10.
30 E.g. McConnell (Promise, xx); Brandon (Health, 15, 47).
31 Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 62; similarly Brandon,
Health, 137; criticisms in Hanegraaff, Crisis, ch. 17, “Cultural Conformity.”

32 Farah, “Analysis,” 8.
2.4. Influence
Farah wrote in 1981 that the Word-faith movement was “the fastest
growing heresy in America today.”33 A year later, McConnell wrote of
the “wild success of the Faith movement”.34 In 1988, Kinnebrew stated:
“Few Christians in America have not been influenced to some degree
by the so-called ‘faith message’ that dominates the religious airwaves
today.”35 Since then, the movement has continued to grow. Perriman
documents its spread around the globe, and its impact in the UK.36
While he notes that, for cultural reasons, it has not found especially
fertile soil in Britain, it has at least made a significant mark on the
burgeoning African-led churches of Britain’s cities, and, according to
Perriman at the time of his writing, Kingsway International Christian
Centre in London was both replete with characteristics of the move-
ment, and possibly Europe’s largest local church.37
As the teaching of Word-faith leaders is disseminated to such a great
extent through books, radio and television, a survey of broadcasting
and publishing statistics gives an idea of the numbers of people who
are being influenced by this output. By 1992, Kenneth E. Hagin’s radio
programme was broadcast by nearly 250 radio stations, and his The
Word of Faith magazine had a circulation of almost 400,000.38 By 2004,
Kenneth E. Hagin and Kenneth Hagin Jr had between them published
over 150 books (many of which, it must be conceded, are relatively
slim booklets).39 Kenneth Copeland Ministries boasted over 350 ‘faith-
building’ titles for sale.40 That year, Word-faith and related ministries
broadcast on the internet alone 21 channels or networks of television.41
Another significant Word-faith outlet is the Trinity Broadcasting Net-
work, led by Paul and Jan Crouch.42

35 Kinnebrew, “Doctrine,” 2.
36 The massive growth and pervasive influence of the movement are also well
documented by Harrison, Righteous Riches, 14–18.

37 Perriman, Faith, 9–12.
38 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 333–334, 408 n. 19, 409 n. 22.
39 See http: // www.faithcenteredresources.com / shopping / shopdisplayproducts.asp
?search=yes.
40 See http://www.faithcenteredresources.com/authors/kenneth-gloria-copeland.asp.
41 See http://www.streamingfaith.com.
42 See http://www.tbn.org.
14 chapter one
As the presence and influence of the movement have grown, so the

wider Christian world has taken greater notice of the phenomenon.
Both the beliefs and the practices of the movement have evoked strong
reactions. Most of these are critical, and some frankly hostile. Examples
veritably litter the internet. Published books are also numerous. Very
little has been written from outside the movement that is in defence of
it, though small pieces of work do exist, such as “What’s Right About
the Faith Movement,” by Jon Ruthven of Regent University.43 Much of
the response to the movement is relevant to discussion of JDS teaching,
and is reviewed in more detail throughout this book.
2.5. Conclusion to section 2

This section has indicated that, while the Word-faith movement has
charismatic and fundamentalist beliefs in common with Pentecostalism,
many of its other beliefs are hotly debated, and often rejected as ‘het-
erodox’, within charismatic and wider evangelical communities. Given
that the movement has grown so significantly in recent decades, the
debate which it has spawned is justified. In fact, the movement deserves
further careful research. Furthermore, this chapter has indicated that
review of JDS theology plays an important part in the debate. For this
reason, because of the atonement’s vital place in Christian theology,
and because the death of Jesus Christ commands Christian attention
when beliefs about the atonement are articulated, it is fitting that this
aspect of Word-faith teaching, as expressed by some of its main propo-
nents, should receive particular study in this project.
3. Three foremost JDS teachers
This section introduces the three JDS teachers whose views on the
subject form the primary discussion in this work. They are not the
only JDS teachers within or near the Word-faith movement. Others
will be briefly mentioned later (pages 34–36). However, they are the
most influential, and teach JDS doctrine in its clearest forms.
43 n.d., http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/mt1996.htm.
3.1. Essek William Kenyon (1867–1948)

Kenyon’s writings are not autobiographical, but his life is helpfully
traced from primary and other contemporary sources by Dale Sim-
mons, Dan McConnell and Joe McIntyre.44 The son of a logger, Ken-
yon was born in New York state. He left school aged ten, beginning
work in a carpet mill when aged twelve.45 The North-Eastern United
States where he spent his youth were a part of the world in which
many religious people were reacting against a cold, distant Calvinism
in favour of immanentist religion,46 either of an ‘orthodox’ Christian
hue, as in the closely related Higher Life and Faith Cure movements,
or in departures from historic Christianity, such as in New Thought
philosophy or Christian Science.
Higher Life movements flourished on both sides of the Atlantic.
British versions, centring on conventions in Keswick, believed in a
‘second work of grace’ that suppressed sin, while American Holiness
groups, represented for example by conferences organised by D.L.
Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts, believed that the second work
eradicated it.47 There were close links between them. While Keswick
theology was exported to the USA,48 Keswick was itself the product,
in part at least, of pre-existing American Higher Life teaching.49 The
Faith Cure movement practised a ministry of healing through prayer.
Healing was believed to have been achieved in the atonement.50 Many
Higher Life proponents also believed in Faith Cure.51
44 Simmons gains much information from Kenyon’s unpublished sermon notes (Ken-
yon, 45, e.g. nn. 9, 11, 14, etc.). McConnell includes in his sources interview material with
Kenyon’s daughter, Ruth Kenyon Housworth (Promise, 52, e.g. nn. 2, 7, 9). McIntyre
uses published material and unpublished notes and correspondence (Joe McIntyre,
E.W. Kenyon and His Message of Faith: The True Story [Orlando, FL: Creation House, 1997],
313, e.g. nn. 3, 5, 9).
45 Simmons, Kenyon, 2; McConnell, Promise, 31; McIntyre, Kenyon, 1. McConnell
places the start of Kenyon’s work in a carpet mill at the age of fifteen.
46 Simmons, Kenyon, 72.
47 For Keswick, see S. Barabas, So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Kes-
wick Convention (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1952). For Northfield, see J. Wil-
bur Chapman, The Life of Dwight Lyman Moody (1900), http://www.biblebelievers.com/
moody/15.html, ch. 15.
48 D.W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987),
105–106.
49 Barabas, Salvation, 16.
50 See Nancy A. Hardesty, Faith Cure: Divine Healing in the Holiness and Pentecostal
Movements (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003); Dayton, Roots, 128.

51 E.g. Dayton, Roots, 107, 128.
16 chapter one
Insofar as New Thought was founded by one individual, this was

P.P. Quimby (1802–1866).52 New Thought ideas included:
Absolute rejection of creeds, creedal theology; Essential divinity of man
[sic]; Impersonal view of God as Principle; Monistic or pantheistic view
of God; Jesus as way-shower, Christ as Principle; Rejection of sin, grace,
atonement; Sin and sickness as unreal or mental error; etc.53
Christian Science was founded by Mary Baker Eddy. It is a healing

movement that focuses on the ‘spiritual’.54 A close historical and the-
matic relationship between New Thought and Christian Science is
well established. A particular link is the person of P.P. Quimby, whose
ideas lie behind New Thought, and who was influential in the develop-
ment of Eddy’s ideas. Christian Scientists minimise her dependence on
Quimby,55 but it is unarguable that he impressed her deeply.56
Kenyon himself was converted to Christianity when aged seventeen,
licensed as a Methodist Episcopal ‘exhorter’ while still in his teens,
and ordained by the Free Will Baptists in 1894.57 He resigned from
that denomination in 1898, becoming independent. Years later he ini-
tiated an application process with the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal
denomination. However, he did not proceed with it.58 Fundamentally,
he continued to think of himself as Baptist all his life.59 Over the years,
he led at least eight local churches.60 His passion for Bible teaching led
52 Horatio W. Dresser, A History of the New Thought Movement (Electronic Edition: Cor-
nerstone Publishing, 2001 [1919]), http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage.htm.
53 Bowman, Controversy, 47. For representative New Thought beliefs, see Ralph Wal-
do Trine, In Tune With The Infinite (London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1952 [1897]);
http://www.newthought.net/defined1916.htm. However, for difficulties in defining New
Thought, see Simmons, Kenyon, xiii, 80.
54 See Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Boston, MA: The
First Church of Christ, Scientist, revised edition 1891 [1875]).

55 N.a., Christian Science: A Sourcebook of Contemporary Materials (Boston, MA: The
Christian Science Publishing Society, 1990), 264–269; D.V. Barrett, Sects, ‘Cults’ &
Alternative Religions (London: Blandford, 1996), 78.
56 See, e.g., L.P. Powell, Mary Baker Eddy: A Life Size Portrait (Boston, MA: The
Christian Science Publishing Society, 1930, 1978), ch. 3, especially 100–112; Dresser,
History of the New Thought Movement, ch. 5; Wouter J. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion
and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996),
485, 487; Walter R. Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1965), ch. 5 and 144.
57 McIntyre, Kenyon, 2, 3, 19; McConnell, Promise, 31.
58 Geir Lie, “E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder or Evangelical Minister?” JEPTA 16
(1996): 76; McIntyre, Kenyon, 146.

59 McIntyre, Kenyon, 129–146, 159.
60 McIntyre, Kenyon, 3, 26, 29, 94, 99, 142, 146, 159.
to his establishing two Bible colleges: Bethel Bible Institute, and much
later, the Seattle Bible Institute.61
Throughout his life he thirsted for education and as a young man
his college experience involved, among other brief enrolments, nine
months at the Emerson College of Oratory,62 which he attended to fur-
ther his acting career of the time. The school was to some extent influ-
enced by New Thought.63 There is fierce debate about how strong this
influence was, and therefore how much of its thinking Kenyon might
have imbibed. McConnell claims that Kenyon must have ‘drunk at the
well’ of New Thought and emerging Christian Science while there.64
In contrast, Simmons observes that Kenyon was never criticised in this
regard by his contemporaries, and that Kenyon himself, overtly criti-
cal of New Thought,65 did not suggest that he had met its influence at
the college.66 This debate will be explored more fully below. Despite his
studies, Kenyon never actually graduated, and only gained honorary
degrees. He was, however, “a zealous, self-educated student, an avid
reader, and a life-long advocate of higher education.”67
Whatever influence New Thought and Christian Science might or
might not have had on the young Kenyon, there is no doubt that
throughout his life he listened to and read many of the leading names
in the Higher Life and Faith Cure movements. He was especially influ-
enced by such figures as A.J. Gordon, Andrew Murray, A.T. Pierson,
and A.B. Simpson.68 These individuals and others will be introduced in
more detail in chapter 2 (pages 80–82).
Beyond Kenyon’s interaction with Christian thought, McIntyre sur-
veys Kenyon’s avid reading: Homer to Shakespeare; Stoic philosophy to
evolutionary biology. McIntyre also refers to Kenyon’s fears concern-
ing the effect of communist politics on America.69 However, though
61 Simmons, Kenyon, 30, 44; McIntyre, Kenyon, ch. 12, 157.

62 McIntyre, Kenyon, 2, 15. Kenyon was ‘backslidden’ from Christian commitment at
the time.
63 Simmons, Kenyon, 4; McConnell, Promise, 31–43.
64 McConnell, Promise, ch. 3; also Kinnebrew, Doctrine, 131.
65 E.W. Kenyon, The Two Kinds of Faith (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing
Society, 1998 [1942]), 17; Jesus the Healer (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing
Society, 2000 [1943]), 77; The Wonderful Name of Jesus (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel
Publishing Society, 1998 [1927, 1935]), 69–70.
67 McConnell, Promise, 31; cf. Simmons, Kenyon, 2.
68 McIntyre, Kenyon, chs 6–9.
69 McIntyre, Kenyon, 113–114.
18 chapter one
Kenyon once used “The Why of Bolshevism” as a section title,70 his

books evidence no great interest in politics. He complained of “the
barn-storming tactics of the modern political demagogue”,71 but when
making social observations about, for instance, the rise in criminality
that he saw in his generation, he limited himself to narrowly Chris-
tian explanations.72 Kenyon was a prolific author, publishing a weekly
magazine and numerous books, as well as engaging in radio ministry.73
Undoubtedly influential during his lifetime, Kenyon has retained that
influence posthumously. Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Society remains
active, and 18 of Kenyon’s books are in print in the twenty-first cen-
tury.74
Kenyon first wrote about the ‘spiritual death’ of Christ in 1900.75
Though he had considered the matter for the previous seven years, he
did not consider it right to share his view until he had found what
he considered to be scriptural warrant for it.76 A reference to plural
‘deaths’ in Isaiah 53:9 encouraged Kenyon to believe that this text
referred to Jesus dying twice, physically and spiritually. Kenyon initially
meant by the phrase, ‘Jesus died spiritually’ that Jesus experienced hell,
apart from God and alongside Satan.77 However, over the following
years, his language and evident meaning developed. Though he con-
tinued to believe that ‘spiritual death’ involved separation from God,78
the developments occurred in Kenyon’s view of Satan’s role in Christ’s
sufferings, in two respects. First, Christ’s suffering on the cross and in
the grave involved some participation by Christ in Satan’s nature; sec-
ondly, Satan was the author of that suffering. Kenyon’s JDS teaching is
set out most fully in his books The Father and His Family, What Happened
from the Cross to the Throne, and The Bible in the Light of our Redemption.79 It
70 Kenyon, Wonderful Name, 72.

72 Kenyon, Wonderful Name, e.g. 14.
73 McIntyre, Kenyon, 106; Simmons, Kenyon, 44.
74 See http://www.kenyons.org/catalog.shtml.
75 McIntyre, Kenyon, 179; “Geir Lie, E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder or Evangelical Min-
ister?” trans. Geir Lie, William DeArteaga and Glenn Gohr (Master’s thesis, Norwegian
Lutheran School of Theology, revised 1994), 92 and Lie, “Theology,” 98.
76 McIntyre, Kenyon, 179.
77 E.W. Kenyon, “The Sufferings of the Christ in Our Redemption: Physical and
Spiritual,” Tabernacle Trumpet (October 1900): 118, quoted in Lie, Kenyon, 92 and Lie,
“Theology,” 98.
78 Kenyon, e.g. Father, 126.
79 Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Society, 1916 (2nd edition 1937),
1945, and posthumous respectively.

is clear from these works that he was highly committed to the subject,
regarding it as central to an understanding of the atonement, and not
merely theologically peripheral.80
3.2. Kenneth Erwin Hagin (1917–2003)

Unlike Kenyon’s writings, Hagin’s works are replete with informal auto-
biographical information.81 They reveal that he was born in 1917 and
grew up as a Southern Baptist in Texas, in a home which his father
left when he was “about 5 or 6 years old”. His paternal grandfather
had been rich but his father had squandered this wealth. Hagin knew
real hunger as a child, and the family’s difficulties contributed to his
mother’s mental ill-health and attempted suicides.82 Hagin had con-
genital heart disease, and his schooling was disrupted because of his
severe childhood ill-health. However, he claims that after his conver-
sion to Christ his school grades were “straight-A”s.83 He experienced
physical healing in 1934, which event profoundly affected the direction
and forcefulness of his later ministry. Hagin studied at Southwestern
Bible School.84
Though initially a Southern Baptist, Hagin testified that he was
baptised in the Holy Spirit in 1937, and became a ‘Full Gospel’ pastor
in 1939, ministering later in the Assemblies of God.85 According to
Harrell, Hagin was “deeply influenced” in his early ministry by Oral
Roberts.86 Interestingly, this is not evident in Hagin’s books, which
hardly mention Roberts and suggest that Hagin looked to the example
80 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 118.

81 E.g. Kenneth E. Hagin, Zoe: The God-Kind of Life (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publi-
cations, 1981), 13–17; Praying, 22–23; El Shaddai (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1980), 24–32; What To Do When Faith Seems Weak & Victory Lost (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library
Publications, 1979), 101–107; Plans, Purposes & Pursuits (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publi-
cations, 1988), 1–14, etc.
82 Kenneth E. Hagin, Demons: And How To Deal With Them (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library
Publications, 1968), 12–13, quoting 12.

83 Hagin, Zoe, 16.
84 Kenneth E. Hagin, How To Make The Dream God Gave You Come True (Tulsa, OK:
Faith Library Publications, 1981), 5. This was later to become Southwestern Assemblies
of God College (G.B. McGee, “Nelson, Peter Christopher,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess
and McGee, 637).
85 Kenneth E. Hagin Prayer Secrets (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 11th
printing 1978), 11; How You Can Be Led, 39.

86 Harrell, Roberts, 152. Harrell cites as evidence a personal interview with Hagin in
1973.
20 chapter one
of, especially, E.W. Kenyon, John G. Lake, and Smith Wigglesworth.

Wigglesworth and Lake especially are mentioned repeatedly (see pages
84–85 for further details of these men).
Hagin went on to develop a travelling ministry in 1949. He saw
himself as a teacher and a prophet.87 At about the same time, he sensed
God’s charge to “Go teach My people faith”, which in this context
meant faith that God will act demonstrably, such as through physical
healing. He founded Rhema Bible Training Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma
in 1974.88 He was a prolific author of magazine articles, booklets and
books, and his ministry was broadcast and recorded regularly on radio,
television, the internet, audio and video tapes. Since his death in 2003,
Kenneth Hagin Ministries continues, under the leadership of his son
Kenneth Hagin Junior.
Restricting itself almost entirely to comment on biblical passages and
accounts from his own ministry, Hagin’s teaching was, if anything, even
less interested in social comment and politics than Kenyon’s. His edu-
cational poverty and Pentecostal world-view may account for this, and
he was in this regard typical of ‘old-school’ Pentecostalism. Wacker
observes that early American Pentecostals “betrayed little interest in
earthly affairs such as presidential elections or local political contro-
versies.”89 Hagin’s approach was thus usual: his publishing output indi-
cates that he regarded his ministry as being for the many; its content
also indicates that he regarded his message as life changing; but he did
not see the changed lives of many in socio-political terms. The many
were simply a conglomeration of individuals, who could each experi-
ence ‘personal blessing’.
Hagin did not write about the ‘spiritual death’ of Christ with any-
thing like the frequency that Kenyon did. It occurs in only a relatively
small proportion of his books and booklets, particularly Redeemed from
poverty. . . sickness. . . death, The New Birth and The Name of Jesus.90 The
first two of these are merely booklets, and one simply repeats relevant
87 Hagin, Ministry, 4.
88 Kenneth Hagin Jr., “Memorial Address, Kenneth E. Hagin’s funeral,” http://
www.rhema.org/KEH_Memorial/videoclip.cfm (quoted); R.M. Riss, “Hagin, Kenneth
E.,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 345. According to Kinnebrew (Doctrine, 13,
n. 9), Hagin Jr., in various publications, gives either winter 1947/8 or 1950 as the date
when his father heard the call, “Go teach My people faith.”
89 G. Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (London: Harvard
University Press, 2001), 20; cf. R.M. Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of
American Pentecostalism (Oxford: OUP, 1979), ch. XI, e.g. 222.
90 Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1966, 1975, and 1979 respectively.
words, almost exactly, of the other. Only The Name of Jesus is a full-
length book of 160 pages, and even in it Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ gains
only a few pages’ attention. Furthermore, most or all of his positive
JDS teaching is derived directly from that of Kenyon. Some of the rel-
evant material is simply plagiarised from Kenyon’s work. For instance,
Redeemed from poverty. . . sickness. . . death, page 29, plagiarises Kenyon’s
The Father and His Family, page 51 at some length.91 The words con-
tinue to appear in almost exactly the same form in the second edition,
published in 1983 under the more revealing title: Redeemed from Poverty,
Sickness, and Spiritual Death. In contrast, Hagin was forthright in The Name
of Jesus about his dependence on Kenyon’s The Wonderful Name of Jesus,
quoting the latter no fewer than 22 times.
Hagin’s only departure from Kenyon’s JDS teaching was in what he
did not repeat. Certain of his omissions served to ‘soften’ his version
of JDS teaching. This divergence from Kenyon’s position will become
evident in later chapters. At this stage it suffices to note in summary
that Hagin’s commitment to JDS teaching is evident in his writing, but
that he held to a version somewhat ‘toned down’ from that of Kenyon,
and not referred to with anything like the frequency.
3.3. Kenneth Copeland (1937–)

Copeland, also a Texan, had a far less difficult childhood than did
Hagin. Copeland grew up “in a wonderful, godly home”, in which
there was no material lack. He obviously has fond memories of that
time, though he admits that at some point he rebelled, and “drove a
91Kenyon, concerning the ‘spiritual death’ of fallen humanity (paragraph breaks

removed):
Man is now united with the Devil. He is an outcast, an outlaw driven from the
Garden with no legal ground of approach to God. He no longer responds to the
call of God; he responds only to his new master. Now we understand why Man is
more than a transgressor, more than a law-breaker. Man is spiritually a child of
the Devil. Man partakes of his father’s nature.
Hagin:
Man is now united with the Devil. An outcast. An outlaw. Driven from the
Garden with no legal ground of approach to God. He no longer responds to the
call of God. He responds only to his new nature; his new master. Man is more
than a transgressor. More than a law-breaker and a sinner. Man is spiritually a
child of the devil and he partakes of his father’s nature.
22 chapter one
wedge between my daddy and me.”92 He committed his life to God

in 1962.93 In 1967, he enrolled at Oral Roberts University. At this
point, the Copelands were very poor, but their lives were “completely
revolutionized” by Hagin’s “You Can Have What You Say” teaching
tapes. Copeland assisted Oral Roberts in the latter’s ministry, and “saw
Brother Roberts apply the same principles of faith he heard Brother
Hagin teach.”94 Copeland spent less than a year at ORU.95 He began
“preaching about faith” in 1967, and in 1968 he set up an evange-
listic association.96 Copeland sometimes refers to Oral Roberts as his
“father in ministry”,97 but McConnell, Kinnebrew and Perriman accu-
rately portray Copeland as a doctrinal successor to Hagin more than
Roberts.98 There is less evidence that Copeland has been influenced by
Kenyon directly, rather than through Hagin, but he is certainly aware
of him. He writes of Kenyon in glowing terms,99 and his wife Gloria
Copeland refers to Kenyon as “one of the great men of God.”100 Also,
it is perhaps revealing that two of Copeland’s recorded sermons, What
Happened from the Cross to the Throne and What Satan Saw on the Day of Pen-
tecost, are titles of one of Kenyon’s books, and chapter 14 of that book,
respectively.
It would not be surprising, given their different personal histories,
if Copeland is better educated than was Hagin. Arguably, his output
suggests a greater interest in current affairs than Hagin’s, though that
could be due to a difference in temperament rather than in education.
92 Kenneth Copeland, “Wanted: Sons of the Most High God,” Believer’s Voice Of
Victory 27.3 (March 1999): 5; “Pleasing Daddy Has Its Rewards,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory
26.6 (June 1998): 5 (quoted respectively).
93 Kenneth Copeland, “Hope: The Blueprint of Faith,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 23.11
(November 1995): 5.
94 Kenneth Copeland, The Laws of Prosperity (Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1974),
86; n.a., “It’s Harvest Time!” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 25.7 (July/August 1997): 18–19,
quoting 19.
95 Kinnebrew, Doctrine, 18.
96 Kenneth Copeland, “No Problem!” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 26.7 (July/August
1998): 4 (quoted); n.a., “Harvest Time,” 18.

97 Copeland, “To Know the Glory,” 4; or “spiritual father” (Kenneth Copeland,
conference speech, Kenneth Copeland Ministries Europe Victory Campaign, Brighton,

April 7, 2005).
98 McConnell, Promise, 4; Kinnebrew, Doctrine, 17; Perriman, Faith, 3.
99 Kenneth Copeland, Walking in the Realm of the Supernatural, quoted in Lie, “Ken-
yon,” 71.
100 Gloria Copeland, conference speech, Kenneth Copeland Ministries Europe Vic-
tory Campaign, Brighton, April 8, 2005.

One notable example of this interest is Copeland’s articulate concerns

about politics. His political priorities are ‘moral’ rather than, say, eco-
nomic. Encouraging his audience to vote,101 he takes care to teach what
factors they should take into account when choosing how to vote. For
instance, he affirms the view of Keith Butler, who has held national
office in the USA. Interviewed by Copeland, Butler identified, in the
run-up to the US presidential election of 2004, the “big three issues” as
abortion, the treatment of Israel, and homosexuality.102 It would, how-
ever, be a misconstrual to imagine that Copeland’s interest in politics
pervades his teaching. Most of the time, his articles and books are as
devoid of political content as are Hagin’s.
Copeland can now be regarded as the unofficial leader of the whole
Word-faith movement. Even years before Hagin’s death, McConnell
had already identified him as “the heir apparent to Hagin’s throne”
and declared that “according to recent polls and press, Copeland is
now the ex officio leader of the Faith movement.” Much more recently,
Perriman calls him “probably the best known and most influential
figure in the Word of Faith movement,” and Harrison names him,
along with F.K.C. Price, as one “of the most prominent” Word-faith
teachers there is.103
Copeland’s espousal of JDS teaching is evident in his sermons (e.g.
What Happened from the Cross to the Throne),104 articles (e.g. “The Gates of
hell Shall Not Prevail”)105 and booklets (e.g. Jesus Died Spiritually,106 Did
Jesus Die Spiritually?).107 He does not suggest that he has gained his view
on the subject from any sources other than the Bible. He admits that his
view has been opposed,108 but he has never directly discussed the argu-
ments of his critics, for instance to counter-argue them. There is no
evidence from his publications that his views on the subject have been
softened or otherwise altered by this criticism. For instance, What Hap-
101 Kenneth Copeland, “Stand Up and Be Counted,” (2004), http://www.upray.org/

vote/be_counted.php; “A Higher Form of Power,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 24.10 (No-
vember 1996): 6.
102 Keith Butler, conversing with Kenneth Copeland, “God’s Position on National
Government,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory Webcast, October 20, 2004, http://kcm.org/

media/webcasts.
103 McConnell, Promise, 4; Perriman, Faith, 4; Harrison, Righteous Riches, 5.
104 Audio tape 02–0017 (Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.).
105 Believer’s Voice Of Victory 25.4 (April 1997): 4–7.
106 Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.
107 Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.
108 Copeland, “To Know the Glory,” 6; cf. “Stick Out,” 4.
24 chapter one
pened from the Cross to the Throne, his key sermon on the subject, perhaps
quoted more than any other by his critics, remains on sale from Ken-
neth Copeland Ministries, as of October 2006.109 Whether Copeland’s
reception of JDS teaching occurred through Hagin or directly from
Kenyon, it does not show evidence of Hagin’s ‘softer’ version, but
returns to the fuller account found in Kenyon.

All three JDS teachers have had clear links with Pentecostal and charis-
matic Christianity, though only Hagin was a minister within a Pente-
costal denomination. They are of course all American. The associa-
tion between the Word-faith movement and the ‘American dream’ has
already been noted. Though perhaps Kenyon gave himself the most
thorough informal education, none of them has had a formal theolog-
ical education of any significance. Their possibly consequent lack of
interaction with theological sources will be considered in more detail in
chapter 2 (pages 87–90) as part of the discussion there of the evaluative
criteria to be used in this work.
While Copeland evidences the greatest interest in politics, none of
these teachers emphasises wide-scale social evolution or revolution as
the ‘answer’ to the evils of the world. Each is far more interested in the
response to Christian teaching of the individual, in terms of immediate
personal encounter with God. However, it is not true to say that these
teachers are ‘other worldly’. They do not teach their adherents merely
to wait for heaven. The individual, they claim, can be greatly altered
in this life by the Christian message. The impact of this individual
response on societal structures, however, interests them far less.
All three of these teachers are clearly committed to JDS teaching,
though there are differences between their versions, and Hagin’s is the
most moderate. To these forms of JDS doctrine, and to other versions
that are taught, the chapter now turns.
109 http://kcm.org/usstore/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=what+happened
+from+the+cross +t&x=26&y=16.
4. JDS teaching in its theological context
This section briefly introduces JDS teaching, which will require far
fuller discussion throughout the book. Kenyon’s, Hagin’s, Copeland’s
and other JDS teachers’ views about Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ will be
considered in turn in 4.5 to 4.8. Around these, to place their teaching
in theological context, a survey will be offered of aspects of their beliefs
concerning God and Satan (4.1), humanity (4.2), its fall into sin and
‘spiritual death’ (4.3), the incarnation (4.4), regeneration of the individ-
ual (4.9), and the final state of the redeemed (4.10). In these sections,
their views are stated, and where appropriate, potential misunderstand-
ings are discussed. However, the sources they access, and do not access,
in forming these views are not discussed here, but in subsequent chap-
ters. Also, the arguments they put forward in using these sources will
only be considered in later chapters.
4.1. God and Satan

JDS teaching’s doctrine of God is not developed. It is more often
assumed than stated. However, it is evident that God is the personal,
righteous, all-powerful creator of the universe.110 In expressing God’s
nature, the teaching refers to life more than love,111 though God is
certainly loving.112 God’s response to sin can be described as wrath,113
but there is far more emphasis on God’s justice.114 Indeed, for Kenyon,
justice seems to be God’s primary characteristic.115
JDS theology evidences an implicit, if undeveloped, trinitarianism.116
Bowman suggests that Copeland may adhere to a form of monarchi-
110 Kenyon, Father, e.g. 19–23; Presence, 13–14; Bible, 177; Kenneth E. Hagin, New
Thresholds of Faith, (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 2nd edition, 1985 [1972]), 53,
63; Plead Your Case (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1979), 3; Kenneth Copeland,
The Force of Righteousness (Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publications, 1984), 6;
“Gates,” 4–5.
111 Kenyon, Father, 50; Hagin, Zoe, 9, 16.
112 Kenyon, Jesus the Healer, 10; Father, 47, 53, 151; Two Kinds of Faith, 97; Kenneth
E. Hagin, Turning Hopeless Situations Around (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1981), 21; Copeland, Force of Righteousness, 13.
113 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 116, 128.
114 Kenyon, Father, throughout; Hagin, Zoe, 45; Kenneth Copeland, Our Covenant with
God (Fort Worth, TX: KCP Publications, 1976), 29.

115 Kenyon, Father, 138.
116 E.g. Kenyon, Bible, 249–250; Hagin, Zoe, 42; Kenneth Copeland, “The Fire, the
26 chapter one
anism: he seems, according to Bowman, to teach that there was no

personal pre-existence of a second person of the Godhead, but rather
only the pre-existence of the impersonal word(s) spoken by God to
Abraham, Mary, etc.117 Certainly, Copeland can write, “Jesus had been
born into the earth. The Word—that same Word that had brought
life to Adam—was back.”118 This does portray the pre-existent Christ
as God’s life-giving word. Bowman may be reaching beyond the evi-
dence, however, to see monarchianism. Copeland also conceptualises
Christ as the sent Son, implying personal pre-existence.119 Furthermore,
in expounding Philippians 2:7, Copeland repeatedly asserts that Christ
chose to divest Himself of divine glory, thereby ascribing a clear per-
sonal attribute to the pre-existent Christ.120 Most distinctly bipersonal is
Copeland’s description of Christ’s desolation upon the cross: “Jesus was
separated from the presence of God. . . Think how terrible that must
have been . . . He’d known the life and intimate companionship of God
within His spirit for all eternity.”121 In these respects, Copeland’s view
of the incarnation seems to emerge from some form of simple trinitari-
anism (or at least binitarianism).
God and Satan are both powerful participants in the drama of
humanity’s sin and salvation. For those unused to such writing, Satan
is mentioned with surprising frequency throughout JDS teaching, and
ascribed surprising authority. Satan is regarded as an angel, originally
good but fallen into sin,122 and since then so evil that Satan personifies
sin, having a ‘nature’ of sin, lying and hatred.123 Satan’s importance in
the JDS worldview is illustrated by the fact that two of the three con-
Light and the Glory,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 25.1 (January 1997): 5; Force of Righteousness,
18.
117 Bowman, Controversy, 155–156.
118 Copeland, “Bridge,” 4.
119 Kenneth Copeland, “When the Devil Runs for Cover,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory
24.1 (January 1996): 5.

120 Kenneth Copeland, “Turning Up the Power,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 23.10 (Octo-
ber 1995): 3; “Taking An Offense,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 23.7 (July 1995): 5.
121 Kenneth Copeland, “Worthy to be Anointed,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 24.9 (Octo-
ber 1996): 6; cf. “Knowing and Receiving Your Inheritance: Part 1,” Believer’s Voice Of
Victory 27.3 (March 1999): 6.
122 Kenyon, Father, 47, 57, 59–60, 70; Kenneth E. Hagin, The Origin and Operation of
Demons (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1978), 7–8; Copeland, “Gates,” 6.
123 Kenyon, Jesus the Healer, 62–63; Father, 49; Hagin, Name, 31; Birth, 10; Copeland,
Covenant, 9–10; What Happened, side 2. See pages 189–190 for discussion of the JDS
meaning of ‘nature’.
cepts enmeshed within the claim that Jesus ‘died spiritually’, partaking
of a satanic nature and becoming Satan’s prey, involve Satan directly.
The type and degree of God-Satan dualism evident in JDS teaching
will be discussed further in chapter 5 (pages 188–189).
4.2. Humanity
According to Kenyon, God created the natural world for humans, and
they were created for “the lonely heart of the great Father God.”124
‘Man’, created in God’s image and likeness, was to be God’s eternal
companion. In describing and alluding to Adam’s unfallen nature,
Kenyon and Copeland agree that, in some sense at least, it ‘partook
of God’s nature’.125 In similar vein, Kenyon and Hagin agreed that,
to quote Kenyon, “Man belongs to God’s class.”126 People were to
rule over the whole created order, even over angels.127 Hagin meant
this by the intriguing statement, “Adam was the god of this world.”128
This dominion had a time limit, such that it could be thought of as a
‘lease’.129
In JDS teaching, human nature is rigidly ‘pneumocentric’, and this
view is almost always described in trichotomous terms, encapsulated
in the famous formula, “man is a spirit, who possesses a soul, and
lives in a body.”130 This distinctive anthropology forms an important
backdrop to JDS teaching, as it lies behind the claim that Jesus not only
‘died spiritually’, but had to die thus, in order to achieve salvation for
humanity, owing to the fact that humanity’s needs and the answers to
124 Kenyon, Father, ch. 1, quoting 26; cf. Presence, 14.

125 Kenyon, Bible, 28; Father, 37; Kenneth Copeland, “Because of the Cross,” Believer’s
Voice Of Victory 22.4 (April 1994): 4.
126 Kenyon, Father, 34; cf. 74; What Happened, 62; Kenneth. E. Hagin, Man On Three
Dimensions (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1973), 8; cf. The Human Spirit (Tulsa,
OK: Faith Library Publications, 6th printing 1980), 12.
127 Kenyon, Father, 32; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 2.
128 Hagin, New Thresholds, 56; Plead Your Case, 3.
129 Kenyon, Father, 32, 34. The lease, handed over by humanity to Satan through the
fall, will “expire at the Coming of the Lord Jesus.” (35); cf. Kenneth Copeland, “Living
at the End of Time,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 25.10 (November 1997): 6.
130 Kenneth E. Hagin, The New Birth (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1975),
6–7, italics original; cf. Kenyon, Father, 30, 45–46; Bible, 18; Kenneth E. Hagin, In
Him (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1975), 15; New Birth, 12; Man On Three
Dimensions, 8; Kenneth Copeland, The Force of Faith (Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland
Publications, 1983), 8; “To Know the Glory,” 6.
28 chapter one
those needs are essentially and necessarily spiritual. This discussion is

so relevant to JDS teaching that it will recur in chapter 3 (pages 127–
141).
4.3. Humanity’s fall into sin and ‘spiritual death’

“The sin of Adam was the crime of High Treason. God had conferred
upon him the legal authority to rule the Universe . . . Adam turned this
Legal Dominion into the hands of God’s enemy, the Devil.”131 This
had a number of consequences for God, Satan and humanity. For God,
access to people was now compromised: “Adam committed high trea-
son; and at that point, all the dominion and authority God had given
to him was handed over to Satan. Suddenly, God was on the outside
looking in.”132 For Satan, the gain was not only that authority over cre-
ation which had been Adam’s, but also authority over humankind.133
For humanity, the consequence was ‘spiritual death’.134 “Spiritual Death
is not a state of non-existence; it is a state of existence in a condition
separated and alienated from God, and in union with Satan.”135 In
practice this second of Kenyon’s two characteristics, ‘union with Satan’,
involves two features: participation in his nature and subjection to his
dominion. It is clear that, in Kenyon’s mind, each human is either in
fellowship with God, which involves both partaking of His nature and
being under His authority, or in fellowship with Satan, which involves
the same two aspects: partaking of his nature and necessarily being
under his authority. A three-fold characterisation of ‘spiritual death’ as
separation from God, participation in Satan’s nature, and subjection to
his evil power is thus discernible.136
131 Kenyon, Father, 36; cf. Bible, 26; Hagin, New Thresholds, 56; Plead your Case, 3;
Copeland, Covenant, 8.
132 Copeland, Covenant, 8; cf. Kenyon, Father, 38–40.
133 Kenyon, Father, 36; Copeland, “Because of the Cross,” 4.
134 Kenyon, Father, 41–50; Hagin, Name, 30; Copeland, Force of Faith, 14.
135 Kenyon, Bible, 28.
136 Lie also offers a three-fold characterisation (Kenyon, 42). In this book, ‘partaking
of a sinful, satanic nature’ and ‘becoming Satan’s prey’ will be considered under two
separate chapters (5 and 6). This will be done because, although both topics relate to
Satan, and Kenyon himself did not make a clear distinction between these two ideas,
nevertheless they are quite distinguishable: the former discusses ‘what Jesus was’—
ontological questions about alleged changes to his inner being—the latter considers
‘what was done to Jesus’—functional questions about activities allegedly performed by
others, of which Jesus was the victim.
God would regain his access through the incarnation, but the pro-
cess began through His covenant with Abraham: “God’s purpose was
to provide an avenue back into the earth. He used Abraham as a medi-
ator, as a way to get His Word into the earth—to open the way for Jesus
to come forth.”137
4.4. The incarnation

For Kenyon, the incarnation of Christ, necessitated by the fall,138 oper-
ated in two distinct ways. In one respect, it was the unique arrival of the
pre-existent divine Christ on earth as an unfallen human, uniquely con-
ceived in a virgin.139 This idea, while superficially faithful to traditional
formulae, was unsophisticated. It bore traces of ideas akin possibly to
adoptionism (“Would it have been possible for God to have come into
a child born of natural generation and dwell in the child and be Incar-
nate?”)140 and, more clearly, to Apollinarianism (“Deity must suffer for
humanity. The only way this can be done is for God’s Beloved Son to
come . . . down to earth and assume the physical body of a human”).141
Kenyon’s Christology was not, however, identical to Apollinarianism.
In the latter, Christ’s spirit and soul were both divine, and his body
human.142 For Kenyon, the spirit alone was divine, the soul and body
both human.143 Thus, given his anthropology, the ‘real’ Jesus (the spirit)
was divine; he only ‘had’ human aspects (soul and body). In contrast
to Kenyon, Hagin suggested that Christ’s spirit was human, for in his
‘spiritual death’ it could be separated from God.144 Nevertheless, Hagin
137 Copeland, Covenant, 31; cf. “A Covenant of Love,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 24.6
(June 1996): 6; E.W. Kenyon, The Blood Covenant (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel
Publishing Society, 1969 [1949]).
138 Kenyon, Father, ch. 6.
139 Kenyon, Father, 98–105.
140 Kenyon, Father, 98. Kenyon did, however, effectively deny adoptionism, by stating
for instance: “If Jesus had been born of natural generation and God had come into
Him, He would have been a fallen spirit, a being subject to the Devil with God dwelling
in Him; that would not be an Incarnation.” “If God could have changed the nature of
a child after birth so that He could be Incarnate in the child, He could as well have
changed the nature of the whole human race in the same way” (Father, 98).
142 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London: Adam & Charles Black, 5th edition
1977 [1958]), 289–292.

143 E.W. Kenyon, sermon preached at Bethel Temple, Los Angeles, CA, Decem-
ber 29, 1925, supplied by Geir Lie, email message to author, January 6, 2006.
144 Hagin, Name, 32.
30 chapter one
followed Kenyon’s implications that Jesus Christ was ‘God in a body’.145

Copeland simply seems confused. Christ’s spirit was from ‘eternity’, but
he could be separated from God (see pages 151–152).146
In another respect, in Kenyon’s view, the incarnation served as a
paradigm for future human unions with God, such that, “If Jesus was
Incarnate, then immortality is a fact . . . 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.”147 This latter aspect
clearly cohered with possible adoptionistic tendencies of Kenyon’s view
of Christ’s incarnation. It was followed precisely by Hagin.148
Hagin and Copeland provide more detail than Kenyon concerning
the incarnation’s functional dynamics. On one hand, “When God took
upon Himself human form, He was no less God than when He didn’t
have a body.”149 On the other hand, “He as the Son of God was one
thing and He as a person ministering was another thing. He did not
minister as the Son of God—He ministered as a man anointed by the
Holy Spirit.”150 Copeland is similar: “Jesus did not minister on earth as
the Son of God. He could have. He was God manifest in the flesh. The
important thing to us is that He didn’t. Jesus ministered on earth as
a prophet under the Abrahamic Covenant.”151 Hagin’s and Copeland’s
motives for their marked functional kenoticism seem to be pragmatic:
Jesus is to be seen as an example to be followed, rather than a unique
human phenomenon. Thus Copeland, for instance, wrote, “Everything
Jesus used in His earthly ministry is available to the believer today.”152
The extent to which Christ in His incarnate ministry is to be regarded
as unique or as paradigmatic for Christian ministries today is debated
among Pentecostals.153 Whatever the merits of that debate, the highly
145 E.g. Hagin, Name, 28.

146 Copeland, “Worthy,” 6.
148 Hagin, Zoe, 42.
149 Hagin, Man On Three Dimensions, 8.
150 Kenneth E. Hagin, Understanding the Anointing (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 1983), 4, italics removed. However, H.T. Neuman (“Cultic Origins of the Word-
Faith Theology Within the Charismatic Movement,” Pneuma 12.1 [Spring 1990]: 54) is
inaccurate in describing Word-faith Christology as Ebionite.
151 Copeland, Covenant, 33.
152 Copeland, Covenant, 33, emphasis original.
153 See, e.g., arguments for a paradigm in Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All
kenotic Christology at work in the JDS view of the incarnation has

implications for JDS teaching concerning Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ as
separation from God (see pages 184–186).
4.5. Christ’s death: E.W. Kenyon

Kenyon’s view of Jesus’ death was firmly embedded within his wider
view of the atonement, which he saw as primarily substitutionary. Ken-
yon repeatedly used of Christ the terms ‘(our) sin Substitute’ and ‘sub-
stitutionary sacrifice’.154 The substitution was conceived in penal
terms,155 and in terms of redemption, by which Christ became Satan’s
victim156 that humanity might be delivered from the Devil’s grasp.157
The atoning work was seen as just. In it, God displayed His justice not
only to Himself and to humanity, but also to Satan.158 Also, in dying,
Christ satisfied this divine justice.159
To achieve this substitutionary atonement for fallen humanity, which
itself had ‘died spiritually’ when it fell into sin, Christ had to die not
only physically but also ‘spiritually’. In Christ’s case, the term held
the same triad of meanings that it had for humans when they fell:
separation from God; participation in Satan’s nature; and mastery by
Satan. “He has taken Man’s place . . . and as He hangs there under
judgment on the accursed tree . . . God turns His back upon Him”;
“We know that as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness Jesus
was also lifted up a serpent; that is, He was a partaker of Satanic
Nature, the old Serpent”; “When Jesus died, His spirit was taken
by the Adversary, and carried to the place where the sinner’s spirit
goes when he dies.”160 Kenyon’s case for this view depended on his
reading of a number of scriptural texts. Of special note was Isaiah 53:9,
referred to earlier (page 18). Kenyon also commented particularly on:
Matthew 12:40; Matthew 27:46 = Mark 15:34; John 3:14; Acts 2:24; Ro-
Believers (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), e.g. 53, and arguments for unique-
ness in Keith Warrington, Jesus the Healer (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), e.g. 160–161.
154 Kenyon, Father, 34, 118, 125 ff., 133, 147. He also occasionally used the language of
identification (e.g. Father, 137, and his book entitled Identification: A Romance in Redemption
[Los Angeles, CA: E.W. Kenyon, 1941]).
156 Kenyon, Father, e.g. 136; What Happened, 65.
158 Kenyon, Father, 113; cf. 115, 129.
159 Kenyon, Father, 101, 116–117, 129.
160 Kenyon, Father, 126, 137; What Happened, 47.
32 chapter one
mans 10:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Colossians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews

2:14; and 1 Peter 3:18.161
Jesus ‘died spiritually’ on the cross, before He died physically. In fact,
Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ achieved His physical mortality, such that only
now was He able to die physically.162 This physical death marked the
fulfilment of Abrahamic covenant and Old Testament law:
Matthew 27:51 tells us, ‘And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in
two from the top to the bottom.’ No one knew what this meant. The
Holy of Holies was no longer the home of Jehovah. He had moved out
of the temple. Jesus had fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant and the law of
the Covenant. There was no need of a priesthood any longer. The high
priest had finished his ministry when he made the great sacrifice of the
Lamb of God, who was to take away the sin of the world.163
Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ lasted until He was ‘born again’ in hell, imme-
diately preceding His physical resurrection. Once thus reborn, He was
triumphant over Satan, “for you and for me.”164 Kenyon taught specif-
ically that the atoning death of Christ achieved forgiveness,165 moral
sanctification,166 physical healing,167 and general freedom from Satan’s
dominion.168
4.6. Christ’s death: Kenneth E. Hagin

Hagin’s conception of Christ’s saving purpose is usefully encapsulated
in the title of his book Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, and Spiritual Death.
He taught that this redemption was achieved through substitution,169 in
which God’s justice was satisfied.170 This substitution involved Christ’s
‘spiritual death’: “He took upon himself our sin nature, the nature
161 References to Kenyon’s use of these texts will be cited in later chapters.
162 Kenyon, What Happened, 43.
163 Kenyon, What Happened, 42, paragraph breaks removed.
164 Kenyon, What Happened, ch. 7, and 64–65 (quoting 65).
165 Kenyon, Father, e.g. 129.
166 Kenyon, Father, e.g. 158.
167 Kenyon, Jesus the Healer, ch. VIII, e.g. 27; Wonderful Name, 29–30.
169 E.g. Kenneth E. Hagin, Must Christians Suffer? (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 1982), 3; Redeemed, 2nd edition 62; Name, 33.

170 Hagin, Zoe, 45; Kenneth E. Hagin, The Present-Day Ministry of Jesus Christ (Tulsa,
OK: Faith Library Publications, 2nd edition 1983), 3. Hagin imitated Kenyon’s lan-
guage: “satisfy the claims of justice” (Kenyon, Father, 101); “satisfied the claims of jus-
tice” (Hagin, Zoe, 45; Name, 33).
of spiritual death, that we might have Eternal Life.”171 Hagin used

many of the scriptural sources to defend his view of Christ’s death that
Kenyon had before him. Also, what Hagin meant by ‘spiritual death’,
when applied to Christ, was much the same as it had meant to Kenyon,
except that Hagin fell short of overtly ascribing Satan’s nature to the
‘spiritually dead’ Christ, and was somewhat hesitant about the nature
of the suffering that Christ might have experienced at Satan’s hands
(see pages 193–194; 221–223 for discussion). Hagin also referred to the
physical death of Christ, and presented it in terms of sacrifice.172 He
followed Kenyon in believing that it was only when Christ was made
‘sin’ that He became physically mortal.173
Although Hagin regarded Christ’s ‘spiritual rebirth’ as occurring on
the day of His physical resurrection,174 he did not consistently highlight
the period of time during which Christ’s body lay in the grave to the
extent that Kenyon had done. He agreed with Kenyon that Christ’s cry,
“It is finished!” (John 19:30) did not indicate that the atoning work for
which Christ had come was over.175 Nevertheless, he seemed at times
to limit the time of Christ’s suffering to His hours on the cross,176 while
at other times he could write that “Jesus spent three days and nights
in hell,” clearly meaning that Christ suffered there.177 However, he
sometimes traced the continuation of Christ’s atoning and redeeming
work all the way through to His ascension.178
4.7. Christ’s death: Kenneth Copeland

Copeland’s exposition of Christ’s death is also presented in substitution-
ary terms, and this substitution clearly and necessarily involves ‘spiri-
tual death’: “He was our substitute—bearing our sins, our diseases, our
poverty, and our spiritual death.” “Jesus became our substitute. If He
hadn’t died spiritually, then we could never be made alive spiritually.
171 Hagin, New Birth, 13.

172 Kenneth E. Hagin, Three Big Words (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1983),
5.
Hagin, El Shaddai, 7.
173
Hagin, Name, 29, 33.

174
175 For Kenyon this cry meant that Christ had completed His public incarnate
ministry and had fulfilled the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants (What Happened, 42,
47); for Hagin it meant that Jesus had brought the Old Covenant to a close (Zoe, 43).
176 Hagin, Zoe, 45.
177 Hagin, Present-Day Ministry, 8.
178 Hagin, Zoe, 43; Present-Day Ministry, 3.
34 chapter one
But He did!”179 Copeland uses the same range of texts to support his
thesis as did Kenyon and Hagin, and mirrors Kenyon’s thesis that
this agony of Christ lasted three days, and was followed by Christ’s
‘rebirth’.180 Furthermore, Copeland’s understanding of what this ‘spiri-
tual death’ involved includes all three of the components that Kenyon
conceived of: separation from God; participation in Satan’s nature; and
suffering at Satan’s hands.181
Like Kenyon, Copeland understands Christ’s physical death as
achieving the cessation of “the Abrahamic Covenant.”182 He also de-
clares that Christ’s physical suffering on the cross achieved physical
healing for those who believe.183
4.8. Christ’s death: other JDS teachers

While Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland have focused on the physical
and spiritual aspects of Christ’s death, some JDS teaching takes the
analysis further. Tom Brown, leader of Word of Life Church in Texas,
declares that the death of Jesus was in fact threefold: “physical, spiritual,
and soulish.”184 This understanding clearly fits with a tripartite view of
humanity, and coheres with his reading of Isaiah 53 and the sacrifices
conducted on the Day of Atonement. Nevertheless, it seems to remain
a minority view within the range of JDS teaching.185
It is commoner for other versions of JDS teaching to go ‘less far’
than that of Kenyon, Hagin, and Copeland. Of the three ideas inherent
within Kenyon’s and Copeland’s versions, and to a lesser extent Ha-
gin’s, Greg Bitgood, pastor of Christian education at Kelowna Chris-
tian Center, Canada, clearly maintains all three concepts,186 but his lan-
guage regarding the idea of Christ’s taking a satanic nature is
179 Copeland, Covenant, 28; “To Know the Glory,” 6.

180 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 3–6.
181 Kenneth Copeland, What Happened, side 2; Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 3; “Gates,” 5.
182 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 3.
183 Kenneth Copeland, e.g. “The Power of Resistance,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 25.6
(June 1997): 5.
184 Tom Brown, “Did Jesus Suffer in Hell?” http://www.tbm.org/jesussuffershell.htm.
185 Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland do not refer to a ‘soulish’ death of Christ. Kenyon
did, rarely, mention Christ’s ‘soul travail’. He was encouraged to do so by the wording
of Isaiah 53:10–11 (Father, 125–126).
186 Gregory J. Bitgood, “The Mystery of the 3 Days and Nights,” http://www.kcc
.net/greg/3days.htm.
guarded.187 He is explicit in stating that fallen humanity is united with

Satan’s nature, but only implicit in suggesting that Christ, in His substi-
tutionary death, shares the same experience.188
The late Paul Billheimer’s Destined for the Throne189 resembled Ken-
yon’s teaching in certain respects,190 and may have been influenced
by his writing. Billheimer used the phrase ‘died spiritually’ of Christ,
and related this to the first and third of Kenyon’s ideas: separation
from God, and suffering at Satan’s hands.191 It is less clear whether
Billheimer would have agreed with Kenyon’s second concept. He did
not write of Adam’s participating in Satan’s nature. Nor did he use such
language of Christ’s suffering. Nevertheless, he wrote: “Because He
was ‘made sin’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), 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.”192
Possibly, Billheimer meant by ‘sin’s essence’ what Kenyon meant by
‘sin’s nature’, which the latter clearly identified with satanic nature.193
Thus, although Billheimer did not use Kenyon’s language, he offered
a similar concept. It will emerge later (pages 193–194) that Hagin’s
presentation is similar.
Theo Wolmarans of Christian Family Church International, Texas;
Troy Edwards of Victory Through The Word Ministries; and Joe
McIntyre, president of Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Society, maintain
use of the terminology,194 but restrict their conceptualisation to the
first of Kenyon’s ideas: separation from God. McIntyre comes close to
using the terminology of the second, ‘partaking of the satanic nature’:
in expounding 2 Corinthians 5:21, he writes that “Jesus took the sin
187 Bitgood, “Mystery,” 21.

188 Bitgood, “Mystery,” 20, 25.
189 London: Christian Literature Crusade, 1975.
190 For example, Kenyon wrote of the ‘legal’ and ‘vital’ sides of the atonement
(e.g. Father, 149–151), Billheimer of the ‘legal’ and ‘dynamic’ sides (e.g. Throne, chs 5,
6; though Billheimer’s ‘dynamic’ is not identical to Kenyon’s ‘vital’); Kenyon’s ‘the
cross to the throne’ terminology (e.g. his book title What Happened from the Cross to the
Throne) occurs in Billheimer, Throne (88); Billheimer’s view of humanity’s fall and its
consequences resembles Kenyon’s in many respects.
191 Billheimer, Throne, 86, 84 respectively.
192 Billheimer, Throne, 83.
194 Theo Wolmarans, Blood Covenant (Dallas, TX: Word of Faith Publishing, 1984), 93;
Edwards, “The Divine Son, Part 1”; Joe McIntyre, “Jesus’ Spiritual Death,” http://
www.kenyons.org/JesusSpiritualDeath.htm.
36 chapter one
nature.” He admits ignorance, however, as to what this might mean:

“How Christ’s soul was made sin and received our sin is probably
beyond our ability to reason out.”195 Edwards specifically excludes a
belief that Christ’s hellish suffering was caused by Satan:
I have to admit that the fact that Christ descended seems to imply that
He was not dragged down there by Satan and his cohorts. Although
Satan’s part in our Lord’s sufferings is not taught enough, we in the
Word-Faith movement should caution ourselves against “overcompensat-
ing” in our teaching when we attempt to correct this negligence in the
church.196
A departure from the examples given above is evident in the writing
of Bill Kaiser, director of Word of Faith Leadership and Bible Institute,
Texas. He declares that when Adam sinned he “died in his spirit man,
in the spirit realm”,197 and in other ways generally follows Word-faith
terms and concepts. Yet, even though when he describes Christ’s death
he equates this experience with that of Adam, he refrains from using
the term, ‘Jesus died spiritually’.198 Thus, by the definition offered in
the introduction to the chapter, his is not JDS teaching. It can, how-
ever, be seen to lie very close to it. Similarly, the teaching of Oral
Roberts applies ‘spiritual death’ terminology to fallen humanity, but
not to Christ.199 Kaiser and Roberts illustrate the fact that to cate-
gorise someone as a JDS teacher requires an arbitrary definition being
imposed upon a spectrum of similar views (see page 6).
195 McIntyre, “Jesus’ Spiritual Death.” McIntyre’s caution on this point is confirmed
in email message to author, August 1, 2006.

196 Troy J. Edwards, Sr, “The Divine Son of God Tasted Death In All It’s [sic] Phases
So You Don’t Have To. Part Two: Did Jesus Descend to Hell?” (2002), http://www.
victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/jds/tenrsn3_1.html, n. 11. Commentators also
number among JDS teachers the well known F.K.C. Price (McConnell, Promise, 120),
Jan Crouch (Hanegraaff, Crisis, 164–165) and Benny Hinn (Hanegraaff, Crisis, 155–156;
Hanegraaff notes that Hinn has altered his views).
197 Bill Kaiser, Who In The World In Christ Are You? (Dallas, TX: Word of Faith
Publishing, 1983), 37.

198 Kaiser, Who In The World, 78. Jesus was “separated from God.”
199 Roberts writes of fallen humanity’s “spiritual death”, meaning by it people’s
“separation from God”. Nevertheless, his presentation of the crucifixion does not
resemble Kenyon’s (Oral Roberts, 3 Most Important Steps to your Better Health and Miracle
Living [Tulsa, OK: Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association, 1976], 66–67, 193).
4.9. Regeneration of the individual

Individuals can be ‘born again’ by repentant and believing reception
of the Christian gospel.200 This rebirth constitutes a change from spir-
itual death to life, from a satanic to the divine nature.201 For Kenyon,
the concern at this point was to champion the possibility of complete
appropriation through the ‘finished work of Christ’, from the point
of regeneration, of a God-given righteousness and sanctification, in
the face of popular Wesleyan teaching of his day concerning sanc-
tification as a second work of grace.202 Thus while Kenyon admired
many Higher Life teachers, he did not accept all Higher Life teach-
ing.
Following Kenyon, Hagin understood regeneration to be an incar-
nation paralleling that of Christ. In line with this, he wrote, “That’s
who we are; we’re Christ!”203 Unsurprisingly, these claims have been
regarded as unacceptable by Hagin’s critics.204 In context, however,
there is a certain, if highly questionable, logic in Hagin’s thinking, as
illustrated by the following extract:
2 CORINTHIANS 6:15 . . . And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
Finally, the believer is called “Christ” and the unbeliever is called “Be-
lial.” That’s who we are; we’re Christ! Jesus is the Head and we are the
Body of Christ. Your head doesn’t go by one name and your body by
another, does it? . . . Paul calls the individual member of the Body of
Christ, “Christ.”205
200 Kenyon, Father, 144–145, 151; Hagin, New Birth, 14; Copeland, Laws of Prosperity,
101.
201 E.W. Kenyon, In His Presence (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Soci-
ety, 2003 [1944]), 61; Father, 148–149; Hagin, e.g. New Birth, ch. II; Copeland, “Gates,”
7; Force of Righteousness, 5.
202 Kenyon, Father, 153–160; In His Presence, 57; see Kimberley Ervin Alexander, Pente-
costal Healing (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2006), for an exposition of differences
between ‘Finished Work’ and ‘Wesleyan Holiness’ soteriologies, in the context of early
Pentecostalism.
203 Hagin, Zoe, 41, emphases removed.
204 McConnell, Promise, 122; Bowman, Controversy, 189; Hanegraaff, Crisis, 175.
205 Hagin, Zoe, 41. Emphases and paragraph breaks removed. If Hagin had applied
his own anthropology here, that the body is not the true self, but only its house, he
might have reached different conclusions.
38 chapter one
JDS teaching’s eschatology is highly realised, and rebirth entitles the

redeemed to every imaginable good in this life,206 protecting the re-
deemed from almost every imaginable ill.207
4.10. The final state of the redeemed

The authors believe in a return of Christ to the earth, sometimes
described as premillennial and imminent. At that point believers will
receive immortal bodies like Christ’s resurrection body, and be with
Christ for ever.208 Following the promises of the book of Revelation,
Kenyon looked forward to the ‘New Heaven and the New Earth’ as
the home of redeemed humanity, in which no sin or pain could exist.
Kenyon hinted that this final state would mirror that which humans
enjoyed before the fall.209
Hagin and Copeland’s highly realised eschatology and intensely
pragmatic teaching mean that they hardly mention the future life of
Christians. This paucity of reference seems to be due to a concern
that their readers should appropriate their Christian inheritance in this
life.210 Apparently, the only blessing which Hagin would admit was as
yet withheld from Christians was the end to physical death.211 Even this
future-oriented perspective was blunted by Hagin’s belief that long life
here on earth is a blessing available to all Christians who have faith for
it.212
206 Kenyon, Jesus the Healer, 86; Hagin, Zoe, 42; Kenneth Copeland, “Turn Your Hurts
Into Harvests,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 25.7 (July/August 1997): 7; “Expect the Glory!”
Believer’s Voice Of Victory 23.3 (March 1995): 2; “Power of Resistance,” 5; Laws of Prosperity,
58.
207 Hagin, Must Christians Suffer?; Copeland, “Power of Resistance,” 6; Force of Faith,
29.
208 Kenyon, Bible, 284–287; Father, 212–213; Kenneth E. Hagin, Don’t Blame God!
(Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1979), 32, El Shaddai, 21; Man on Three Dimensions,
9, 17; Copeland, “Living at the End,” 5–6.
209 Kenyon, Father, ch. 17.
210 Kenneth E. Hagin, Knowing What Belongs to Us (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 1989), 2; New Birth, 28; Copeland, “Turn Your Hurts Into Harvests,” 7; “Expect
the Glory!” 2; “Power of Resistance,” 5; Laws of Prosperity, 58.
211 Hagin, Don’t Blame God!, 23.
212 Hagin, El Shaddai, ch. 3.

It is clear that the teaching that Christ ‘died spiritually’ lies embedded
within, and is shaped by, views across many aspects of theology. That
humans are primarily spiritual lies behind the claim that Christ had to
‘die spiritually’. That the first humans are believed to have ‘died spir-
itually’ when they succumbed to temptation influences what is meant
when JDS teachers declare that Christ himself ‘died spiritually’. The
JDS view of the incarnation may aid belief in the separation of Christ
from God on the cross. That Satan is so important in the JDS world-
view relates to his active role in Christ’s ‘spiritual death’. Certain impli-
cations of this network of beliefs will be explored as the book devel-
ops.
5. Categories of participant in the JDS debate
This section introduces those who are not JDS teachers, but who have
contributed significantly to the debate about the teaching, indirectly or
directly. First, the section considers social and ecclesiastical categories
of debater (5.1). Thereafter, it categorises their stances (5.2).
5.1. Social and ecclesiastical categories

It is probable that opposition to JDS teaching first arose within the
Word-faith movement itself, in the person of Hobart E. Freeman (1920–
1984). His book, available electronically as “Exposing the JDS Heresy,”
is undated, but even if it came from near the end of his life, it testifies to
his designation of the “error” as JDS “several years ago”.213 Whatever
the immediate response to his challenges might have been within the
movement, it is clear that JDS teaching was not expunged by them.
Freeman’s contribution will be reviewed in section 6.1. At this stage it
is of interest to note that, in contrast to the lack of formal theological
education gained by the three JDS teachers who are the focus of this
work, Freeman had a doctorate in theology and was for a time a
professor in Hebrew language and Old Testament studies.214
213 Freeman, “JDS Heresy.”

214 Freeman, “JDS Heresy;” Barron, Gospel, 19; Watchman Fellowship, “Faith Assem-
bly.”
40 chapter one
Whether or not Freeman’s book came to the immediate attention

of observers outside the movement, it was in the same period that
they too began to raise doubts about certain Word-faith beliefs and
practices. It is perhaps not surprising that it was among Pentecostals
and charismatics that an academic response was first mounted. Gor-
don Fee of Regent College published some of his concerns in 1979,215
but a greater output began to emerge from even closer to ‘home’: the
university set up by Oral Roberts, ORU. Given that Roberts’ theol-
ogy indicates some commonalities with the Word-faith movement,216
Hagin and Copeland admired and were influenced by Roberts, and
Copeland briefly attended ORU, it is intriguing that the relationship
between the Word-faith movement and the university later became
stormy, especially in the 1980s. Roberts invited a succession of Word-
faith preachers to speak at ORU. Their message met with overt resis-
tance from certain teachers, including Charles Farah.217 Farah’s 1979
book and 1981 article218 initiated an academic debate concerning Word-
faith doctrines, which was taken up enthusiastically by two postgrad-
uate students, McConnell219 and Simmons.220 McConnell’s 1982 mas-
ter’s dissertation was published in the UK as The Promise of Health and
Wealth. Simmons’ unpublished 1985 master’s work focused on Hagin,221
but his subsequent doctoral research at Drew University (1988) turned
to Kenyon,222 and was published as E.W. Kenyon and the Postbellum Pur-
suit of Peace, Power, and Plenty. While McConnell is strongly critical of the
movement, Simmons is more dispassionate, seeking to explain Kenyon
rather than to criticise or defend him. Both contributions will be stud-
ied later (pages 46–47; 52–53).
Another group of contributions to the JDS debate comes unsurpris-
ingly from American ‘cult-watch’ ministries. There is a vast number

216 See section 4.8. He also promotes the spirit over the mind and body (Roberts,
Important Steps, 66–67). See pages 128–130 for Word-faith anthropology.
217 Harrell, Roberts, 423–427.
218 Charles Farah, Jr, From the Pinnacle of the Temple (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International,
1979) and “Analysis.”

219 McConnell, Promise, xv; Perriman, Faith, 14.
220 Simmons, email message to author, October 29, 2006; McConnell, Promise, 194.
221 Dale Simmons, “A theological and historical analysis of Kenneth E. Hagin’s claim
to be a prophet” (master’s thesis, ORU, 1985).

222 Entitled, “The Postbellum Pursuit of Peace, Power and Plenty: As Seen in the
Writings of Essek William Kenyon” (William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit [Lake Mary,
FL: Creation House, 2nd edition 1996 (1992)], 351).
of such ministries.223 One example, Christian Research Institute, has

as its president Hank Hanegraaff, author of a lengthy, detailed and
uncompromising critique of the Word-faith movement, Christianity in
Crisis (1993).224 Robert Bowman also worked for Christian Research
Institute prior to writing The Word-Faith Controversy (2001).225 At the time
of publication, he was president of the Institute for the Development of
Evangelical Apologetics.226 Another opponent of the Word-faith move-
ment from these circles is Dave Hunt. When he wrote The Seduction of
Christianity (1985), he led a ministry called “The Berean Call,” which
name is self-explanatory for those familiar with Acts 17:11. Typically,
and including those mentioned above, these ministries are evangelical,
and of course are concerned to protect ‘right doctrine’. The attempt
by Christians to offer apologetics for ‘orthodox’ doctrine, to distin-
guish clearly between these and ‘heterodox’ ones, and to warn Chris-
tians of the teaching of ‘heterodox’ groups will be regarded by many
as commendable. However, there is a temptation for such organisa-
tions to become self-appointed guardians of their own brand of ‘ortho-
doxy’ (it is easy to find ‘cult-watch’ groups that denounce Pentecostal-
ism, for instance),227 and to be uncharitable. Unsurprisingly, therefore,
these organisations have been criticised, for instance by J.R. Spencer.228
The contributions of Hanegraaff and Bowman will be considered later
(pages 48–50; 56–57).
Although most of the debaters mentioned so far are negative about
Kenyon and his teaching, Kenyon himself continues to have admirers
and defenders whose contributions to the debate can thus be grouped
together. McIntyre’s E.W. Kenyon and His Message of Faith: The True Story
is an impressively useful historical source, detailing the influence on
Kenyon of a number of important church leaders. William DeArteaga,
an Episcopalian,229 and Geir Lie, a Scandinavian scholar,230 engage
223 An index is available at http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/

ccmlinks.htm.
224 http://www.equip.org.
225 DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, 266.
226 Bowman, Controversy, 255.
227 There is even one denouncing cult-watch ministries! See http://watch.pair.com/
cult-intro.html.
228 J.R. Spencer, Heresy Hunters: Character Assassination in the Church (Lafayette, LA:
Huntington House Publishers, 1993).

230 Lie, Kenyon, vii. Lie studied within the Word-faith movement, at Victory Bible
Institute, Tulsa, Oklahoma (Lie, Kenyon, vii).

42 chapter one
more directly in theological debate, succeeding in writing of Kenyon

from some critical distance, but still supporting him overall, believing
that criticisms of him have been vastly overstated. DeArteaga and Lie
will be reviewed later (pages 53–55).231
Thus far, almost all the debaters mentioned in this section have been
American. The earliest British contribution to be reviewed in this book
was Andrew Brandon’s Health & Wealth (1987). At his time of writing,
Brandon was a teacher and evangelist with Christ for the World, hav-
ing worked previously with British Youth for Christ and The Evange-
lization Society.232 His book is highly negative about JDS teaching, as
is the discussion offered by Smail, Walker and Wright (1994), which
holds the distinction of being one of the few offerings from well known
academics.233 More recently, the Evangelical Alliance (UK) has taken
an interest in the Word-faith movement. This came largely through
Morris Cerullo’s series of meetings held in London in the 1990s.234 The
Evangelical Alliance asked its Commission on Unity and Truth among
Evangelicals to consider the movement, and as a result Faith, Health &
Prosperity, edited by Perriman, was published in 2003. This balanced
book thus represents an agreed British evangelical perspective.235 All
these British contributions will be reviewed individually below (pages
48; 50–51; 57–59).
In conclusion, it is clear that much response has arisen ‘close to
home’. First, most is American. Also, almost all is evangelical, and a
fair proportion is charismatic. On the other hand, a wide spectrum can
be perceived between doctoral research at one end and popular writing,
built on limited research, at the other.
5.2. Categories of response

Not only can debaters be categorised according to their social and
ecclesiastical background. They can also, of course, be categorised by
the response that they have offered to the Word-faith movement and
231 The reason that McIntyre will not is that he is a moderate JDS teacher, already
introduced on pages 35–36.

232 Brandon, Health, back cover.
233 Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” also published as chapter 10
of Charismatic Renewal (London: SPCK, 1995).

234 Perriman, Faith, “A Note on the Background and Production of the Report,” x.
235 Perriman is named as editor; contributors are not individually named. Thus the
JDS teaching. Most commentators have opposed the movement, its

teaching and its practice. Closely linked to this has been a developing
historical awareness about the links between Kenyon and the Word-
faith movement, and his own alleged links with New Thought philos-
ophy. The most significant voices who contribute from these and simi-
lar viewpoints are introduced in section 6, under the heading, ‘Grow-
ing opposition’. However, not everyone agrees. Some researchers into
Kenyon’s life offer a different perspective on his sources and on his
resultant teaching. They are introduced in section 7, as ‘Dissenting
voices’. More recently, those who have listened carefully to both sides
of the debate have offered their ‘Mediating positions’. These will be
considered in section 8. Under each heading, contributors will be con-
sidered in the chronological order of their first significant submitted or
published contributions.
6. Growing opposition
Much that has been written about the Word-faith movement or its JDS
doctrine has been written against the movement and the doctrine. This
is true of the eight authors reviewed in this section. It must be noted,
however, that the first two are somewhat anomalous, in that: Hobart
Freeman (6.1) was actually part of the movement, but wrote against JDS
doctrine; Charles Farah (6.2) did not write about JDS teaching as such,
but played a pivotal role in initiating the debate and in supervising
research that took it further.
6.1. Growing opposition: Hobart Freeman

The late Hobart Freeman was the one prominent Word-faith teacher to
have spoken out strongly against JDS doctrine (see page 39). His short
electronic book, “Exposing the JDS Heresy,” was uncompromising, as
its title makes clear, in its outright rejection of any truth claims in JDS
teaching. He not only called JDS teaching a “heresy of the most serious
book seems to express the opinions of Perriman himself, while also effectively being a
position statement by the Evangelical Alliance. It is presented as A Report on ‘Word of
Faith’ and ‘Positive Confession’ Theologies by The Evangelical Alliance (UK) Commission on Unity
and Truth among Evangelicals.
44 chapter one
kind,” but wrote with reference to its teachers of “the enormity of their
delusion.”236
His work was devoted almost entirely to discussion of certain scrip-
tural texts, seeking to show how JDS teaching misunderstood them.
Focus was on, for instance, Psalm 22:1; Isaiah 53:9; Luke 23:43, 46;
John 3:14; 2 Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Timothy 3:16. In this discussion, a
repeated observation was that JDS teachers misunderstood these texts
at least partly because they did not, unlike Freeman, have a working
knowledge of the original biblical languages. He put his knowledge
to use, for example, in seeking to undermine their use of the plural
‘deaths’ in Isaiah 53:9, and their equating of sheol and hades with hell.
As well as interacting with JDS teaching at the level of individual texts,
Freeman did seek to offer a wider perspective on biblical teaching. In
this endeavour, he focused to a great extent on his understanding of
biblical typology, which he used to argue that Jesus must have been
an unblemished sacrifice, rather than a participant in a sinful, satanic
nature.
Beyond these textual explorations, Freeman did not examine possi-
ble historical roots of JDS teaching, and did not mention Kenyon or
New Thought. Also, despite his theological education, Freeman made
little use of historical theology. He claimed that Christ could not have
been separated from God on the cross because intra-trinitarian sepa-
ration is “impossible.” He also judged that the human nature of the
incarnate Christ was unfallen. Beyond this, there was little comment
that indicated interaction with the teaching of the church through the
millennia.
The various extents to which study of the Bible, of JDS teaching’s
historical origins, and of historical theology have contributed to subse-
quent debate begin to emerge as more of the debaters are reviewed,
but are explored more fully in chapter 2, when criteria and methods for
evaluating JDS teaching, both for current debaters and for this book,
are discussed in full.
6.2. Growing opposition: Charles Farah

In 1979 Charles Farah of ORU published From the Pinnacle of the Tem-
ple. Farah’s prime concern is expressed in the book’s subtitle (Faith or
236 Freeman, “JDS Heresy.”

Presumption?). The book seeks to warn against presumption in Christian

faith healing. It is not a criticism of the Word-faith movement per se, but
does inevitably focus on this more extravagant end of the spectrum of
practice.237
Farah wrote from within the charismatic movement, as someone who
believed in and practised a ministry of Christian healing.238 Perriman
declares that, “as a charismatic [Farah] endorsed many of the distinc-
tive emphases of Word of Faith teaching.”239 Certainly, From the Pinnacle
of the Temple contains at least some praise:
We can only be grateful to God for the great influence positive confes-
sion has upon all of us, and for the tremendous effectiveness faith teach-
ers have developed in spreading this truly good news of God’s loving
concern for our health and our prosperity.240
However, by 1981, when Farah published a not dissimilar article in
Pneuma, he concluded it with this overall verdict of the movement: “It
is, in fact, a burgeoning heresy.”241
Beyond Farah’s pragmatic and pastoral concerns, his book discusses
his theological ones, which revolve around the Word-faith movement’s
“man-centered theology”,242 its dualism,243 its over-realised eschatol-
ogy, and its lack of an adequate thanatology.244 In his later article, his
emphasis also involves the movement’s hedonistic Gnosticism.245 How-
ever, Farah does not criticise the Word-faith movement’s ideas con-
cerning the atonement. While Farah’s work does not therefore con-
tribute directly to the debate about JDS teaching, it does raise one
issue of fundamental importance to the subject: Farah identifies depen-
dence in Word-faith teaching on the earlier writing of Kenyon. “Most
important of all influences on faith-formula theology are the works
of E.W. Kenyon. Mr. Kenyon’s many writings form a treasure trove
which all present faith-formula teachers mime [sic].”246 Farah does not,
237 Chapter 7 is entitled “The Faith Theology,” and numerous references are made
to ‘faith teachers’ and ‘faith teachings’ (87, 117, 124, etc.).
238 As well as being a professor at ORU, Farah was a leader of a charismatic church
(DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, 225; Perriman, Faith, 13).

240 Farah, Pinnacle, 117.
244 Farah, Pinnacle, 158–164.
245 Farah, “Analysis,” 13–15.
46 chapter one
in turn, discuss the origins of Kenyon’s own views, but this potentially
important line is pursued by one of Farah’s students, Dan McConnell.
6.3. Growing opposition: Dan McConnell

McConnell’s ORU master’s thesis, The Kenyon Connection: A Theological
and Historical Analysis of the Cultic Origins of the Faith Movement, was sub-
mitted in 1982. An expanded and updated version of this work was
published in the USA in 1988 under the title A Different Gospel: A His-
torical and Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement.247 In 1990 it was
published in Britain as The Promise of Health and Wealth, with the same
subtitle. This work, as the titles indicate, is more specifically focused
than Farah’s book on the Word-faith movement, and is thereby more
detailed in its study. It discusses historical issues in far more depth, and
mounts a more sustained exegetical response to Word-faith doctrines.
In particular, it fully explores Kenyon’s role in the movement’s incep-
tion, and his own possible earlier reception of New Thought philoso-
phy. Furthermore, it devotes a chapter to Word-faith ideas concerning
the atonement, alongside chapters about ‘revelation knowledge’, faith,
healing and prosperity.
Some of McConnell’s findings have proved indisputable. Of spe-
cial note is his careful documentation of the wholesale plagiarism of
Kenyon’s work by Hagin.248 Through Hagin, as McConnell ably shows,
Kenyon’s views were widely distributed to and accepted by the whole
Word-faith movement.249 McConnell’s historical research is also use-
ful in highlighting Kenyon’s attendance, in 1892–1893, at the Emerson
College of Oratory,250 led by one Charles Emerson, who himself was on
a religious pilgrimage which ended with his joining, in 1903, the Chris-
tian Scientists.251 Further to this, McConnell claims that, “Kenyon’s per-
sonal acceptance or rejection of New Thought during his days as a stu-
dent is not altogether clear, but that he was exposed to its teachings
and healing practices at Emerson College is a historical certainty.”252
In studying Kenyon’s work, McConnell also finds what he regards as
247 Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988.

248 McConnell, Promise, 5–12. McConnell lists, with relevant lengthy quotations, eight
of Kenyon’s books from which he notes sustained plagiarism by Hagin.
250 McConnell, Promise, 35, cf. 53, n. 15.
a number of linguistic and conceptual parallels between Kenyon and

New Thought. He speculates that Kenyon unintentionally imbibed
New Thought philosophy in the development of his own theology.253
Furthermore, through Kenyon, these New Thought ideas are meant to
have entered the Word-faith movement.
In his chapter on Kenyon’s and the Word-faith movement’s under-
standing of the work of Christ, McConnell denounces what he views
as its pantheistic anthropology, its ‘spiritualized’ view of Christ’s work
on and after the cross, its advocacy of a ransom theory of the atone-
ment, and its ‘cultic’ belief in human deification.254 He regards these
views, taken together, to represent a serious departure from an ‘ortho-
dox’ Christian understanding of salvation.255
McConnell’s criticisms of Word-faith origins, doctrine and practice
are often accepted unquestioningly by more recent commentators.256
However, this assessment has not been unanimous. His claim of a
strong historical link between New Thought and Kenyon is rigorously
challenged.257 His understanding of Word-faith views concerning the
atonement is also questioned.258 This questioning is justified. Indeed,
McConnell’s own view of the atonement, like those of a number of
the debaters under review, is questionable. Its insistent focus on Christ’s
physical death alone as the necessary and satisfactory means of atone-
ment, apparently summarised by any biblical reference to ‘the blood’,259
seems to be reductionist, and to leave the obvious question unanswered:
if Christ’s psychological and ‘spiritual’ agonies were of no atoning pur-
pose, why, if at all, did he have to endure them?
In contrast to these reservations, McConnell’s pioneering historical
research into what he calls the ‘Kenyon connection’,260 and his provoca-
tive comparison of Kenyon’s teaching with that of New Thought and
Christian Science, is a contribution to the debate which no student of
the Word-faith movement can afford to ignore.261

254 McConnell, Promise, ch. 7.
256 E.g. by MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 289–290; Hanegraaff, Crisis, 331; Smail,
Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 57–77, 60; cf. Simmons, Kenyon, xi:
“McConnell’s thesis has been widely accepted as axiomatic among Kenyon’s critics.”
257 See, e.g., Simmons, Kenyon, x–xi; Lie, “Kenyon,” 71–86; McIntyre, Kenyon.
258 See, e.g., Lie, “Theology,” 85–114.
259 McConnell, Promise, 129–130.
260 McConnell, Promise, ch. 3.
261 Others who saw connections between Kenyon, Word-faith, and New Thought in
48 chapter one
6.4. Growing opposition: Andrew Brandon

In 1987 Brandon became the first British opponent of the Word-faith
movement to write a book on the subject, publishing Health & Wealth.
This brief paperback for the popular market, clearly written with a
British audience in mind, tackles a broad range of concerns about
Word-faith beliefs and practices, but includes a section devoted to JDS
teaching, which it denounces uncompromisingly as a “sinister attack on
the integrity of the gospel,” “heresy,” and “deviant.”262
Like Freeman’s work from within the Word-faith movement, Bran-
don’s arguments centre for the most part on biblical exegesis. Thus Isa-
iah 53:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Peter 3:18 gain particular attention,
among a host of other texts. The exegetical work is brief and simple,
but some will warrant attention in subsequent chapters. Brandon’s work
exhibits through its endnotes a fair degree of wider reading, including
Freeman’s and Farah’s books. He seems unaware of McConnell’s as yet
unpublished research and makes no mention of New Thought, though
he does call Kenyon Hagin’s “mentor.”263 Wider theological discussion
is cursory. Examination of Philippians 2:7, for instance, does not exhibit
knowledge of the kenotic debate, or of its relevance to JDS teaching. To
be fair, Brandon does not claim to have conducted an academic piece
of research. His work functions as a pastoral warning to the British
church.
6.5. Growing opposition: Hank Hanegraaff

Hanegraaff published his contribution to the growing criticisms of the
Word-faith movement in 1993.264 In his book, “an astounding best-
the 1980s included Matta, Born Again Jesus (1984); Hunt, Seduction of Christianity (1985),
Beyond Seduction (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House Publishers, 1987); Kinnebrew, Doctrine
(1988).
262 Brandon, Health, 119, 121, 131.
263 Brandon, Health, 128.
264 Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis; there is much overlap with Hendrik H. Hane-
graaff, “What’s Wrong with the Faith Movement?—Part One: E.W. Kenyon and the
Twelve Apostles of Another Gospel,” Christian Research Journal (Winter 1993), http://
www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0118a.txt; Hendrik H. Hanegraaff
and Erwin M. de Castro, “What’s Wrong with the Faith Movement?—Part Two: The
Teachings of Kenneth Copeland,” Christian Research Journal (Spring 1993), http://www
.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0119a.txt.
seller”,265 the reader is presented with a sustained denunciation of the

movement that does not seek to moderate its language. Outspokenly,
sometimes pejoratively, Hanegraaff expresses deep concern about the
movement’s teaching and practice.266 His expression of concern and
distaste is not alloyed by praise of any aspects. He does, however,
admit that “there are many sincere, born-again believers within the
movement.”267
Hanegraaff does not devote much attention to the issue of the move-
ment’s origins. He simply notes the work of Farah and McConnell in
identifying a dependence of the movement on Kenyon, and of Kenyon,
in turn, on New Thought.268 However, he allocates a complete sec-
tion of the book to the atonement (Part Four, “Atonement Atrocities”).
Having opined that JDS teaching demotes God and Christ, and dei-
fies humanity and Satan (Part Three, “Little Gods or Little Frauds?”),
he goes on to declare that it presents the atoning work of Christ in
the following terms: Christ was ‘recreated’ on or before the cross as a
‘demoniac’;269 he redeemed humanity not while on the cross but while
in hell; and he was reborn in hell, which was a form of reincarnation,
enabling further incarnations of God in all Christians.270 Commenting
specifically on Christ’s rebirth in hell, he states, “There is zero biblical
basis for this despicable doctrine.”271
Hanegraaff’s response to these perceived doctrines focuses, like oth-
ers before his, on exegesis of relevant biblical texts. In fact, his exegesis
is more thorough than some, and considers a broader range. He does
also engage to some extent with the findings of historical theology (see
page 91).

266 E.g., Hanegraaff writes of the Word-faith movement’s “pathetic attempt to repo-
sition humanity on a level of equality with God”; with respect to an aspect of the
movement’s atonement doctrine, he admits, “How such blasphemy could be tolerated
in the Christian community is beyond me”; he writes: “the god of Charles Capps is but
the figment of his imagination”; “Copeland then stretches this heresy to its most ridicu-
lous extreme”; the atonement is the doctrine “the Faith teachers so blithely prostitute”;
“It would be depressing enough if the madness stopped there. But it doesn’t” (Crisis,
117, 132, 134, 141, 175 [2]).
267 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 41. Italics removed.
268 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 331, 407–408, n. 2.
269 Hanegraaff, Crisis, ch. 13, especially 155, 157.
270 Hanegraaff, Crisis, chs 14, 15, 16.
271 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 174.
50 chapter one
Unsurprisingly, given his forthrightness, Hanegraaff has not gained

as many supporters in print as McConnell did.272 Two particular critics
of his approach are DeArteaga, in Quenching the Spirit, and Spencer, in
Heresy Hunters. DeArteaga’s particular concern is that Hanegraaff has
misrepresented the Word-faith movement. He has done this by assum-
ing that “listing the worst errors of a movement is a truthful repre-
sentation of that movement . . . It is an error easily made, but it results
in caricature, not analysis, and results in destructiveness, not biblical
reproof.”273 In response, DeArteaga states that “no religious movement
or class of experiences should be judged only by its extreme manifes-
tations.”274 DeArteaga also suggests that Hanegraaff failed to “recog-
nize a broader orthodoxy than his own tradition.”275 This same critique
is offered, more forcibly, by Spencer.276 Ignoring Hanegraaff’s footnote
that JDS teaching’s ‘ransom theory’ contrasts with the historical one,277
Spencer indicates that the ransom theory of the atonement does not
fall outside the bounds of Christian ‘orthodoxy’.278 While this specific
criticism fails to impress, DeArteaga’s broader ones carry weight.
6.6. Growing opposition: Smail, Walker and Wright

In 1994 Smail, Walker and Wright published the article “ ‘Revelation
Knowledge’ and Knowledge of Revelation: The Faith Movement and
the Question of Heresy.” Although much briefer than the other works
reviewed here, this article is significant, in that it is written by recog-
nised academicians, and it focuses largely on Word-faith teaching con-
cerning the atonement.
No direct response to Smail, Walker and Wright’s work has appeared
in print. The work is of mixed quality. Its analysis of the various strands
of argument is useful, as is the survey of and appeal to early Christian
thought. However, its representation of Word-faith teaching seems to
be based on significant misunderstandings of its ideas. An example
would be the article’s inference that “for Kenyon it is not Calvary
272 Smail, Walker and Wright praise it, however, for example as “comprehensively
documented and sensitive to dogmatic issues” (“Revelation Knowledge,” 63).

276 Spencer, Heresy Hunters, 99.
277 This is an oversight shared by DeArteaga (Quenching the Spirit, 270).
278 Spencer, Heresy Hunters, 100–104.
love that redeems but the great (hitherto hidden) truths of ‘revelation
knowledge’.”279 Such an idea is difficult to reconcile, for instance, with
Kenyon’s exposition of divine love, as expressed in the cry, “Father,
forgive them for they know not what they do.”280 This poverty of
understanding may arise from an apparent lack of primary research
into Word-faith literature. The article rests heavily on the research of
McConnell, and less so on that of Hanegraaff, both of which it accepts
unreservedly, and takes almost all its quotations of Word-faith teachers’
words from those secondary sources.281 This means that they may not
have been read in context, and may thus have been misconstrued. It is
disappointing that such senior figures should have produced work that
is in some ways of a relatively low standard.
6.7. Growing opposition: conclusion

It has become clear through the review of this opposition to JDS teach-
ing that debate has occurred in three main areas. First, biblical mate-
rial has continued to be the focus of much attention. In general, the
same texts that JDS teachers themselves refer to frequently are dis-
cussed by their opponents, who use these texts, and others, to reach dif-
ferent conclusions. Secondly, Kenyon’s non-biblical sources have come
under examination, especially through McConnell’s research. His pos-
sible influence by New Thought philosophy and Christian Science has
become an important part of the wider debate. Thirdly, and to much
lesser extent, there has been recourse in the writing of some of these
critics to historical Christian theology. The use of biblical texts, New
Thought and Christian Science sources, and historical theology will be
considered methodologically in chapter 2, and individual texts, sources,
and theological viewpoints will be examined in later chapters.
279 Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 62, supported by a single
quotation of Kenyon, taken from a citation in McConnell’s work.

280 Kenyon, Father, 174; cf. God the Father’s reasons for creation and redemption, as
explained throughout the book.

281 See Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 62 ff., nn. 14, 15, 18, 25,
28, 29, 39, 42.

52 chapter one
7. Dissenting voices
So far, contributors to the debate have all opposed Kenyon, the Word-
faith movement, or JDS teaching. However, at much the same time as
McConnell’s work was being published, the careful doctoral research of
Dale Simmons challenged McConnell’s perspective on Kenyon. Sim-
mons is one of a number, albeit small, of dissenters. The three authors
reviewed below do not defend Kenyon’s JDS teaching, but they do find
connections between Kenyon and ‘orthodox’ sources, and challenge the
prevailing view concerning Kenyon’s dependence on ‘heterodox’ ones.
7.1. Dissenting voices: Dale Simmons

Simmons’ work, E.W. Kenyon and the Postbellum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and
Plenty, was originally submitted to Drew University as a PhD disserta-
tion in 1988, and eventually published as a book in 1997. His review
of the Word-faith movement is relatively brief,282 and merely comments
critically on a few practical areas of its life.
The focus of his research, however, as his title suggests, is Kenyon
and his contemporary environment. Like McConnell, Simmons ac-
knowledges Kenyon’s relative dependence on concepts drawn from
New Thought.283 However, he suggests two limitations to the signifi-
cance of that dependence, and therefore important potential correc-
tives to McConnell’s thesis. The first is that New Thought was not
in certain relevant aspects especially different from the Keswick and
Higher Life movements.284 The other is that, in so far as these move-
ments’ features distinguished themselves from one another, Kenyon was
actually more indebted to Keswick than to New Thought.285 Simmons
seeks to demonstrate this in two ways. First, historically, he shows that
282 Simmons, Kenyon, 296–304.

283 In particular, Simmons recognises that Kenyon’s enthusiasm for ‘positive confes-
sion’ owed more to New Thought than to, for instance, the Holiness movement (Kenyon,
171, 304).
284 Simmons, Kenyon, xiii. Examples: “both Keswick and New Thought held union
with God to be the goal of one’s life” (87); “Like New Thought, the Higher Life
movement focused on changing the individual, rather than institutions” (95); “[J]ust
as with New Thought, Higher Christian Life teachers point out that even though faith
must be expressed in present tense terms, it may be some time before one ‘enters into
the experimental enjoyment’ of that which one has claimed” (158).
285 Simmons, Kenyon, e.g. xi; 304.
Kenyon was exposed to Higher Life as much as, if not more than,
New Thought:
Indeed, while some have concluded that Kenyon (via his attendance at
Emerson College) was brought directly and decisively under the influ-
ence of New Thought, it could just as easily be argued that Kenyon’s
brief stay at Emerson initiated (or reinforced) his “connection” with the
Higher Christian Life movement (with which the school’s founder and
president, Charles Wesley Emerson, was also deeply involved).286
Secondly, conceptually, he looks for parallels in Kenyon’s writing with

each of these groups. Although he finds them with both, parallels with
Higher Life predominate.287
The quality of Simmons’ research has been appreciated by, among
others, Bowman and McIntyre.288 Combined with the clarity of his
presentation, it aids understanding of Kenyon’s historical and soci-
ological environment. As such, Simmons’ case offers an important
perspective on Kenyon and his world. However, Simmons may be
overstating McConnell’s case for the connection between Kenyon and
New Thought in order to counter-argue it. McConnell’s claim is that
Kenyon’s theology was syncretistic, rather than wholly dominated by
New Thought. Also, Simmons may be underplaying the differences
between New Thought and Higher Life, as Bowman claims.289 Nev-
ertheless, Simmons for the first time highlights both Kenyon’s genuine
indebtedness to the ‘orthodox’ Christian Higher Life movement ema-
nating from the Keswick conventions, and similarities between this and
New Thought.
7.2. Dissenting voices: William DeArteaga

One debater who positively seeks to rehabilitate Kenyon is William
DeArteaga. His book, Quenching the Spirit, offers a critique of, partic-
ularly, McConnell’s, Hunt’s and Hanegraaff’s works about the Word-
faith movement. DeArteaga offers some mild rebukes of his own against

287 Simmons, Kenyon, 164–165 serve as an example: “Kenyon’s elaborate teachings on
the origin and operation of demons are in marked contrast to the virtual denial of evil
in New Thought and place him closer to the Higher Life and Pentecostal movements
of his day.”
288 Bowman, Controversy, e.g. 243; McIntyre, Kenyon, e.g. iv.
289 Bowman, Controversy, e.g. 243.
54 chapter one
the movement,290 but equally he is prepared to praise Hagin,291 and to

defend Copeland against certain criticisms of Hanegraaff.292 He devotes
far more pages, however, to Kenyon, whom he views as an important
positive influence not just on the movement but on wider charismatic
and “mainstream” Christianity.293 With respect to the impact of New
Thought on Kenyon, he accepts that this occurred,294 but argues that
Kenyon ‘filtered’ these ideas so as to maintain only those in line with his
view of biblical teaching. In this way, he made a positive contribution
in drawing Christianity away from cessationism and its philosophical
underpinnings.295
When discussing Kenyon’s atonement theology, and particularly his
portrayal of Christ’s descent into hell, DeArteaga writes:
First, although Kenyon’s theory was speculative and probably wrong, it
does not deserve to be labeled as heresy. His interpretation was based
on a biblically orthodox, although no longer popular, theory of the
atonement. Secondly, Kenyon’s interpretation of Christ in hell merely
expands what was suggested by John Calvin, the father of Reformed
orthodoxy. Thus McConnell (and Hanegraaff) have made a heretical
mountain out of a doctrinal molehill.296
DeArteaga then proceeds to discuss ransom theories, and Calvin’s com-

mentary on the Apostles’ Creed, concluding with respect to the latter:
“To call Kenyon’s theory heretical and dangerous is to say the same
of Calvin’s theory.”297 Such a verdict overlooks vast differences between
Calvinism and JDS doctrine (see chapters 4, 5 and 6). Overall, DeArt-
eaga makes some useful criticisms, especially of Hanegraaff, but his
own theological analysis is superficial and relatively uninformed.
7.3. Dissenting voices: Geir Lie

Another defender of Kenyon is Geir Lie. The English translation of his
revised 1994 master’s thesis for the Norwegian Lutheran School of The-
ology was later published as a book under the same title, E.W. Kenyon:
290 DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, 223, 225–227.

291 DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, 244; cf. 231.
292 DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, 271–272.
293 DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, 175; cf. 223, 243.
295 DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, e.g. 175.
Cult Founder or Evangelical Minister?298 Lengthy sections of its contents

have also appeared almost verbatim, with small additions, in two arti-
cles, ‘E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder or Evangelical Minister?’ and ‘The
Theology of E.W. Kenyon: Plain Heresy or Within the Boundaries of
Pentecostal-Charismatic “Orthodoxy?” ’ The thesis, which is a response
to the work of McConnell, is primarily a historical analysis, but with
theological observations. The historical enquiry, some of which is quite
dependent on that of Simmons, goes somewhat beyond Simmons’ con-
clusions: “Kenyon’s historical roots seem solidly planted in an ‘evangel-
ical’ tradition, namely mysticism, Brethrenism and Higher Life/Faith-
Cure” and “Kenyon might just as well have derived his theology from
Higher Life sources as from cultic ones.”299
The theological sections are more than willing to criticise Kenyon’s
thinking, not least his ideas regarding atonement. Thus he can write:
“It is impossible to refute all criticism of Kenyon’s teachings on the spir-
itual death of Christ.”300 Nonetheless, he critiques McConnell’s obser-
vations, indicating ways in which it is necessary to negate some of the
implications created by them. These observations and criticisms will be
discussed in later chapters.
7.4. Dissenting voices: conclusion

Not everyone has accepted McConnell’s thesis that Kenyon imbibed
New Thought ideas to the detriment of his ‘orthodoxy’. DeArteaga
is the most fulsome in his defence of Kenyon, but Simmons and Lie
offer more important conclusions, that Kenyon was on balance more
influenced by Higher Life than by New Thought. With respect to JDS
teaching itself, notwithstanding DeArteaga’s unconvincing suggestion
that it is nothing more than a doctrinal ‘molehill’, Lie opens the way
for a balanced discussion that is willing to part company with Kenyon’s
view while not merely rejecting it as ‘heresy’.
298 Oslo: Refleks publishing, 2004.

299 Lie, “Kenyon,” 81.
300 Lie, Kenyon, 93, also in “Theology,” 99.
56 chapter one
8. Mediating positions
Moving to the twenty-first century, more recent works offer a viewpoint

that is not as antagonistic towards either the Word-faith movement
or JDS teaching as some of the earlier contributions were, while still
capable of incisive criticism.
8.1. Mediating positions: Robert Bowman

Bowman published The Word-Faith Controversy in 2001. This useful book
displays a high degree of primary research, and employs more nuanced
discussion than that of, for example, Hanegraaff, seeking to present
Word-faith doctrines in a manner that avoids the danger of parodying
them.301
Like others before him, Bowman explores the origins of the move-
ment. First, he re-opens the question about the link between it and
Kenyon. He believes that McConnell and his dependants overstated
this relationship. While they referred to Kenyon as the ‘father’ of the
movement, he prefers ‘grandfather’. Later, from a differing perspective,
Bowman presents Kenyon as merely one of “four ‘fathers’ of the Word-
Faith movement.”302 The other three are, he claims, William Branham,
Oral Roberts, and Kenneth Hagin. While he describes William Bran-
ham and the Latter Rain movement at some length, he does not actu-
ally state what doctrines or practices he regards Branham as having
contributed to the Word-faith movement, thus weakening his claim.
Similarly, though he gives attention to Oral Roberts and his ministry
in ‘Pentecostal Televangelism’, it is unclear how much, if any, of the
thought and practice concerning faith and healing that Roberts dissem-
inated would not earlier have been espoused by Kenyon.303 Only in the
case of Hagin does Bowman present a convincing case that Kenyon’s
ideas have been substantially added to: Hagin has made the movement
explicitly Pentecostal in its doctrine insofar as he introduced and pro-
mulgated a classical Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Holy
Spirit and speaking in tongues.304 This apart, given the paucity of evi-
dence offered by Bowman that the movement differs substantially in
301 Bowman, Controversy, 18–19, 30.

302 Bowman, Controversy, 36, 38, 124, 86 (quoted).
304 Bowman, Controversy, 94; cf. Jackson, “Prosperity Theology,” 16.
its doctrine from that of Kenyon, Bowman is surely right to have con-
cluded earlier in his work that, although “a number of important fig-
ures were responsible for bringing about the Word-Faith movement and
its theology”, “the most important by far is indeed Kenyon.”305
In considering Kenyon’s own influences, he agrees with Simmons
that Kenyon was more indebted to Higher Life than to New Thought,
but actually wishes to make this point more forcibly, accurately stat-
ing that Simmons underestimates the differences between these two
groups.306 Like Simmons, he interacts with McConnell, but also seems
at times to exaggerate McConnell’s thesis to critique it.307
After exploring the Word-faith movement’s origins, Bowman, like
McConnell and Hanegraaff, devotes several chapters of his book to dis-
cussing the various main Word-faith doctrinal distinctives. His chapters
on the atonement respond with biblical exegesis much as his prede-
cessors’ do. A particular contribution, though, is his careful analysis at
each stage of what JDS teaching does and does not claim, and what of the
doctrine he agrees with, as well as what he differs from.308
This approach is helpful in creating a balanced discussion, though
his criticisms remain trenchant. Among other observations, he declares
that the belief that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ is ‘heretical’.309 His conclu-
sions about the movement as a whole are that it is “suborthodox and
aberrant”, containing some ‘heretical’ teachers, but that many of its
participants are ‘orthodox’ if unsophisticated, and that it should not be
“described as cultic.”310
8.2. Mediating positions: Andrew Perriman

‘Balanced’ is also an apt description of the more recent Faith, Health
& Prosperity, edited by Perriman and published in 2003. For instance,
this work seeks to employ conciliatory aims and respectful principles in
engaging in debate with the Word-faith movement.311 Thus the book
tries to investigate the movement “in a way which purposefully opens

306 Bowman, Controversy, 47, 54–55, 58, 66–67, 82, 243.
307 Bowman, Controversy, 53–54, 66.
308 Bowman, Controversy, chs. 9–13, e.g. 129, 163.
311 Perriman, Faith, “A Fair Trial,” 15–18. It might be construed, however, that the
term ‘trial’ is itself prejudicial.

58 chapter one
a path towards constructive dialogue and reconciliation.”312 Similarly,

while Perriman continues the stance of earlier debaters that the move-
ment contains significant errors in its doctrine and practice,313 neverthe-
less he repeatedly maintains that evangelicalism may have failings that
Word-faith distinctives highlight or mirror,314 and that evangelicalism
might indeed be able to learn from certain Word-faith emphases.315
Perriman’s overall method does not differ markedly from that of
Bowman: he discusses issues of origins before tackling each Word-
faith distinctive, offering a considered response which draws upon bib-
lical exegesis and, sometimes, makes recourse to historical theology.
He does, however, develop his ideas beyond Bowman’s in offering a
more detailed description of the movement’s world-wide growth and
influence, and, particularly, in further considering important issues con-
cerning the hermeneutics employed in Word-faith Bible reading, and
the typical genre of Word-faith teaching, which might at times contain
“flamboyant and somewhat reckless rhetoric”.316
Perriman concludes his chapter about the movement’s origins:
“Bowman seems close to the mark when he concludes that it was
Hagin’s peculiar synthesis of Kenyon’s teaching with Latter Rain Pen-
tecostalism that produced the modern Word of Faith movement.”317
Perriman seeks, with some success, to offer a fuller explanation than
Bowman about the influence of the Latter Rain movement on the
movement. Referring to the ministries of Oral Roberts and A.A. Allen,
Perriman posits that teaching and practice concerning prosperity and
fund-raising developed during the 1950s and were apparently drawn by
Hagin into his overall scheme of ministry.318 However, he does not deny
the significant influence of Kenyon on distinctive Word-faith doctrine.
In turn, he recognises that Kenyon may have been influenced by both
312 Perriman, Faith, 15. Cf. the book’s “Conclusions,” subtitled: “Word of Faith and
Evangelical Unity” (209–235).

313 Perriman, Faith, chs 6–12, and “Conclusions.”
314 Perriman, Faith, 17, 81, 103.
315 Perriman, Faith, 101, 102 (relevant to this study): “Copeland uses the language and
imagery of human production and commerce to say something quite profound about
the atonement.”
316 Perriman, Faith, chs 1, 6, quotation from 101. For discussion about the rhetoric
employed by Copeland, see John O. Thompson, “Voice Genres: The Case of Televan-
gelical Language,” in The Nature of Religious Language: A Colloquium, ed. Stanley E. Porter
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 95–97.
New Thought and Higher Life, two movements that had at least some
beliefs and practices in common: “These two currents were not entirely
distinct. They intermingled at places; they shared common interests;
they exchanged terminology and arguments. Kenyon was perhaps the
best example of that confluence.”319
In his chapter on Word-faith teaching about the work of Christ, Per-
riman offers an excellent nuanced discussion, which allows some degree
of agreement with it, recognises a plurality of perspectives in biblical
theology, and raises issues of later theological debate such as kenoti-
cism.320 Overall, it has departed markedly from the unyielding polemics
of such earlier critics as Hanegraaff. Nevertheless, it still concludes that
JDS teaching is a “peculiar atonement mythology”.321
8.3. Mediating positions: conclusion

Bowman and Perriman are both more willing than earlier critics to
listen respectfully to JDS teaching, and to recognise agreement where
such exists. They also exemplify a balanced approach to the question
of Kenyon’s contemporary sources and influences. While each remains
a bewildered opponent of JDS teaching, awareness of ‘orthodox’ ele-
ments in Kenyon’s background, and at least some ability to indulge
in nuanced theological discussion enables each commentator to avoid
occupying an extreme stance.
9. Chapter conclusions
9.1. Summary
JDS teaching has its spiritual ‘home’ in the Word-faith movement,
which finds its origins in the marriage, at Hagin’s hands, of classi-
cal Pentecostalism, the ‘revivalism’ of Oral Roberts, and the distinctive
teaching of Kenyon. While it remains typically Pentecostal in many of
its beliefs, the movement’s views on healing, prosperity and atonement,
among others, are distinctive and controversial. Its understanding of the
atonement, for instance, includes the highly controversial JDS teach-
319 Perriman, Faith, 74–76, quoting 76.

320 Perriman, Faith, e.g. 106–108.
60 chapter one
ing, labelled by many commentators as ‘heresy’. The Word-faith move-

ment, although amorphous, is highly influential among Pentecostal and
charismatic Christians, for instance through its use of modern com-
munications media. Given that JDS teaching is controversial, and the
movement from which it emanates is so influential, research into the
teaching is warranted.
This research project focuses on the views of three foremost JDS
teachers: Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland. Kenyon developed JDS teach-
ing in its present form, and it became part of Word-faith teaching
through Hagin’s plagiarism of Kenyon. Copeland, perhaps the most
influential living leader of the Word-faith movement, continues to teach
JDS doctrine today. While, of the three, Hagin offers the least immod-
erate account of Christ’s death, the three agree that in his ‘spiritual
death’ Jesus was separated from God, partook of a sinful satanic nature,
and became Satan’s prey. Other JDS teachers offer similar accounts.
JDS teaching has sparked considerable debate among a number of
opponents and other researchers. While one opponent of JDS teaching
was himself a prominent Word-faith teacher, other debaters come from
outside the movement. In the USA, many are charismatic, ORU being
a centre of debate, or evangelicals from ‘cult-watch’ ministries. A num-
ber of British commentators have also participated in the discussion. A
survey of individual contributions to the debate demonstrates a rising
tide of opposition on both sides of the Atlantic, a smaller number of
dissenting voices, and, more recently, some mediating positions.
The discussion to which JDS teaching has given rise has centred on
two areas. First, certain biblical texts, studied by JDS teachers them-
selves, have in turn gained the attention of their critics. Secondly,
Kenyon’s non-biblical sources have been a focus of study. In particu-
lar, commentators have disagreed about the extent to which he was
influenced by New Thought and Christian Science, or Higher Life and
Faith Cure. The historical evidence suggests he was more influenced
by the latter groups, while indicating commonalities between these and
New Thought.
9.2. Implications
It is clear that the research which is reported in this book is justified
(and there is also reason to conclude that a Pentecostal is suitably
positioned to undertake it). It is not the case that all the ‘ground
has already been covered’. No research at doctoral level has been
previously pursued into JDS teaching. Also, the debate still exhibits
a number of important gaps methodologically. The most ground has
been covered in ‘Bible study’. Most debaters are evangelical; all honour
the Christian scriptures. Hence, certain texts have been considered in
some detail. However, even here more needs to be said. A tendency
on both sides of the debate, for and against JDS teaching, has been
to consider in detail small texts isolated from their contexts, social and
literary. There is thus room for a study which still considers individual
texts with care, but which also views the overall perspectives of biblical
authors, and indeed of the canon. The next chapter contains a section
(pages 67–77) that considers in detail this matter of the place of the
Bible, both in the debate so far conducted, and in the research project
here being reported.
A second area where, methodologically, work has still clearly needed
to be done concerns the question of Kenyon’s contemporary sources
and influences. While it has become reasonably clear that Kenyon was
closer in hue to Higher Life and Faith Cure than he was to New
Thought and Christian Science, research still needs to be conducted
which applies this observation to the individual doctrines that he taught
and introduced to the Word-faith movement. JDS teaching offers itself
as a suitable example of this need and opportunity. Both arenas of
Kenyon’s possible background need to be searched to see if his JDS
doctrine, or its seeds, lay already in either one. Methodological con-
siderations about this task occupy a further section in chapter 2 (pages
77–82).
However, the greatest gap in the debate so far is the lack of con-
sideration of historical theology. Only a few debaters have given even
scant attention to the thinking of Christians during the near two mil-
lennia between the Bible’s completion and this debate’s inception. A
massive amount of careful thought has gone into the subject of Christ’s
death. Passive ignorance, or a deliberate ignoring, of this process and
its findings, has led to a naïvety among some of the debaters and their
positions. This research project does not ignore the treasure trove of
historical Christian thought. A section in the following chapter sets out
a justification for this approach, and suggests a method for engaging
appropriately with theological sources (pages 82–95).
62 chapter one
9.3. Key observations

The influential and controversial Word-faith movement has been the
subject of heated discussion in wider Christian circles since the 1970s.
Critics and defenders of the movement have included within their gaze
a study of its teaching that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ (JDS). However, they
have not highlighted this aspect of Word-faith doctrine to a greater
extent than any other. In particular, no doctoral research into JDS
teaching has been conducted. The present project is thus an important
contribution to the debate.
Within this debate, one contribution stands out as key: that of Dan
McConnell. McConnell’s influential opinion, that the Word-faith
movement has gained some of its doctrinal distinctives, via Kenyon,
from the ‘heterodox’ New Thought and Christian Science movements,
has however been challenged by more recent researchers. Kenyon was
probably more influenced by the ‘orthodox’ Higher Life and Faith
Cure movements (which, anyway, shared identifiable common ground
with the ‘heterodox’ groups). Kenyon, and therefore the Word-faith
movement, cannot simply be dismissed as ‘heretical’ on the basis of
McConnell’s work.
chapter two
SCOPE, CRITERIA AND METHODS
1. Introduction
Chapter 2 has the primary aim of indicating and justifying the scope,
criteria and methods this book will employ in its theological appraisal
of JDS teaching. In the process, and by way of comparison, it also aims
to demonstrate what the criteria and methods are of those who have
already propounded or debated JDS teaching. This comparison will
clarify ways in which this book both furthers the employment of criteria
and methods already in use, and introduces some that have so far been
neglected.
The rest of the chapter is arranged in six sections. First, the scope
and limits of the research are briefly set out (section 2). Thereafter, the
three criteria which the project employs for evaluating JDS doctrine are
presented (section 3). Each of these raises methodological concerns, and
the following three sections discuss these with respect to each criterion:
faithfulness to the biblical witness (section 4); influence on Kenyon of
his various possible contemporary sources (section 5); and conformity
to the major conclusions of historical theology (section 6). In each of
these three sections, presentation of this book’s methods is preceded by
discussion of the methods employed by JDS teachers, and those who
have debated their doctrine. Finally, section 7 concludes the chapter.
2. Scope and limits
The appraisal which this work offers is theological, not social. No

attempt is made to offer a significant contribution to the social study
of the Word-faith movement. It does not seek to cover similar ground,
for example, to that discussed by Harrison in his Righteous Riches: The
Word of Faith Movement in Contemporary African American Religion. It is much
more similar in scope, though not in subject matter, to Kinnebrew’s
The Charismatic Doctrine of Positive Confession: A Historical, Exegetical, and
64 chapter two
Theological Critique. In other words, by studying the teaching concern-

ing Christ’s ‘inner’ suffering in his dying and death that was preva-
lent among Kenyon’s putative influences, both ‘orthodox’ and ‘hetero-
dox’, and by setting out both how Kenyon understood Christ’s ‘spiritual
death’ and how Hagin and Copeland have developed that understand-
ing, the work builds a picture of the historical evolution of JDS teaching
to the present day. Furthermore, by examining the extent to which JDS
teaching stands within or departs from, on the one hand, traditional
‘orthodox’ Christian formulations found in and built on the Bible and
the creeds, and on the other hand, the thinking of New Thought and
Christian Science, this project, to quote Kinnebrew, offers a ‘historical,
exegetical and theological critique’ of JDS doctrine.
The aim of this book, in appraising JDS doctrine theologically, is to
consider the doctrine as one possible answer to the question, “What
happened ‘inwardly’ to Jesus in his dying and death?” It is not the
intention of this book to evaluate JDS teaching more broadly as a the-
ory of the atonement, nor indeed to examine the idea of atonement
itself. Neither is it an aim to consider penal substitution, of which JDS
teaching is clearly a form. Therefore, similarly, the project’s conclusions
will offer their own contribution towards answering the question con-
cerning Christ’s dying and death, but will not attempt to develop a
theory of atonement, substitutionary or otherwise.
In order to prevent the ramifications of the project’s enquiry from
spreading too far, it is necessary to make certain theological assump-
tions. For the purposes of discussion, then, it is assumed that God is
the all-powerful trinitarian creator, and is loving and just in his1 deal-
ings with creation. It is also assumed that humans are in need of sal-
vation from their sin, and that God wants to offer this salvation to
them. Christ, understood in traditional incarnational terms, is God’s
answer to a world in need. Furthermore, the existence of Satan, or the
devil, is assumed, as it is by JDS teachers, and by the main contribu-
tors to JDS debate. It is further assumed that Satan is personal, evil, at
enmity with humanity, and in some way defeated (at least proleptically)
through God’s work in Christ.
1 The use of the masculine pronoun, here and elsewhere, though kept to a mini-
mum, is in line with Christ’s designation of God as his ‘Father’. It is not intended to
indicate that God is male. Similarly, use of a masculine pronoun with reference to Satan
is not meant to imply gender.
scope, criteria and methods 65
3. Criteria
The debate concerning JDS teaching centres on its ‘truth claim’: the
declaration that this is what really happened to Jesus. For JDS teachers
themselves, the claim rests wholly upon their belief that this is what the
Bible teaches. Their opponents refer to a wider range of evaluative cri-
teria. The Bible continues to enjoy central place, but consideration is
also given to the possible influence of New Thought and Christian Sci-
ence on Kenyon and his teaching, including JDS doctrine, and, occa-
sionally, to historical theological issues. This book will employ all three.
It will consider: faithfulness to the Christian scriptures; conformity with
or departure from Kenyon’s various probable contemporary sources;
and conformity with or departure from historic Christian formulations
concerning Christ’s death.
3.1. The criterion of the Bible

The sole criterion offered by JDS teachers for ascertaining the truthful-
ness of the claim that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ is its faithfulness to scrip-
tural teaching. They believe JDS teaching is true, because they believe
it is ‘biblical’. In other words they believe that the Christian scriptures
declare Jesus to have ‘died spiritually’, and that their understanding of
what that death involved is also borne out by scriptural material. In
similar vein, JDS teaching’s opponents have questioned this truth claim
primarily by returning to the same scriptures and declaring on that
same basis that the claim is false: Jesus did not ‘die spiritually’, for this
is not what the Bible teaches. This research project will continue to pur-
sue this line of enquiry, and will thus interact in some detail with these
scriptures. A first criterion against which this appraisal of JDS doctrine
will be carried out is thus the degree of its conformity with or depar-
ture from scriptural testimony. Section 4 will discuss the methodological
implications of this criterion.
3.2. The criterion of Kenyon’s contemporary influences

It emerged in chapter 1 that, for many debaters about JDS doctrine,
biblical content is not the only criterion against which to judge it.
Some also pursue a more recent historical enquiry, seeking to gauge the
extent to which Kenyon, in introducing the doctrine to the church, was
drawing upon ideas prevalent in his day in New Thought philosophy
66 chapter two
and Christian Science. The thinking here is clear. In the minds of

these opponents, New Thought evidently departs to some extent from
scriptural teaching, and is therefore to this extent false. If JDS teaching
can be demonstrated to resemble New Thought in contrast to biblical
teaching, then it too is false.
There is merit in this line of enquiry. Doctrinal distinctions between
New Thought and, on the one hand, biblical ideas and, on the other
hand, nineteenth and twentieth century western ‘orthodox’ Christian-
ity are not difficult to find, despite the nebulousness of New Thought.
Where contrasts can be demonstrated, then efforts to find which ‘camp’
Kenyon was in are not futile. If in some respects he resembled New
Thought at the expense of ‘orthodoxy’, then evangelical and Pente-
costal Christians today have reason to be wary of his teaching at those
points. Thus this work will examine the extent to which JDS teaching’s
roots can be demonstrated in New Thought and Christian Science.
Again, however, these observations raise methodological questions.
One is whether a primarily historical or theological enquiry is appro-
priate. As the question about the extent to which Kenyon was affected
by New Thought while at Emerson College remains an open one, it
might be deduced that further historical research is in order. However,
the research already conducted by McConnell and Simmons especially
indicates that this phase of Kenyon’s life has already been closely exam-
ined, and further clarity is unlikely. It is best to concede that Kenyon
might have been influenced by New Thought, even allowing for his
repeated negative statements about the movement.2 Therefore, more
benefit will come from comparing his writing with New Thought and
Christian Science writers who may have influenced him on the subject
of Christ’s death and surrounding issues, to see whether parallels can
be found that suggest in some way that he was dependent on them.
Clearly, this process calls for a considered selection of New Thought
and Christian Science sources to research. 5.1 will be devoted to this
discussion. However, there is also the need to compare these New
Thought sources with more ‘orthodox’ sources that Kenyon might also
have drawn from. It has already been shown in chapter 1 that some
dissenting voices regarded Kenyon as much closer to the Higher Life
and Faith Cure movements of his day. These sources will also need to
be researched to find out if the seeds of JDS teaching lay there. Thus
2 Kenyon, Two Kinds of Faith, 17; Jesus the Healer, 77; Wonderful Name, 69–70.
5.2 will discuss the selection of Higher Life and Faith Cure sources.
Only a comparison of both groups will allow a reasonable degree of
certainty about which may have influenced Kenyon the most.
3.3. The criterion of historical theology

Not many of the debaters reviewed in chapter 1 have engaged to
any serious extent with the broader sweep of two thousand years of
Christian thought about the atonement in general and Christ’s death in
particular. This book will stand in contrast to them by doing so. Thus a
third criterion is being more fully introduced into the debate: the extent
to which JDS teaching coheres with or departs from historic Christian
formulations about Christ’s death.
This contrasting method needs to be justified, and will be in 6.4.
First, however, the lack of interaction with historical theology in the
debate so far, and reasons for this lack, will be examined in 6.1 to 6.3 so
as to provide a contrasting context against which the justification can
be offered.
4. Conformity with the biblical witness
While the importance of the scriptures for developing or evaluating

JDS teaching is usually implicit, it is nevertheless strikingly clear. In-
deed, some participants in the JDS debate make overt appeals to the
scriptures’ primacy or inspiration.3 A comparison between JDS teach-
ing and biblical material will furnish this study with a standard of eval-
uation that all participants would respect, and that would be regarded
as important both throughout Pentecostalism and within the wider
church. Nevertheless, this comparison does raise methodological con-
cerns. Questions arise about: selection of texts (4.1); use of translations
(4.2); and interpretation of texts (4.3)
3 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 147, 220; Two Kinds of Knowledge, ch. 2: Presence, 138; Hagin,
What To Do, ch. 2; El Shaddai, 34; Human Spirit, ch. IV; Copeland, “Bridge,” 3; Robert M.
Bowman, Jr., Orthodoxy and Heresy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992), 59–60, 64.
68 chapter two
4.1. Selection of texts

Chapter 1 briefly introduced some of the main texts that JDS teach-
ers refer to in developing their distinctive view of Christ’s death. They
include particularly: Genesis 2:17; Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 12:40; 27:46;
Mark 15:34; John 3:14; Acts 2:24–31; Romans 10:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21
(often); Ephesians 2:1; 4:9; Colossians 2:15 (often); 1 Thessalonians 5:23;
1 Timothy 3:16; and 1 Peter 3:18. References in Kenyon’s, Hagin’s and
Copeland’s work to these and other texts are discussed, as appropriate,
throughout the rest of the book. It is clear from the contexts in which
these texts appear that they are chosen on the basis of perceived rele-
vance to the topic, and that those which receive more attention than
others do so because they are considered to be especially relevant or
important. It is also clear from perusing the list that the Pauline corpus
(undisputed and disputed) receives disproportionate attention in terms
of its length. In fact, Kenyon consistently stated his prioritisation of
Paul’s writings over, say, the gospels.4 For instance, he wrote:
The four gospels are written in the realm of Sense Knowledge. There is
no inkling of the Revelation that God was to give to Paul in any of them.
They saw the miracles. They saw the man Jesus arrested. They saw Him
tried in court. They heard the sentence pronounced on Him. They saw
Him go with the soldiers . . . they saw Him die. But they could not see
the tragedy in His soul. They could not see His spirit made sin. They
could not see the spirit leave the body and go to the place of suffering
under the dominion of the Black Prince. They could not see Him as He
suffered until the claims of Justice were met. They could not see Him
when He was justified, having paid the penalty of man’s transgression.
They could not see Him when He became the First Born out of Death.
This was the birth of His spirit out of spiritual death. They could not
see Him when He met the adversary, conquered him, and stripped him
of authority. They could not see Him until He came back to his body
and imparted Immortality to it, bursting the bars of death and standing
before them absolute Master of Satan, death, and the grave.5
Similarly, Copeland writes:
Quite frankly, you can’t find out what happened [at Calvary] strictly by
reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For one thing, those books con-
tain very little information about the Crucifixion. And for another thing,
4 E.g. Kenyon, Two Kinds of Knowledge, 26, 37; What Happened, 116, 118. The gospels,
however, were not without value (Wonderful Name, 14).

5 Kenyon, Two Kinds of Knowledge, 37–38.
the men who wrote them had viewed it from a natural perspective. They
didn’t understand it themselves at the time because it was a mystery
hidden in God (see 1 Corinthians 2:6–8).6
Kenyon’s and Copeland’s stated reasoning is clear: the evangelists wrote

what they had experienced naturally, while Paul wrote what he had
gained by revelation. However, another or further explanation might
be an embarrassment over the silence of the gospels concerning Easter
Saturday, given the JDS belief that the atoning suffering of Christ
continued, in hell, during that day. If important atoning work continued
during that time, and such a high proportion of the New Testament is
silent about it, an explanation must be sought, or perhaps created, for
that silence.
So Kenyon and Copeland at least promote the Pauline corpus over
the gospels for their own reasons, stated or unstated. However, there
is no concession in their writing that within one genre there might
be a plurality of perspectives. For example, there is no discussion of
the possibility that an individual author might in some respects be
distinctive rather than simply conforming to a majority view. This
omission is obviously not driven by a ‘dictation theory’ of biblical
inspiration, for if it was, Copeland could not have written, seemingly
dismissively, of the evangelists’ writing “from a natural perspective.”
However, the scriptures are ‘flattened’ thereby to become a relatively
univocal single document. This means that a single text performs, it
seems, as important a function as a sustained witness. It is, literally,
a ‘proof text’. “Genesis 1:1 (or whichever text is under examination)
says . . .” becomes effectively synonymous with “The Bible says . . .”
Examples of this tendency quickly emerge in chapter 3, as soon as
textual exegesis is examined.
Whatever one is to make of JDS teaching’s textual choices and uses,
Perriman identifies in Word-faith teaching a “selective and tendentious
use of Scripture.”7 Taking these two claims in turn, all participants in
the debate are of course necessarily selective in their discussion of scrip-
tures. Notwithstanding Bowman’s assertion that “our understanding of
the gospel should be shaped by the entire Bible”,8 critics of JDS teach-
ing are as selective as its proponents. The critics’ selection is naturally
6 Kenneth Copeland, “The Great Exchange,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 24.2 (Febru-
ary 1996): 5.
8 Bowman, Orthodoxy, 64.
70 chapter two
governed both by the limits of the topics discussed, and by JDS teach-
ing’s selectivity, which has already placed certain texts in focus, so that
critics must respond. This book cannot escape following previous con-
tributions by referring to such passages as the ones listed above, among
others.
However, this project will also attempt to offer a broader biblical
perspective than that gained by the atomistic exegesis of texts that
are only one or a few verses long. Individual authors’ views of certain
subjects will be built up from the contributions of their various writings
on the subjects, and at times these authors’ ideas will be combined to
give a ‘canonical’ view of a subject. Examples include Luke’s view of
hades, and the New Testament understanding of God the Father’s and
Christ the Son’s unity in the work of atonement.
What is perhaps of greater concern is Perriman’s claim that the
Word-faith movement’s use of scriptures is ‘tendentious’. This is a
much more difficult claim to analyse and quantify. Equally, of course,
JDS teaching’s critics may be tendentious at times. Careful attention
will need to be paid during the discussion not only to what passages
debaters discuss, but also to which relevant ones, if any, they inappro-
priately ignore.9 Examples of material newly drawn into the discussion
include the mainly Johannine testimony that Satan played a part in
Christ’s sufferings leading up to and including the cross. Where appro-
priate, the Bible’s silence must also be ‘listened to’.
4.2. Use of translations

JDS proponents do not interact in detail with biblical texts in their
original languages. Occasionally, individual Hebrew and Greek words
are discussed.10 Overall, however, there is no evidence that any of them
has a working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. This makes them vul-
nerable to criticism. An example is the lengthy discussion in Freeman’s
“Exposing the JDS Heresy” of Isaiah 53:9 and its Hebrew plural of ‘in
his death’, which Kenyon had taken to refer to Christ’s physical and
spiritual ‘deaths’. Freeman judged accurately that JDS teaching simply
misunderstands the use of the Hebrew plural.
9 The suggestion is not intended that this book itself can be guaranteed to be free
from ‘tendency’.
10 E.g. Kenyon, Presence, 68, 94; Hagin, Plans, 90; Kenneth Copeland, “The Might
and Ministry of the Holy Spirit in You,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 24.4 (April 1996): 5.
The problem of ignorance of the original languages is somewhat mit-

igated by the common habit among JDS teachers of listing a biblical
passage in several different translations, no doubt with the belief that
different translations will suggest nuances of the original language’s
meaning.11 Indeed, the movement’s flexibility with translations means
that reliance on any one rarely accounts for questionable exegesis. An
example, however, is Kenyon’s claim that Christ must have been con-
demned spiritually, for he was later ‘justified in spirit’ (1 Timothy 3:16).12
This book will note the wording of published English translations
where appropriate. However, use will be made of the original languages
and my own translations. Where reliance on published translations
might give rise to misleading understanding, recourse to the original
languages will help to prevent this.
4.3. Interpretation of texts

Turning now to interpretation, it is clear that on both sides, debaters
assume that the scriptures they study have fixed meanings intended by
their human (and divine) authors, and that these fixed meanings are
accessible by reasonable study. In other words, they engage in the task
of exegesis, seeking to draw out the meaning, rather than offer a reading.
Among JDS teachers, it is rare for any statement to be offered
concerning the hermeneutics guiding this exegetical task. However,
Billheimer probably speaks for the whole of JDS teaching when he
writes: “One rule of Biblical interpretation holds that the Word must
be accepted literally unless it is clearly figurative or symbolical.”13 What
this ‘literal acceptance’ might be is not defined, and there is the danger
that appeal to the ‘literal sense’ of texts might be guilty of the ‘naïve
realism’ that sees a “perfect match between language and world.”14
It is not surprising that within the debate about the Word-faith
movement, criticisms of its reading of scripture are common. They
are often brief and general: Brandon indicates that the movement iso-
lates passages and indulges in ‘proof-texting’; Dal Bello regards Hagin’s
use of Psalm 22 as ‘eisegesis’ rather than exegesis; and Hanegraaff and
11 E.g. Kenneth E. Hagin, A Fresh Anointing (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1989), 38; Name, 98–99; Copeland, Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 1.

13 Billheimer, Throne, 39.
14 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in this Text? (Leicester: Apollos, 1998), 48.
72 chapter two
de Castro claim that Copeland sometimes misses grammatical rules,

misunderstands important biblical words, and ignores textual context.15
Perriman, however, is more detailed. He regards the movement’s han-
dling of scripture as ‘utilitarian’, and, as he mentions more often,
‘contractual’, by which he means that they regard the scriptures as
merely comprising “a set of promises, rules, laws, conditions, etc., which
must be appropriated and activated by the believer” and “the univo-
cal clauses and conditions of a legal contract.” Furthermore, Perriman
notes that they fail to take due account of how such factors as genre, lit-
erary style and rhetorical purpose of passages ought to affect the ways
they are understood.16
Certainly, such general criticisms are applicable to JDS teaching in
particular. Several problems concerning its use of scripture are evident.
First, single verses are sometimes isolated from their original context
and considered atomistically.17 An example is 1 Thessalonians 5:23, in
which the apparently trichotomous formula of ‘spirit, soul and body’
is not considered with due regard to Paul’s emphasis in the verse,
the letter, or his corpus. Secondly, a superficial approach to the words
themselves is employed, no consideration being given, for instance, to
the social location or personality of the human author, or the genre of
the writing involved.18 An example is the handling of 2 Corinthians 5:21,
in which no mention is made of Paul’s Judaism and the consequent
possibility that he is making use of Old Testament motifs in referring
to Christ’s being ‘made sin’, such that the translation ‘sin-offering’
might be more appropriate. Thirdly, texts are applied with remarkable
immediacy: no mention is made of the historical and cultural distances
lying between text and reader.19 Isaiah 53:9 is again an example. The
Hebrew grammatical plural ‘in his deaths’ is considered, without due
regard to the historico-cultural considerations governing use of the
15 Brandon, Health, 21, 24; Moreno dal Bello, “Atonement Where? Part 2,” http://
www.banner.org.uk/wof/moreno2.html; Hanegraaff and de Castro, “What’s Wrong
with the Faith Movement?—Part Two.”
16 Perriman, Faith, 82–93, quotations from 82, 93.
17 The role of context in limiting or modifying the sense of words and word clusters
is considered by, among many others, Peter Cotterell & Max Turner, Linguistics and
Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1989).
18 For discussion of such issues, see the relevant chapters in Joel B. Green (ed.),
Hearing the New Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995).

19 The ‘pastness of the past’ is discussed by Dennis Nineham, e.g. in The Use and
Abuse of the Bible (London: MacMillan, 1976), with Anthony Thiselton responding in The
Two Horizons (Exeter: Paternoster, 1980).
Hebrew plural. Fourthly, no consideration is given to the effect that

a reader’s or reading community’s stance or perspective may have in
prejudicing exegesis or governing a reading. Thus, for instance, no
caution is ever expressed by JDS teachers that their own developing
conclusions about Christ’s death might be colouring their reading of
any particular text.
The cause of these problems is likely to relate to the notable absence
of sustained reference to theological resources. Word-faith exegesis is
not entirely lacking in overt recourse to written aids. Hagin and Cope-
land resort occasionally to the guidance of W.E. Vine’s Expository Dic-
tionary of New Testament Words for word-study.20 Hagin also found help
in R. Young’s Hints and Helps in Bible Interpretation, and in C.I. Scofield’s
comments, as presented in the Scofield Reference Bible.21 Such citations,
however, are uncommon, and from unsophisticated sources. Such ex-
ceptions notwithstanding, exegesis is consistently presented as the au-
thor’s own work (though there is every reason to assume that each
author’s exegesis has been considerably informed by that of others
in the same tradition). Of course, an absence of written reference to
theological works does not prove that they have not been consulted.
Indeed, a lack of citations might be deliberate: the Word-faith move-
ment’s spokespeople are not writing for an academic audience—far
from it—and authors may sense that copious footnotes or other aca-
demic apparatus might alienate rather than reassure their readers. Nev-
ertheless, such explanations are unlikely: for reasons discussed in 6.2, it
is reasonable to assume that Word-faith authors have simply not made
extensive use of available resources such as commentaries.
It is important to note, as well, that these exegetical weaknesses are
not unique to the Word-faith movement. The same comments could
be made about much Pentecostal hermeneutics.22 Wigglesworth may
have spoken for many early Pentecostals when he declared, “Faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God—not by reading
commentaries.”23 Uncritical, even unthinking, Bible reading has been
20 E.g. Kenneth E. Hagin, The Art of Intercession (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 1980), 13, 23, 60; Name, 18, 136; Kenneth Copeland, Jesus In Hell (Fort Worth, TX:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.), 2.
21 E.g. Kenneth E. Hagin, The Key to Scriptural Healing (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library
Publications, 1978), 6; Name, 121–122.

22 See Atkinson, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics.”
23 Quoted by Stanley H. Frodsham, Smith Wigglesworth: Apostle of Faith (London: Elim
Publishing Company, 1949), 73.

74 chapter two
criticised from without24 and from within: Gordon Fee has written of
his fellow Pentecostals,
their attitude towards Scripture regularly has included a general dis-
regard for scientific exegesis and carefully thought-out hermeneutics . . .
In place of scientific hermeneutics there developed a kind of pragmatic
hermeneutics—obey what should be taken literally; spiritualize, allego-
rize or devotionalize the rest.25
This phenomenon is perhaps widely present among Pentecostals for

the reason that Pentecostal church leaders have not traditionally had
the access to academic teaching that has been available or sought in
other protestant denominations.26 That such educational lack might
also characterise JDS teaching is evident from the brief biographical
information about Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland presented in chap-
ter 1.
The exegetical work presented by JDS teaching’s opponents is often
of higher calibre, not least because it is generally far more informed
by reference to useful resources such as commentaries.27 This may be
explained partly by the intentions and contexts of the works. Some,
such as those by McConnell; Smail, Walker and Wright; and Lie are
academic: they have been submitted towards university degrees or to
academic journals. Others, while prepared for the popular market,
have still deliberately assumed a form that advertises their underlying
research. The actual hermeneutics being employed are not generally
stated. However, they appear to be grammatico-historical.
Turning now to the interpretation of biblical texts to be employed in
this book, a number of approaches to hermeneutics are available, and
have been suggested to Pentecostals. They must therefore be consid-
ered. In 1981, Howard Ervin of ORU, while recognising the “method-
24 E.g. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, ch. 4.

25 Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 85–86; cf.,
more broadly, B.T. Noel, “Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics:
Thirty Years Later,” Pneuma 26:1 (Spring 2004): 60–80.
26 Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 243. For discussion of more recent changes in Pentecostal attitudes to
education, see ch. 13: “Pentecostals and Academic Theology.” Note, however, that as
recently as 1993 Timothy B. Cargal could write, “The majority of currently serving
clergy among classical Pentecostals have little or no formal theological education at
even the undergraduate level” (“Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy:
Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age,” Pneuma 15:2 [1993]: 169).
27 See, e.g., McConnell, Promise; Hanegraaff, Crisis; Bowman, Controversy; Perriman,
Faith: notes and bibliographies.

ology and substantive contribution of grammatico-historical, critical-

contextual exegesis” was concerned about the “destructive rational-
ism” or “dogmatic intransigence” so frequently involved in such ap-
proaches.28 Neither was he impressed with the alternative offered by
the New Hermeneutic of the day. Instead, he proposed a ‘pneumatic
hermeneutic’, for the Bible is a “word for which there are no categories
endemic to human understanding. It is a word for which, in fact, there is
no hermeneutic unless and until the divine hermeneutes (the Holy Spirit)
mediates an understanding.”29 Ervin’s proposal has been rightly criti-
cised. Timothy Cargal points out the docetic nature of this view of the
scriptures, and the incomprehensibility of the Bible which would result
if it were true.30
More recently, Cargal himself has claimed that typical Pentecostal
preaching both resembles and could benefit from postmodern insights.31
He concludes that “any hermeneutic which cannot account for its
loci of meanings within that postmodern paradigm will become non-
sensical and irrelevant.”32 While Cargal gains a sympathetic ear from
French Arrington,33 Robert Menzies’ incisive critique raises valid con-
cerns about the “ahistorical stance and epistemological scepticism of
postmodernism”, the inability to evaluate readings of texts dislodged
from their historical moorings, and an unacceptable promotion of the
reader in Cargal’s scheme. Menzies summarises his discussion by de-
claring: “my counsel concerning this bandwagon is, if already on, to
‘jump off.’ ”34
Clearly, this intra-Pentecostal debate is part of a wider hermeneutical
discussion. The traditional position, famously championed for example
by E.D. Hirsch,35 that the task of determining the intended meaning of
a text’s author was both possible and advisable, has been identified by
28 Howard M. Ervin, “Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal Option,” Pneuma 2:2 (Fall 1981):
24, 12.
29 Ervin, “Hermeneutics,” 16. Italics original.
30 Cargal, “Controversy,” 174; cf. Veli-Matti Karkkainen, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics
in the Making: On the way from Fundamentalism to Postmodernism,” JEPTA XVIII

(1998): 88–89.
31 Cargal, “Controversy,” 165.
32 Cargal, “Controversy,” 187.
33 French L. Arrington, “The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals,” Pneuma 16.1 (Spring
1994): 101–107.
34 Robert Menzies, “Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon,” Pneuma 16.1 (Spring
1994): 119–120.
35 Validity in Interpretation (1967) and The Aims of Interpretation (1976).
76 chapter two
Vanhoozer as essentially arbitrary. Nevertheless, Vanhoozer wisely sup-

ports the ethical case for seeking authorial intent.36 Vanhoozer rejects,
among others, the pragmatic reader-orientation of Stanley Fish’s Is
There a Text in this Class?: “Where readers reign, reality recedes.” How-
ever, Vanhoozer counsels interpretative humility: “we can neither erad-
icate ourselves from the process of reading nor separate our personal
identity from our interpretations.”37
In this work, neither Ervin’s nor Cargal’s directions will be fol-
lowed. Authors’ intentions will be pursued, employing the hermeneu-
tics behind much serious exegesis of biblical texts by Pentecostals, espe-
cially by their academicians. This has not found any need to depart
from the grammatico-historical methods already used within the wider
evangelical world. McLean’s assertion that such a hermeneutic “ulti-
mately interprets the classical Pentecostal experience out of the Bible”38
has not been proved right by the subsequent course of events. For
instance, the grammatico-historical methods used by James D.G. Dunn
in his classic critique of a key Pentecostal doctrine, Baptism in the Holy
Spirit,39 were fundamentally the same as those used by Robert Men-
zies in his defence of this distinctive,40 though Menzies did make rather
more use of redaction criticism.41 Even Pentecostals who declare that
there is a need for a distinctive Pentecostal hermeneutic succeed in sig-
nificant biblical exposition without one. Thus John Christopher Thom-
as, who writes of “our attempt to articulate a Pentecostal hermeneutic”,
and is willing to experiment with various approaches,42 has produced
important work, highly relevant to Pentecostals, without departing from
‘non-distinctive’ evangelical hermeneutics.43
36 Vanhoozer, Meaning, 401.

37 Vanhoozer, Meaning, 169, 382. For further discussion of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ reader-
response theories, see J. Barton, “Thinking About Reader-Response Criticism,” Exposi-
tory Times 113.5 (February 2002): 147–151; cf. J.C. Poirier, “Some Detracting Considera-
tions for Reader-Response Theory,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62:2 (April 2000): 250–263.
38 Mark D. McLean, “Toward a Pentecostal Hermeneutic,” Pneuma 6.2 (Fall 1984):
36.
39 London: SCM Press, 1970.
40 Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994).
41 See the comments of Cargal, “Controversy,” 163–164; Kenneth J. Archer, “Pente-
costal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect,” JPT 8 (1996): 73.

42 See John Christopher Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible: An Experi-
ment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” JPT 5 (1994): 56.

43 John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998), e.g. 15–16 (concerning methods).

While grammatico-historical exegesis will be employed, factors

which set the Christian scriptures apart from other works, at least in the
eyes of many Christians, including Pentecostals, will be borne in mind.
It is recognised that these scriptures were brought together by the early
church into a closed canon which was and continues to be regarded
as cohesive, and which was and is read and valued for theological and
liturgical purposes. Therefore, the Bible will be interpreted as: a fun-
damentally coherent collection of documents, which can be expected
to offer some unitary message, despite its inner divergences;44 and a
Christian document, whose primary purpose is to witness to Christ and
teach His people.45

Several methodological considerations have emerged. First, the selec-
tion of biblical texts in this work will take account of those selected by
previous participants in the debate, but will not be limited to these, nor
indeed to atomised exegesis of individual texts. Instead, not only will a
wider selection of texts be accessed, but note will be made of the overall
views of biblical authors, and of the canon as a whole. Secondly, appeal
to the original biblical languages will avoid certain weaknesses that are
occasionally evident in JDS teaching through reliance on a question-
able published translation. Thirdly, exegesis will be attempted that is
based upon the belief that an original author’s intention is reasonably
accessible, and which employs grammatico-historical methods in seek-
ing to discover that meaning.
5. Kenyon’s contemporary influences
As noted in chapter 1, various debaters, in assessing JDS doctrine, con-

sider not only biblical content but also the question of Kenyon’s con-
temporary influences: did he gain a ‘spiritualised’ view of Christ’s death
from New Thought and Christian Science, or was his view affected
44 See James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM Press,
2nd edition 1990 [1977]).

45 See Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity
Press International, pb 1994 [1984]), ch. 4, and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “From Speech
Acts to Scripture Acts,” ch. 1 in After Pentecost: Language & Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig
Bartholomew, Colin Greene and Karl Möller (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2001).
78 chapter two
more by Higher Life and Faith Cure? Research has been conducted
into the extent to which Kenyon’s biography displays contact with
and possible influence from these two groups, and into the degree of
agreement evident in his writing with the teaching of either group.
This research has been useful, and it seems likely that little more can
be added to the biographical detail. However, certain methodological
weaknesses are discernible in the research conducted into Kenyon’s
writing. McConnell’s foundational work, important as it is, only con-
siders similarities between Kenyon, and New Thought and Christian
Science. As an equivalent search into similarities with Higher Life and
Faith Cure is not conducted, McConnell’s conclusions can only be
regarded as provisional, at best. In turn, McIntyre’s research, while
commendably thorough as regards consideration of Kenyon’s familiar-
ity with and dependence on Higher Life and Faith Cure, does not con-
sider New Thought and Christian Science. Thus the same provision-
ality characterises his conclusions. Simmons’ work, in this respect, is
more helpful: he does consider both groups. However, further research
is still worthwhile that, in considering one aspect of Kenyon’s teaching
in detail, looks at both groups, not only searching for similarities but
also for the lack of similarity, and for outright contrasts. The following
two subsections set out the sources from each pair of groups that will be
compared with Kenyon, offering a rationale for the choice in each case.
5.1. New Thought and Christian Science

The relationship between New Thought and Christian Science has
already been noted in chapter 1 (page 16). It was stated there that
P.P. Quimby is widely recognised as the founder of New Thought, but
was also influential in the development of Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian
Science. They have enough in common to be considered together here.
The historical evidence that Kenyon drew his ideas from New
Thought and Christian Science is not indisputable, and although
McConnell makes much of it, he has to admit that Kenyon disavowed
their teaching repeatedly.46 Nevertheless, he holds that Kenyon was
influenced by such groups much more than he realised or admitted.
Given that this influence is possible, it is necessary to explore whether
46 McConnell, Promise, 43; cf. Kenyon, Two Kinds of Faith, 17; Jesus the Healer, 77;
Wonderful Name, 69–70.

New Thought proponents and Christian Scientists positively influenced

his thinking, for instance by ‘spiritualising’ Jesus’ death. This will be
considered in the chapters to come. At this stage, it is simply neces-
sary to justify the selection of certain exemplary writers. Those who
will be reviewed are: Phineas P. Quimby (1802–1866); Ralph Waldo
Emerson (1803–1882); Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910); and Ralph Waldo
Trine (1866–1958). P.P. Quimby was a professional healer who among
other methods used hypnotism. He deserves study because as just stated
he is effectively the founder of New Thought.47 Thus his ideas re-
emerge throughout the movement. Emerson was also a “great fore-
runner to the New Thought movement,” and “can be regarded as a
pars pro toto in estimating the importance of transcendentalism for the
metaphysical movements.”48 Despite a theological education at Har-
vard Divinity School and ordination in 1826 as a Unitarian minister,49
Emerson quickly rejected ‘orthodox’ Christianity in favour of an eso-
tericism in which salvation involved a spiritual awakening from mere
materialism and an escape from its prison.50 He is selected because
McConnell claims, quoting Ern Baxter, that Kenyon read his work.51
Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science after being healed of a
severe injury, having earlier in life rejected some of the teachings of
‘orthodox’ Christianity. She is chosen because of McConnell’s further
claim, quoting Baxter and John Kennington, that Kenyon drew from
Eddy’s thought.52 Trine was “an author whose work has been charac-
terized as ‘a Reader’s Digest condensed and Bowdlerized Emerson.’ ”53
47 Many New Thought ideas, however, can be traced back through, for instance,
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) to the esotericisms of previous eras (Hanegraaff, New

Age, chs 14 and 15).
48 Joel Porte, “Ralph Waldo Emerson,” http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/frame-
page.htm; Hanegraaff, New Age, 457–458.

49 Richard Geldard, The Spiritual Teachings of Ralph Waldo Emerson (Great Barrington,
MA: Lindisfarne Books, 2001), 4, 123, 128.

50 Geldard, Teachings, 15–17, 24–28. Conceptual similarities with ancient Gnosticism
are not hard to find. Emerson greatly admired Emanuel Swedenborg (Ralph Waldo
Emerson, “Representative Men,” [1850], http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage
.htm, ch. 3), and Giovanni Filoramo notes that Swedenborg’s “visions are replete with
Gnostic themes” (A History of Gnosticism [Oxford: Blackwell, 1990] 191, n. 8).
51 McConnell, Promise, 26. Baxter “spent a considerable amount of time with Ken-
yon in the latter years of his life” (25).

52 McConnell, Promise, 25–26 (Kennington “as a young preacher knew Kenyon
intimately and considered him a mentor”).

53 Hanegraaff, New Age, 489, quoting Versluis.
80 chapter two
He is chosen because he was a student with, and somewhat paradoxi-

cally a teacher of, Kenyon at the Emerson College of Oratory.54
In each of the four following chapters, teaching will be sought in
these sources which resembles Kenyon’s, and from which Kenyon
might conceivably have derived his. Where appropriate, note will also
be offered of contrasts. However, Kenyon’s teaching will, as stated ear-
lier, also be compared with equivalent material in Higher Life and Faith
Cure sources, and so to these groups methodological discussion now
turns.
5.2. Higher Life and Faith Cure

Chapter 1 introduced the biographical research of Simmons, McIn-
tyre and Lie that highlights Kenyon’s possible indebtedness not so
much to New Thought as to the Higher Life and Faith Cure move-
ments. McIntyre’s research, though supported by the others’, is the
most thorough, and he mentions a host of significant leaders who
would have influenced Kenyon. In each case, he offers clear evidence
that Kenyon was a recipient of their teaching, and in many cases he
presents equally clear evidence that Kenyon was a positive admirer.
Key figures from this group will be reviewed in this book, chosen on
the bases that the historical evidence indicates the likelihood of their
influencing Kenyon, and that they wrote material relevant to the JDS
debate. They are: Adoniram J. Gordon (1836–1895); Carrie Judd Mont-
gomery (1858–1946); Andrew Murray (1828–1917); Arthur T. Pierson
(1837–1911); Albert B. Simpson (1843–1919); Hannah W. Smith (1832–
1911); Reuben A. Torrey (1856–1928); and George D. Watson (1845–
1923).
A.J. Gordon was a leading New England evangelical,55 the minister
of the church in which Kenyon finally committed his life to God, and
the author Kenyon quoted most.56 He was a speaker at the Northfield
conferences, where Kenyon would have heard him speak.57 Although
54 McConnell, Promise, 41; McIntyre, Kenyon, 18. Trine taught Kenyon rhetoric. Ac-
cording to McIntyre, Trine only developed New Thought ideas after arriving at Emer-
son College, where he taught Kenyon. Therefore, claims McIntyre, Trine’s exposure
to New Thought would have been too embryonic for him to pass any on to Kenyon
(Kenyon, 18–19).
55 Dayton, Roots, 176.
56 McIntyre, Kenyon, 36, 80, 86; Lie, “Kenyon,” 79.
his connections with Boston meant that he ministered in an environ-

ment where he was bound to be exposed to Eddy’s Christian Science,58
his views, typical of Faith Cure, stood in contrast to hers,59 and he “bit-
terly opposed. . . her teachings in word and print.”60
Carrie Judd Montgomery was a close friend of Kenyon.61 Judd (her
maiden name) was healed in 1879. Her The Prayer of Faith62 contained
her testimony and beliefs concerning healing. It stayed in print through-
out her influential life.63 The famous and influential Andrew Murray
was six times Moderator of Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in
South Africa. His many writings were translated into various languages.
He was a visiting speaker at conferences in Keswick and Northfield.64
Kenyon heard him speak at Northfield, and published extracts from his
work.65
A.T. Pierson, a close friend of A.J. Gordon and fellow speaker at
Northfield, and someone else whose writings Kenyon sometimes pub-
lished,66 was a pioneer premillennialist, and enthusiastic supporter of
international missions, becoming editor of The Missionary Review of the
World.67 A.B. Simpson, a champion of both healing and holiness, was
founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.68 Kenyon was warm-
ly respectful of his teaching.69
Hannah Whitall Smith’s writing was typical of Higher Life. Kenyon
publicly used a prayer of consecration that she had written.70 R.A. Tor-
rey, another Northfield speaker, was successor to D.L. Moody as super-
intendent of the Moody Bible Institute. His teaching on ‘the baptism
with the Holy Spirit’ was an important forerunner of the views of Pen-
tecostalism,71 and Kenyon heard Torrey speak on the Holy Spirit.72
58 Hardesty, Faith Cure, 87; Dayton, Roots, 128.

59 Cf. Hardesty, Faith Cure, 4.
62 London: Victory Press, new ed. 1930 (1880).
63 Hardesty, Faith Cure, 7–12.
64 J. du Plessis, The Life of Andrew Murray (London: Marshall Brothers, Limited, 1919).
65 McIntyre, Kenyon, 77; cf. Lie, “Kenyon,” 79.
67 Dana L. Robert, Occupy until I Come: A.T. Pierson and the Evangelization of the World
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003).

68 Hardesty, Faith Cure, 23.
69 McIntyre, Kenyon, 64; Lie, “Kenyon,” 79.
71 Dayton, Roots, 102–103.
82 chapter two
Finally, George D. Watson often spoke at Christian and Missionary

Alliance conferences, and was known as the ‘apostle to the sanctified’.73
His work was admired and published by Kenyon.74

Several sources have been identified, and their choice justified, for
making a comparison between JDS teaching (especially Kenyon’s) on
the one hand, and Kenyon’s possible contemporary sources on the
other. Sources from both New Thought and Higher Life are needed
in order to confirm or deny McConnell’s thesis that Kenyon was dis-
tinctly affected by the former. Each chapter will include an appropriate
analysis of the movements’ writing, searching for clues that might indi-
cate the variety of teaching on which Kenyon leant more.
6. Reference to Christian theology
The three JDS teachers under review have not engaged in significant
overt contact with detailed Christian theology, historical or contempo-
rary. This is evidenced throughout their writings, as will be considered
in 6.1. Possible reasons for this will be reviewed in 6.2, before 6.3 intro-
duces the degree to which their debaters engage with wider theological
discourse. Thereafter, 6.4 contrasts the use of historical theology that
will occur in this book, and offers a justification for this contrasting
approach.
6.1. Theological sources in JDS teaching

Kenyon’s work displays little interaction with theological sources.
Though in one book he introduced chapters quoting authors as wide
ranging as Voltaire and Campbell Morgan,75 he did not engage with
those he quoted. His general teaching method was simply to quote
biblical passages and then offer his interpretation of them. He did
73 McIntyre, Kenyon, 52; J. Edwin Newby, contents page of G.D. Watson, A Pot of Oil
(Electronic edition, 2001 [n.d.]), http://www.enterhisrest.org/wisdomminister/pot_of

_oil.pdf.
75 Kenyon, Father, 44, 218.
though on occasion indicate the views he opposed. For example, he

briefly discussed the ‘Second Work’ belief in total sanctification, oppos-
ing it with his ‘Finished Work’ theology. In this discussion, he referred
to John Wesley’s journal, with the clear implication that he had read
it.76 He was also a stout critic of ‘modernism’, and mentioned his dis-
agreement with annihilationism.77 His criticism of ‘liberalism’ has been
suggested by Simmons as a possible spur to his development of JDS
teaching.78
Hagin made only rare reference to church history or historical the-
ology: his writings consisted mainly of informal Bible study and sto-
ries about his experiences in ministry. He did offer a very brief dis-
cussion of Calvinism and Arminianism, referring to “old school” and
“new school” Calvinism, and to the beliefs of Finney. He criticised both
Calvinist and Arminian belief, as briefly portrayed by him, though his
criticisms of Calvinism were more stringent.79 He briefly referred else-
where to Finney’s autobiography,80 and quoted John Wesley concerning
prayer and faith.81 He also offered a very short history of John Alexan-
der Dowie’s ministry, acknowledging its demise.82 However, such refer-
ences were rare and brief.
Similarly, Hagin did not generally engage in debate with contem-
porary opponents. He wrote, however, of Christian Science and “meta-
physical, mind-science religions”, clearly distinguishing such beliefs
from his own, which he described as “Full Gospel”.83 He could be
found taking issue with the biblical interpretations of a “modernistic
preacher” he had read.84 Furthermore, he tackled, at a rudimentary
level, ideas about ‘soul sleep’ and reincarnation.85 He could be simply
dismissive, however, of wider reading, declaring that only the Bible con-

77 Kenyon, Wonderful Name, 14; Father, 118. McIntyre observes that Kenyon had once
held to annihilationism (Kenyon, 6). He also indicates that Kenyon engaged in debate
with Unitarian ideas of his day (Kenyon, 144).
78 Simmons, quoted in Perriman, Faith, 262.
79 Hagin, Present-Day Ministry, 10–11.
80 Kenneth E. Hagin, The Interceding Christian (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
9th printing 1979), 27; Prayer Secrets, 17.

81 Hagin, Art of Intercession, 1; New Thresholds, 8.
82 Hagin, Understanding, 100–101; cf. Don’t Blame God!, ch. 2.
83 Kenneth E. Hagin, Exceedingly Growing Faith (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 1973), 33; Right and Wrong Thinking, 3 (quoted); Zoe, 40.
84 Hagin, El Shaddai, 2, 4. Hagin’s concerns were with a denial of miracles, including
Christ’s virgin birth (18). Hagin was also critical of ‘dead formalism’ (Fresh Anointing, 94).
85 Hagin, Human Spirit, 6.
84 chapter two
tains true answers.86 Such reading as Hagin did pursue was generally
‘closer to home’ theologically. As well as E.W. Kenyon’s The Wonderful
Name of Jesus,87 he referred to works by others appreciative of Kenyon:
John G. Lake’s Sermons on Dominion Over Demons, Disease, and Death;88
T.L. Osborn’s Healing the Sick;89 F.F. Bosworth’s Christ the Healer;90 and the
words of Corrie ten Boom.91 Much of his other reading was of Pente-
costalism’s precursors and pioneers, for instance: Smith Wigglesworth’s
86 Hagin, Man On Three Dimensions, 5.

87 Hagin, Name, throughout.
88 Hagin, Prayer Secrets, 8. John G. Lake (1870–1935) was the leader whom Hagin
praised most: a “mighty apostle of God” who “did an amazing work” (Name, 108, Art
of Intercession, 42; cf. Kenneth E. Hagin, Right and Wrong Thinking [Tulsa, OK: Faith
Library Publications, 1966], 22–23; Demons, 7–8). Lake was a missionary in South
Africa (J.R. Zeigler, “Lake, John Graham,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 531;
Gloria Copeland [ed.], John G. Lake [Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publications,
rev. 1995 (1994)], xiii–xxxi). Lake did not mention Kenyon in his sermons. However,
McIntyre reports that, according to Lake’s son-in-law, “Lake’s favorite book other
than the Bible was Kenyon’s The Father and His Family” (Kenyon, 145). Some of Lake’s
ideas certainly mirrored those of Kenyon. He taught that: unfallen humanity was
in “God’s class of being”; fallen humanity is ‘spiritually dead’; Christ suffered at
Satan’s hands; Christ “satisfied the claims of justice”; Christian regeneration is an
incarnation, and involves partaking in the divine nature (Lake’s transcribed sermons
in Copeland, Lake, 65, 66, 68, 72, 196–197, 430). It is therefore noteworthy that Lake
did not teach a ‘spiritual death’ of Christ, during which the latter partook of a satanic
nature.
89 Hagin, Right and Wrong Thinking, 27. T.L. Osborn (1934–) is a healing evangelist
with an international ministry. Like Hagin, he holds Kenyon’s writings in remarkably

high regard: “I treasure Dr. Kenyon’s books above all others in my library, except my
Bible.” (Healing the Sick [Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1951], 138; cf. Simmons, Kenyon,
296–298). His understanding of healing, and particularly the place of faith and ‘positive
confession’ in the process, mirrors Kenyon’s (Healing the Sick, esp. ch. 17). Some of
his language concerning the atonement also reflects Kenyon’s (e.g. use of the words
‘legal’ and ‘substitute’). It is therefore noteworthy that Osborn does not teach JDS:
his references to the death of Christ focus on the efficacy of the physical death in
atonement, and place the timing of this efficacious work on the cross (Healing the Sick,
161, 162, 182, 185 etc.).
90 Kenneth E. Hagin, Faith Food: Daily Devotions for Spring (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library
Publications, 1977), 80. F.F. Bosworth (1877–1958) was, in the nineteenth century, part
of the Faith Cure movement. At the turn of the twentieth century he embraced Pente-
costalism (R.M. Riss, “Bosworth, Fred Francis,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee,
94). Unsurprisingly, he believed in healing in the atonement. His Christ the Healer (Old
Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1973 [1924], e.g. ch. 2) acknowledges depen-
dence on Kenyon in its 1973 edition (148; cf. McIntyre, Kenyon, 348, n. 35; Simmons’
reference to Bosworth’s “admiration for Kenyon” [Kenyon, 313, n. 42]), but does not
display evidence of JDS doctrine (e.g. 45, 77).
91 Hagin, Name, 124. Corrie ten Boom translated Kenyon’s material into Dutch
(McIntyre, Kenyon, 163). She tells her story in, among others, Tramp for the Lord (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1974).
Ever Increasing Faith;92 T.J. McCrossan’s Bodily Healing and the Atonement;93
books by Charles S. Price;94 Howard Carter’s Questions and Answers on
Spiritual Gifts;95 and Lilian B. Yeomans’ The Great Physician.96
92 Hagin, Name, 49. Hagin often referred most positively to Wigglesworth (e.g. Ken-
neth E. Hagin, Ministering to the Oppressed [Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 4th
edition 1973], 17; Zoe, 40; Praying, 12; Understanding, 98–99, 106, 120; The Real Faith
[Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1970], 14). Wigglesworth (1859–1947) was an
English pioneer Pentecostal healing evangelist (W.E. Warner, “Wigglesworth, Smith,”
in Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 883–884). His references to the incarnation and
crucifixion did not suggest influence by Kenyon (R. Liardon, Smith Wigglesworth Speaks
to Students of the Bible [Tulsa, OK: Albury Publishing, 1998], 191; S. Wigglesworth, Ever
Increasing Faith [Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House, rev. ed. 1971 (1924)], 17, 33,
43, 79).
93 Hagin, Art, 15. As his book title implies, T.J. McCrossan believed that physical
healing was provided for in the atonement. He quoted A.J. Gordon, Andrew Murray
and A.B. Simpson to this effect (Bodily Healing and the Atonement, re-edited by R. Hicks
and K.E. Hagin [Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1982 (1930)], 24–25). His work
suggests no dependence on Kenyon.
94 Hagin, Right and Wrong Thinking, 29–30; cf. Prayer Secrets, 15. Price (1887–1947)
was a successful early Pentecostal minister (R.M. Riss, “Price, Charles Sydney,” in
Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 726–727). His The Real Faith (Pasadena, CA: Charles
S. Price Publishing Company, 1940) and Spiritual and Physical Health (Plainfield, NJ:
Logos International, 1972 [1946]) resemble Kenyon’s thinking only in his view that faith
is spiritual rather than mental (Real Faith, throughout) and in his insistent statements
that partaking of the divine nature is not an eschatological hope for believers but
a present reality (e.g. Real Faith, 92, 111; Health, 23–24, 113, 116). Otherwise, there is
no particular similarity, for instance in his portrayal of the crucifixion (Real Faith, 110;
Health, 23, 123–124, 158, 162).
95 Kenneth E. Hagin, Concerning Spiritual Gifts (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 1974), 80. Carter (1891–1971) was principal of the Pentecostal Missionary Union
Bible School in Hampstead 1921–1948, and chairman of the British Assemblies of
God 1934–1945 (C. Whittaker, Seven Pentecostal Pioneers [Basingstoke: Marshall, Mor-
gan and Scott, 1983], 100–130). The subject-matter of his Gifts of the Spirit (n.pl.:
Howard Carter, 1946) does not allow a comparison of his view of the atonement with
Kenyon’s.
96 Hagin, Turning Hopeless Situations Around, 7–12. Yeomans (1861–1942) was a Pente-
costal healer (C.M. Robeck, Jr., “Yeomans, Lilian Barbara,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess
and McGee, 907). Hagin quite often referred to her, e.g. in Growing Faith, 77; New Thresh-
olds, 32. Her view of the crucifixion did not reflect Kenyon’s distinctives (e.g. Balm of
Gilead [Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House, rev. ed. 1973 (1936)], 40, 46; Health
and Healing [Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House, rev. ed. 1973 (1938 as The Royal
Road to Health-Ville)], 24, 56).
86 chapter two
While Hagin was obviously impressed by these sources, there is

no obvious evidence that Hagin self-consciously and deliberately let
his theology be influenced by them. However, unconscious influence
presumably occurred.97 His widespread plagiarism of Kenyon clearly
indicates his influence by the latter. McConnell claims, plausibly, that
Kenyon had considerably more doctrinal influence on Hagin than
did those sources that Hagin quoted and cited more freely.98 While,
according to McConnell, he also plagiarised J.A. MacMillan’s “The
Authority of the Believer,”99 it seems likely from his praise for their
ministries that, after Kenyon, Hagin was more affected by Lake and
Wigglesworth.
Even more than Hagin, Copeland restricts his writing to expounding
biblical texts, or simply retelling their narratives, illustrated by short
accounts from his family life or public ministry. Thus too his writ-
ing offers very little church history or historical theology. Four maga-
zine columns devoted to a simple retelling of early Christian persecu-
tion and martyrdom are the exception rather than the rule.100 Neither
does Copeland engage in written debate with contemporary theolog-
ical viewpoints opposed to his own. This does not mean that he is
unaware of such views. Those references to opposing views which do
exist are not complimentary, and are usually very brief and general.
Copeland’s favoured term for the system of Christian thought which
he sees himself as countering is, simply, ‘religion’. Religion, he declares,
has provided the church with an under-realised eschatology, and with
the attitude that divine sovereignty removes from believers the respon-
sibility for faith-filled action.101
The only people Copeland quotes with any frequency are Word-
faith or Pentecostal leaders. Examples include: Kenneth E. Hagin;102
97 While perhaps not similar enough to be regarded as plagiarism, there is an

‘uneasy’ resemblance between Hagin’s words in Zoe, 1, and Bosworth’s in Christ the
Healer, 149.
100 Copeland, “Power of Resistance,” 4–5.
101 E.g. Kenneth Copeland, “Entering God’s Rest,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 25.8
(September 1997): 5; “God Isn’t Mad Anymore!” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 21.5 (May
1993): 2; “Faith for the Final Days,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 23.5 (May 1995): 2; “Turn
Your Hurts,” 7.
102 Kenneth Copeland, “Join The It Shall Come to Pass Generation,” Believer’s Voice
Of Victory 26.5 (May 1998): 5.

Oral Roberts;103 Jesse Duplantis;104 and R.W. Schambach.105 Even then,

the quotations are only brief asides or illustrations to his points. He
gives no impression thereby that he has learnt his theology from their
works. He praises Kenyon,106 refers to Reinhard Bonnke’s “wonderful
ministry”,107 and celebrates the work of Yonggi Cho.108 John G. Lake is
also obviously an important figure in the Copelands’ thinking, because
Gloria Copeland has published a full collection of Lake’s sermons.109
Again, however, only the Bible and his own sense of God speaking
to him overtly determine Copeland’s beliefs. For instance, he refers
to learning, in 1967, that ‘you can have what you say’, but does not
indicate there that he learnt this idea from Hagin, only referring to
Mark 11:23.110 Furthermore, his recorded sermon titles suggest a depen-
dence on Kenyon that he does not more openly concede, for, as stated
previously (page 22), What Happened from the Cross to the Throne and What
Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost, are titles of one of Kenyon’s books, and
chapter 14 of that book, respectively.
6.2. Possible Reasons for a Lack of References to Theology

There are several possible reasons why JDS teachers hardly mention
wider theological writing. Four prominent possibilities will be discussed
in detail, one to be discounted and the latter three to be accepted.
103 Kenneth Copeland, “Let Your Joy Overflow,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 27.11 (De-
cember 1999): 6; “The Message of the Anointing,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 24.7 (August
1996): 9.
104 Kenneth Copeland, “Believe the Love!” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 24.5 (May 1996):
4. Duplantis is a fellow Word-faith teacher, who regularly contributes to Copeland’s

Believer’s Voice Of Victory magazine.
105 Copeland, “No Problem,” 7. Schambach (1926–), previously an Assemblies of
God minister, is an independent healing evangelist (S. Shemeth, “Schambach, Robert

W.,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 769).
106 Copeland, Walking in the Realm of the Supernatural, quoted in Lie, “Kenyon,” 71.
107 Kenneth Copeland, “The Gospel to the Poor,” Believer’s Voice Of Victory, 25.2
(February 1997): 7. Bonnke (1940–) is an independent Pentecostal itinerant healing

evangelist (H.V. Synan, “Bonnke, Reinhard Willi Gottfried,” in Dictionary, ed. Burgess
and McGee, 93).
108 Kenneth Copeland, “Dream More Than You Can Dream,” Believer’s Voice Of
Victory 21.10 (October 1993): 5. Cho (1936–) is a Pentecostal minister in Seoul, reputedly
leader of the world’s largest local church (P. Yonggi Cho, Successful Home Cell Groups
[Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1981], v; D.J. Wilson, “Cho, Paul Yonggi,” in
Dictionary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 161–162).
109 Copeland, Lake.
110 Copeland, “Stick Out,” 4; cf. n.a., “Harvest Time,” 19.
88 chapter two
An apparent possibility is the genre of their teaching, which is deter-

mined by the context in which it is given, and the audience for whom it
is intended. Their teaching is most definitely offered to the pew rather
than the academy, and so is hardly likely to contain multiple citations
of scholarly sources, even if in fact JDS teachers are familiar with such
sources. However, while this reason, seen in isolation, is entirely plausi-
ble, further consideration actually suggests that many JDS teachers sim-
ply do not have extensive knowledge of historical theology, and when
they do, their lack of engagement is due to deliberate avoidance, rather
than genre.
In contrast, by far the most likely reason for JDS teaching’s lack of
interaction with theological discussion has its roots in Kenyon’s distinc-
tion between ‘revelation knowledge’ and ‘sense knowledge’, in which
he explicitly and repeatedly prioritised the former over the latter, as
part of his more general promotion of the spiritual over the psycholog-
ical and physical. Revelation knowledge was imparted by God through
the Bible.111 Thus Kenyon relied purely upon scriptural material in
his development of doctrine.112 In this distinction he was followed by
Hagin, who laid store on both biblical material and a sense of per-
sonal revelation,113 and by Copeland.114 Given their understanding and
devaluing of ‘sense knowledge’, it is to be expected that JDS teachers
will not seek to build their ideas on theological discussion that departs
at all from overt direct reliance on the verbal content of the Bible.
Kenyon’s distinction between spiritual and mental faculties some-
times resembled sheer anti-intellectualism: “In the beginning, man’s
spirit was the dominant force in the world; when he sinned, his mind
became dominant—sin dethroned the spirit and crowned the intellect;
but grace is restoring the spirit to its place of dominion” and “One
of the greatest mistakes that has been made in our intellectual culture
has been the ignoring of the spirit. Knowledge of our intellects has
111 See especially E.W. Kenyon, The Two Kinds of Knowledge (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s
Gospel Publishing Society, 1998 [1938]).
112 McIntyre suggests that Kenyon may also have been influenced by his early associ-
ation with the Free Will Baptists, who taught, “The Scriptures accompanied by the aids
of the Holy Spirit are the only source which . . . is requisite to qualify [one] for teaching
the great truths of religion”, and “the productions of pious men . . . should be consulted
with great caution, lest errors be imbibed with truth” (Kenyon, 27).
113 Hagin, Real Faith, 5; Name of Jesus, 9.
114 Kenneth Copeland, “What Kind of Faith do you have?” Believer’s Voice Of Victory,
25.5 (May 1997): 4; What Happened, side 1.

taken the throne, and our spirits have been locked away in prison.”
However, this impression is misleading. He could equally write: “Man’s
education should cover the whole being. To train only the physical
is to make a prize fighter. To train only the mental is to make an
intellectual anarchist. To train only the spiritual is to make a fanatic.”115
Kenyon’s overall point was not that the intellect has no legitimate
place in human affairs, but that it cannot receive direct revelation
from God.116 Also, it would be more accurate to describe his position
not as anti-intellectualism, but as anti-physicalism: his distrust of ‘sense
knowledge’ was not so much a rejection of the mind as a means to
know God, but of the physical senses.
Such a distinction is not to be regarded as unique to the Word-faith
movement. The wider evangelical and, particularly, Pentecostal world
has often been criticised from within and without for a prioritisation of
‘heart knowledge’ over ‘head knowledge’, and for a biblicism that fails
to take theological discussion seriously unless it constantly refers back
directly to biblical content.117
A second important factor, for certain JDS teachers, is their policy
not to engage in discussion with differing theological viewpoints, if
in so doing they are simply defending themselves from criticism.118
Copeland “believes in most cases no one changes their beliefs and
a [sic] even greater division is created in the Body of Christ.”119 The
desire to avoid such division is commendable, but the particular policy
employed obviously increases these teachers’ vulnerability to isolation
from correcting and balancing viewpoints.
This eschewal of debate is not universal throughout the Word-faith
movement. Michael Bruno’s Christianity in Power is a direct response to
Hanegraaff’s Christianity in Crisis, replying almost point by point. In this
115 Respectively: Kenyon, Wonderful Name, 25; Two Kinds of Faith, 48; Wonderful Name,
68.
116 Even this idea was maintained rather ambivalently by Kenyon: “Sense Knowl-
edge can see the handiwork of God, can see the design in Creation, but it cannot find
the Designer” (Two Kinds of Knowledge, 12), but “Creation shows the Designer’s Master
Hand” (Father, 19).
117 See, e.g., Os Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think & What
to Do About It (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995), 32, 41; cf. Hollenweger, Pentecostals,
ch. 21, “Back to the Bible!”
118 Barron, Gospel, 172; DeArteaga, Quenching, 231 (concerning Hagin); Margaret
Fendley, “Letter from Kenneth Copeland Ministries,” (1996), http://www.victoryword

.100megspop2.com/copeland_response (concerning Copeland).
119 Fendley, “Letter.”
90 chapter two
context, it is interesting to note, however, that while Hanegraaff does

interact occasionally with historical theology, Bruno does not. Bruno’s
only interest in doctrinal history is his view that Hanegraaff’s opposition
to the ‘message of faith’ mirrors the opposition that the Roman church
gave early Protestantism, and that faced by Finney from Calvinists.120
When actually confronting Hanegraaff’s ideas, Bruno simply resorts to
biblical material to undergird his arguments. Hanegraaff’s appeals to
later thinkers are ignored.
A final possible contribution to JDS teaching’s isolation from aca-
demic theology is paucity of formal theological, and in some cases gen-
eral, education. It emerged in chapter 1 that the JDS teachers under
review are relatively unschooled or self-schooled. While this observa-
tion holds least true for Kenyon, who, for instance, read Irenaeus and
Calvin,121 it may nevertheless have increased the extent to which aca-
demic theology remained a largely untapped world for them. It is thus
of interest that Hobart Freeman, the one prominent Word-faith teacher
to have spoken out strongly against JDS doctrine, had a doctorate in
theology.122
In summary, it is unlikely that JDS teachers have a detailed knowl-
edge of theological discourse but refrain from overtly referring to it for
the sake of their audience. It is more likely that they are ignorant of
much, and dismissive of much else, for the reasons set out above. While
this is understandable, it is not defensible. The approach renders them
highly vulnerable, both to repeating the mistakes of the past and to
developing views from which greater theological discussion would warn
them away.
6.3. Reference to Historical Theology by JDS debaters

Here, the picture is much more mixed. Debaters vary considerably in
their theological and academic focus, as well as their precise subject
matter. While Brandon and McConnell restrict their studies to bib-
lical material, Hanegraaff, Smail Walker and Wright, Simmons, Per-
120 Michael Bruno, Christianity in Power (Slippery Rock, PA: Abba Ministries, 1994),
3–5. Bruno’s ‘historical’ survey is remarkably brief, unspecific, simplified and, at times,
sensationalised.
121 Lie, email message to author, July 28, 2006; McIntyre, email message to author,
August 1, 2006.
122 Barron, Gospel, 19, and see chapter 1, section 5.1.
riman and DeArteaga do to varying extents discuss insights offered

by historical theology. This variety can be illustrated with reference
to three examples: McConnell; Hanegraaff; and Smail, Walker and
Wright.
McConnell’s methods allow him no sustained interaction with the
broad history of Christology and soteriology. In each chapter in his
Part 2, “A Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement,” his ini-
tial description of the Word-faith movement’s views of the subject mat-
ter in hand is followed, first by a comparison with New Thought and
related ideas, to show similarities, and then by a comparison with bib-
lical material to indicate differences.123 No opportunity thereby presents
itself, other than in one or two asides,124 for McConnell to consider
the extent to which, for instance, JDS doctrine resembles or departs
from those trajectories of thought with which Christian theologians
have wrestled for millennia.
Hanegraaff’s response to JDS teaching interacts somewhat with the
history of Christian ideas.125 Of particular note, he opines that the rela-
tionship between God and Satan displayed in the Word-faith move-
ment’s view of the cross “stands in marked contrast to the historical
ransom theory as set forth by such figures as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa,
Augustine, and Anselm”.126 This comparison with early ransom theo-
ries is important and useful. It will be pursued in chapter 6.
Giving much greater consideration to issues of historical theology
than previous debaters, Smail, Walker and Wright judge that:
What in fact they [JDS teachers] have done is to take three strands of
early Christian theology (picked up originally by Kenyon from some-
where), twisted them, weaved them together with metaphysical cultic
twine and hermeneutical guile, and created a syncretistic tapestry of
heretical nonsense.127
These three strands are the ransom theory, the descent into hell, and
theosis. Smail, Walker and Wright proceed to study each in turn, indi-
cating ways in which, in their view, Word-faith thinking departs from
123 Thus the subtitle of the books ( . . . Biblical Analysis . . . ) is more accurate than that
of his original thesis ( . . . Theological . . . Analysis. . . ).

124 McConnell, Promise, 123, 125.
125 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 130, 111, 123, 117–118, 140, 176.
126 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 395, n. 2. Hanegraaff sheds no light on what that contrast
might be.
127 Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 70.
92 chapter two
‘orthodox’ Christian renditions of these ideas.128 As with ransom theo-

ries, early ideas about the descent into hell are important comparators
with JDS teaching. They too will be considered in chapter 6.
Whether the use of historical theology by JDS teaching’s critics is
successful will emerge in later chapters of this book. At this point, it is
sufficient to make the methodological observation that, on occasion,
historical figures are presented in ways which tend towards hagiog-
raphy. An example is John Calvin.129 The assertion, for instance, that
Kenyon’s views are validated if they reflect those of Calvin may involve
a failure to be duly critical of Calvin’s views.
6.4. Reference to historical theology in this work

This book will depart from rather than follow the example set it by
much Pentecostalism, which, while united in valuing the Bible, is far
less certain about the usefulness of post-biblical Christian tradition
as a measure against which newer ideas might be judged. In fact,
many articulations of theology from within Pentecostalism itself or
from broader charismatic perspectives simply ignore the possible role
of tradition as a source from which beliefs might be developed.130 When
the matter is raised, discussion is remarkably brief. Thus the Assemblies
of God’s Systematic Theology, the first chapter of which does contain
some pre-Pentecostal and Pentecostal history, contains in its second
chapter, “Theological Foundations,” a two paragraph section entitled
“Historical Theology,” which is confined to little more than setting out
what such theology is.131
Reasons for this eschewal of historical theology relate both to Pente-
costalism’s view of the Bible, and to its understanding of history. The
Bible is often approached with an instinctive immediacy which cele-
128 Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 70–75.

129 See, e.g., DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, 240, 243.
130 From within the Elim Pentecostal Church, P.S. Brewster, ed., Pentecostal Doctrine
(n.pl.: P.S. Brewster, 1976), has a chapter on “The Inspiration of the Bible,” but
no chapter on historical theology or Christian tradition. From broader charismatic
perspectives, the same lack is evident in J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology Vol. 1
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988); Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester:
IVP, 1994), despite their lengthy sections concerning the Bible. Williams only offers tiny
sections on “Human Reflection” (29) and “The Question of ‘Natural Theology’ ” (36).
131 James H. Railey, Jr. and Benny C. Aker, in Stanley M. Horton (ed.), Systematic
Theology (Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House, revised edition, 1995 [1994]), 46–
47.
brates obvious commonalities (for instance in perceived religious expe-

rience) between human authors and readers. Historical and cultural
differences between the two are overlooked. Thus no need is seen to
investigate the historical course of the millennia lying between.132 Pente-
costalism’s view of church history sometimes takes the form, not unique
to it, of ‘decline and revival’: after the close of the New Testament the
church quickly declined into doctrinal error and spiritual emptiness;
with perhaps some exceptions, it remained thus until God poured out
His ‘Latter Rain’ and Pentecostalism was born.133 Such an erroneous
and naïve view of history is naturally linked with the idea that nothing
useful can be learnt from the intervening centuries.
Notwithstanding such unconcern for historical issues among many
Pentecostals, which unconcern is replicated within the Word-faith
movement, this work will pay considerable attention to historical the-
ology. On this issue, Pentecostals must recognise possible naïvety and
listen to voices ‘outside the immediate family’. As T.F. Torrance rightly
observes:
The immense value of church history and of the history of doctrine is
the dimension of historical depth it gives to one’s understanding of the
faith, and the balance it brings into one’s judgments . . . [N]o constructive
thinking that is worth while [sic] can be undertaken that sets at nought
the intellectual labours of the centuries that are enshrined in tradition,
or be undertaken on the arrogant assumption that everything must be
thought through de novo as if nothing true had already been done or
said.134
To this can be added the positive assessment offered by Hanson in his
useful introduction to Historical Theology:
[I]t is in fact impossible, not to say undesirable, to move from the
period of the Old and the New Testaments directly to our own day,
to ‘confront’ the men [sic] of the twentieth century with the Bible, as if
nothing had happened to the Christian religion between the first and
the twentieth centuries. Christianity is ‘the religion of a book’, but the
religion is not the book. . . We regard one particular period of history
132 Karkkainen, “Hermeneutics,” e.g. 78–79; cf. Cargal, “Controversy,” 164, 187;
Kenneth J. Archer, “Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation,” JPT 18 (2001): 68.

133 G. Wacker, “Bibliography and Historiography of Pentecostalism (U.S.),” in Dictio-
nary, ed. Burgess and McGee, 65–76, e.g. 71.

134 T.F. Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction (London: SCM, 1965), 23, 24. Torrance
mentions among the benefits of studying historical theology its corrective power, and its
provision of foundations upon which newer ideas can be built.
94 chapter two
as normative, but all Christian history must be illustrative. . . It must

first be recognized that no group of Christians in the whole history of
Christianity has ever succeeded in confining its doctrine to the Bible and
the Bible alone. . . [This] is a self-evidently impossible principle. In the
first place, no institution can exist in history without creating a tradition,
be it a cricket club, a bird-watching society, a parliament, a police force
or a literary clique. Those institutions which attempt to reject tradition
merely succeed in establishing a tradition of rejecting tradition. . . In the
second place, every intelligent person ought to realize that the Bible does
not interpret itself. This is meant in the simplest and directest way. If
any reader were to take a modern printed copy of the Bible and place
it, open, in Trafalgar Square, it would not begin either to read itself
aloud or to preach itself. . . No believing Christian ever believes nakedly
the Bible and nothing but the Bible without any interposition of an
interpreting Church, even though he may think he does.135
Thus Pentecostalism is far more indebted to the wider Christianity of

preceding and current centuries than it might care to admit. O’Neill
is aware of this historical indebtedness, while simultaneously declaring
the Bible’s uniqueness:
The shrewd pentecostalist preacher who commands his millions of de-
voted followers might insist it is his continued supernaturalist theology
that does it, but what keeps the show on the road is the belief he imbibed
from his Bible College teachers, which they in turn got from conservative
German scholarship, that knew to drink from the same fountain as their
radical colleagues, that the Bible gives anyone who reads it the clue to
the history of the world.136
This work will thus regard major Christian voices down the centuries
as relative authorities against whose articulations JDS doctrine may
legitimately be scrutinised. However, in so doing, it will not compromise
the “final authority in all matters of faith and conduct”137 that the Elim
Pentecostal Church accords to the Christian scriptures. Therefore, first,
historical theology will not be studied to the exclusion of the scriptures.
Secondly, this work will deliberately focus on those historical sources
which are not only relevant to the subject matter but most clearly
take biblical content seriously, and which contribute to the church’s
appreciation of its message. Thirdly, it will not adopt what Torrance
calls, with reference to the Reformation era, “the Roman view of
135 R.C. Hanson, “Introduction,” in Historical Theology, J. Danielou, A.H. Couratin
and John Kent, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969), 9–13.

136 J.C. O’Neill, The Bible’s Authority (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 3.
137 Elim, Constitution, 1.
tradition that the truth of a thing is what has actually become of

it in history.”138 Rather, historical developments will be seen in the
light of the biblical data which gave them birth. The method used to
research historical sources will, as with scriptural texts, be grammatico-
historical exegesis, due account being taken of historical particularity
and distance. The hermeneutical issues involved are essentially similar
to those being faced when biblical texts are interpreted.

This section has considered reference to theological resources in the
debate. It was noted that JDS teachers themselves eschew broad theo-
logical interaction, referring only to sources close to ‘theological home’.
This is no doubt due to their belief in ‘revelation knowledge’, their con-
cern about the potentially divisive nature of debate, and their relative
ignorance of theological discussion. Also, use of such resources among
JDS debaters is patchy and, when it does occur, brief. In contrast to
these debaters and to Pentecostalism in general, this project intends
to make full use of historical theological resources, though this will be
restricted to discussion that is likely to enhance understanding of the
Bible’s contribution to the subject, rather than draw attention away
from biblical data.
7.1. Summary
This chapter has demonstrated that, while existing debaters have large-
ly evaluated JDS teaching according to two criteria, biblical faithful-
ness and possible dependence on New Thought and Christian Science
or Higher Life and Faith Cure, a third criterion deserves much fuller
consideration than it has so far received: conformity to the conclu-
sions of historical Christian theology. Each criterion raises its partic-
ular methodological issues. Comparison with biblical material presents
concerns about selection of texts and translations, and interpretation of
those texts. This work will attempt to utilise a wide range of texts, to
138 Torrance, Theology, 23.

96 chapter two
consider overall presentations, and to be sensitive to the original bib-

lical languages, using grammatico-historical exegesis. Consideration of
New Thought and Christian Science, and Higher Life and Faith Cure
demands consideration of sources from both pairs of groups, assessment
of the presence and absence of similarities, and the possible presence of
contrasts. Relevant authors have been selected for this task, and jus-
tification given for the selection. Discussion of historical theology has
been justified, despite its absence from the work of the JDS teachers
themselves, and its only partial presence in the ensuing debate.
7.2. Implications
One implication of incorporating a third criterion for appraising JDS
doctrine into the debate is that the assessment of the doctrine that
emerges may thereby be more complex. For instance, the ramifications
of JDS doctrine may not only be found to interact with historic thinking
about the cross, but also with concerns the church has had about
Christology or anthropology. A full discussion of these wider concerns
will not be possible within the remit of this work. However, at least
indications can be offered concerning the impact of JDS teaching on
Word-faith trinitarianism, Christology, anthropology, and atonement
theory.
A further implication that naturally arises from the identification of
a set of criteria and methods is that the conclusion of the complete
work will follow the lines of these criteria and methods. Thus, this
project attempts to discover whether JDS teaching: is faithful to biblical
material; arose from ‘heterodox’ or ‘orthodox’ sources when it entered
the church in its final form via Kenyon; and adheres to traditional
Christian formulations. If the book is able to supply and defend answers
to these questions, it will have succeeded in achieving its main aims.

Existing contributions to JDS teaching and to the JDS debate have paid
great attention to the witness of the Christian scriptures. This book
will follow suit. Many critics of JDS doctrine, following McConnell,
have also examined the possible connection between Kenyon’s beliefs
and pre-existing ideas in the New Thought and Christian Science
movements. However, this process is far from complete. It has not yet
been applied thoroughly to all of Kenyon’s distinctives (including JDS
teaching), and it has often failed so far to search both for similarities,
lack of similarities, and frank contrasts amongst both New Thought
practitioners and Christian Scientists, and advocates of the Higher Life
and Faith Cure movements. This book performs all these searches, and
therefore advances the debate considerably.
The work also augments the discussion usefully by engaging with
significant thinkers from the history of the church. Such considerations
have not been entirely absent from the debate so far (as Smail, Walker
and Wright’s article illustrates), but there is a clear need for detailed
and sustained interaction with the history of relevant Christian thought,
if JDS doctrine’s alleged ‘heterodoxy’ is to be thoroughly gauged.
chapter three
JESUS’ ‘SPIRITUAL DEATH’ AND ITS NECESSITY1
1. Introduction
This chapter considers the overall claims of JDS teachers2 that Christ
‘died spiritually’ and that he had to do so for humanity’s salvation. The
ideas lying within the overall claim will be considered individually in
subsequent chapters.
It has already become clear that JDS teachers believe that Jesus ‘died
spiritually’ because they believe that the Bible declares this to be so.
In turn, the critics of JDS teaching believe that Christ did not ‘die
spiritually’, for they cannot see this taught scripturally. This chapter
thus focuses first on whether the scriptures directly teach that Jesus
‘died spiritually’ (section 2). Secondly, as McConnell and his followers
believe that Kenyon gained his ‘spiritualisation’ of Christ’s death from
New Thought and Christian Science, section 3 will discuss whether
the idea of a ‘spiritual death’ of Christ can be found in those sources,
or in Higher Life and Faith Cure. Thereafter, section 4 broadens the
search for statements that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ to a range of theo-
logical contexts, as a first step, to be continued in later chapters, in
discovering whether JDS teaching is as distinctly different from tradi-
tional Christianity as its detractors claim. Finally in this chapter, JDS
teachers believe that in effect the Bible states that Jesus had to ‘die spir-
itually’, as well as physically, in order to save humanity from ‘spiritual
death’, because humanity, its problems and their solutions are all essen-
tially spiritual in nature. Thus section 5 considers the anthropological
foundation of this claim.
1 Chapter 3 contains an amended version of material previously published as:
“Spirit, Soul and Body: The Trichotomism of Kenyon, Hagin, and Copeland,” Refleks
5:1 (2006): 98–118. It is reused here with permission.
2 Here and below, ‘JDS teachers’ refers only to Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland. For
brief references to other JDS teachers, and their variety of such teaching, see pages 34–
36.
100 chapter three
2. Biblical references to ‘spiritual death’
Of course, JDS teachers do not claim that the precise phrase ‘Jesus died
spiritually’ is found in scripture, but they do believe that certain scrip-
tural declarations entail the notion. These include texts that are under-
stood to declare that fallen humans are ‘spiritually dead’. If this is true
of fallen humans, the logic goes, it must also be true of Christ, ‘our sin
substitute’, who underwent this ‘spiritual death’ to save others from it.
Two key texts in this regard are reviewed here: Genesis 2:17 and Eph-
esians 2:1. The range of texts also includes those that are understood
to make direct statements about Christ. Those which will be reviewed
here are: Isaiah 53:9, with its plural ‘in his deaths’ (physical and ‘spir-
itual’?); 1 Timothy 3:16, with its reference to Jesus being ‘justified’ in
spirit (and therefore previously condemned?); and 1 Peter 3:18 (Jesus was
‘made alive spiritually’ and therefore previously ‘dead spiritually’?).3
2.1. Genesis 2:17
úeîz úÇî epn!î @"ìë#à íÇé"a
“On the day you eat thereof you will surely die.”
In JDS teaching, this death was definitely ‘spiritual’, for the simple rea-
son that Adam did not die physically that day. Physical mortality simply
followed as a necessary consequence of the ‘spiritual death’.4 Hagin
related this ‘spiritual death’ not to the expulsion from Eden (Gene-
sis 3:23), but to Adam’s new inclination to hide from God (Genesis 3:8).5
Similarly, Copeland sees it in Adam’s new-found fear expressed in Gen-
esis 3:10.6
In contrast to this view, many biblical commentators see the verse
as referring to physical death.7 Clearly, however, the narrative does not
3 There are other passages referred to in JDS literature (e.g. Acts 2:24; Colos-
sians 1:18; Hebrews 2:9, etc.). Passages are selected for discussion here on the basis
that, taken together, they seem to form the strongest evidence for JDS doctrine’s case.
4 Kenyon, Bible, 29; Hagin, Name, 30; Zoe, 28; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 2.
5 Hagin, Name, 31.
6 Copeland, Force of Faith, 14.
7 E.g. E.A. Speiser, Genesis (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 17; C. Westermann, Gen-
esis 1–11, trans. John J. Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984 [1974]), 224–225; G. Aalders,
Genesis Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 93; V. Hamilton, The Book of
Genesis Chapters 1–17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 172–174; J.L. Harris, “An
Exposition of Genesis 2:4–11:32,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 44.1 (Fall 2001): 45.
jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ and its necessity 101
record Adam’s immediate physical death, and his subsequent parent-

ing of sons indicates that Adam is presented as living in good health
for years to come—the indication is that Adam’s sons were born after
the expulsion from Eden, for Seth’s arrival was seen as a ‘replace-
ment’ for the murdered Abel (Genesis 4:25), and murder would have
been inconceivable, from the narrator’s viewpoint, before Adam and
Eve had submitted to the serpent. Commentators present a number
of possible solutions to this chronological problem. Hamilton bypasses
chronology in suggesting that the Hebrew is helpfully rendered: “as
surely as you eat of it you shall die.”8 If chronology must be retained,
however, he tentatively suggests the alternative, “you deserve to die.”9
However, Westermann had already dismissed such ‘softenings’ and sim-
ply accepted that, according to the narrative, “After the man and the
woman have eaten from the tree, a new situation arises in which God
acts differently from the way he had indicated.”10
None of these suggestions seems particularly satisfactory, and it is not
surprising that JDS teaching is not alone in seeing a non-physical death
at Genesis 2:17. Augustine (354–430) had not seen the death in merely
physical terms:
When, therefore, it is asked what death it was with which God threat-
ened our first parents if they should transgress the commandment they
had received from Him, and should fail to preserve their obedience,—
whether it was the death of soul, or of body, or of the whole man, or that
which is called second death,—we must answer, It is all.
When, therefore, God said to the first man whom he had placed in
Paradise, referring to the forbidden fruit, “In the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die,” that threatening included. . . the first part
of the first death, by which the soul is deprived of God.11
Similarly, John Calvin (1509–1564) wrote:
Under the name of death is comprehended all those miseries in which
Adam involved himself by his defection; for as soon as he revolted from
God, the fountain of life, he was cast down from his former state,
in order that he might perceive the life of man without God to be
wretched and lost, and therefore differing nothing from death. Hence the
8 Hamilton, Genesis, 171.

9 Hamilton, Genesis, 174. Similarly, Speiser, Genesis, 17; Harris, “Exposition,” 41.
10 Westermann, Genesis, 225.
11 Augustine, The City of God XIII.12 (NPNF I/II, 250, 251).
102 chapter three
condition of man after his sin is not improperly called both the privation
of life, and death.12
Such views have not died out. Wenham, who agrees with Westermann
that Genesis 2:17 cannot be softened to mean vaguely “when you eat”
or “you shall be doomed to die”,13 writes:
It may be that. . . there are two meanings of “you shall die.” We have
seen that the garden of Eden narrative is full of symbols suggesting
the presence of God and his life-giving power—trees, gold, rivers, and
jewels used to adorn the holy of holies. In Israelite worship, true life was
experienced when one went to the sanctuary. There God was present.
There he gave life. But to be expelled from the camp, as lepers were, was
to enter the realm of death. . . In this sense they did die on the day they
ate of the tree.14
This interpretation has its difficulties. For instance, úeîz úÇî in Gene-
sis 20:7 refers clearly to physical death.15 Nevertheless, the JDS under-
standing offers some plausibility, for instance because, as Hagin noted,16
God used expulsion from the garden to prevent Adam’s and Eve’s
access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22–24).
2.2. Ephesians 2:1
Κα μς ντας νεκρς τς παραπτμασιν κα τας μαρταις μν
“And you, being dead in your trespasses and sins . . .”
Hagin saw here a clear indication that ‘sinners’ are ‘spiritually dead’,
referring also to 1 Timothy 5:6 (“She who lives for pleasure, though
living, has died”). Copeland appears to draw the same conclusion.17
Clearly, the reference here is not to physical death. Also, the context
(especially Ephesians 2:5; 4:18) presents this ‘death’ as ‘alienation from
12 John Calvin, Genesis, trans. John King (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1847 [1554]),
127.
13 G.J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 67–68.
14 Wenham, Genesis, 74. D. Kidner (Genesis [Leicester: IVP, 1967], 69) and J.H. Sail-
hamer (“Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 2, ed. F.E. Gaebelein [Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990], 48) concur.
15 Physical healing and therefore death are in view (e.g. Genesis 20:17); cf. Exo-
dus 31:14; Numbers 15:32–36.

16 Hagin, Redeemed, 2nd edition 65.
17 Hagin, Name, 30; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 5–6; Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 2
(referring also to Ephesians 2:5).

the life of God’, and contrasts it with being alive in Christ. The JDS
exposition is therefore uncontroversial. Even the use of ‘spiritually’
is not unique to this teaching. Best contrasts this death with being
“spiritually alive”. Hoehner uses the term “spiritually dead”, while
Lincoln writes of “spiritual and moral death”.18 O’Brien perhaps wishes
to distance himself from the motif, writing that this state “is sometimes
called spiritual death”.19 Nevertheless, he offers no criticism of the
terminology.20
Thus JDS teaching seems to be on firm ground in asserting that,
according to certain texts, fallen unregenerate humanity is ‘dead’. This
accords with a broad stream of biblical thought in which God and his
Christ are seen as granting life (Deuteronomy 30:19–20; Psalm 133:3;
John 5:21–26; Romans 2:7; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 1 Peter 3:7; etc.), so that
to be out of covenant or relationship with God is seen as ‘death’
(Deuteronomy 30:19; John 5:24; Romans 6:13; 1 John 3:14; etc.). It is
also clearly an apt metaphor, as fellowship with God brings abundance
and fulfilment. However, three words of caution must be noted. First,
the Bible itself never collocates ‘spiritual’ with these metaphorical ref-
erences to ‘death’. Thus suspicion is aroused that to do so might be
to ‘compartmentalise’ human existence in a dualistic fashion that is for-
eign to biblical categories (see further discussion on pages 107–109; 128–
141). Secondly, insofar as either of the two texts studied suggests what
this ‘spiritual death’ is, the indications offered do not support the full
nexus of meanings that JDS teaching gives to the term. While Gen-
esis 2:17 and Ephesians 2:1 may allow for the idea that a ‘spiritually
dead’ person is far from God and lost in sin, there is no indication from
these texts that a particular relationship with Satan is entailed in the
state of death. Full discussion of Satan’s possible involvement in fallen
18 Ernest Best, Ephesians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 201; H.W. Hoehner, Eph-
esians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 308; Andrew T. Lin-
coln, Ephesians, (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 92.
19 Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Leicester: Apollos, 1999), 156.
20 Such language is not confined to biblical studies. Vladimir Lossky wrote that
to reject the Trinity is “spiritual death”, which is “the disintegration of our being”
and “hell” (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, trans. Fellowship of St Albans
and St Sergius [Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1957 (1944)], 65–66). Daniel
Strange writes of humanity’s “spiritual death penalty” (“The Many-splendoured Cross:
Atonement, Controversy and Victory,” Foundations 54 [Autumn 2005]: 17). Even one of
JDS teaching’s critics is prepared to use this language of fallen humans: “We need to
be born again because we are spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins.” (Bowman,
Controversy, 176).
104 chapter three
human life lies beyond the limits of this work, but the possible role of
Satan in Christ’s death will be considered in detail in chapters 5 and
6. A third difficulty is that to accept that the Bible occasionally utilises
the metaphor of death in referring to the lostness of humanity without
God does not necessarily mean that Jesus experienced the same ‘death’.
While an examination of concepts of substitution in the atonement lies
beyond the limits of this work, study of the following three texts allows
for consideration of the possibility that the Bible makes assertions that
directly entail Christ’s ‘spiritual death’.
2.3. Isaiah 53:9
åéú&î"a øé!Öòúàå ÇY"áN íé!òÖYúà ïziå
“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his
death[s].”
This text was vital to Kenyon, offering ‘biblical proof ’ that Jesus ‘died
spiritually’.21 He took the plurality of åéú&î"a (in his death[s]) to indicate
the Messiah’s suffering two deaths: physical and spiritual.
It is a very remarkable fact that this is the only time that the word
“deaths” is used in the entire Old Testament Scriptures, except when
it speaks of Satan’s being cast out of Heaven, that he “died the deaths.”
It is used here, because the Prophet saw that our sin Substitute when He
went to the Cross died spiritually as well as physically; so it says “in His
deaths.”22
Copeland follows suit.23 However, other commentators vary in their

response. Whybray regards the plural as “meaningless” and follows
Albright in emending the Hebrew to ‘his burial ground’.24 Motyer,
however, rejecting the emendation, accepts the plural, regarding it
as one of “amplification/majesty”, with the wry comment that the
“only remarkable thing about the plural, therefore, is our surprise at
finding it.”25 Among critics of JDS teaching, this entirely plausible view
that the plural is one of amplification or intensification is accepted

22 Kenyon, Father, 126; cf. 136; What Happened, 43; Bible, 159.
23 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 3–4; Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 1.
24 R.N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (London: Oliphants, 1975), 178; cf. J.D.W. Watts,
Isaiah 34–66 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 226.

25 Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Leicester: IVP, 1993), 435–436.
by McConnell.26 Bowman also points out the use of an apparently

synonymous singular in Isaiah 53:12.27 Thus, given a probably intensive
plural at Isaiah 53:9, and a contextual singular at 53:12, this text offers
no firm evidence for JDS teaching. Even if the Hebrew in Isaiah 53:9
were semantically as well as grammatically plural, there is of course no
indication in the text as to what these two or more deaths might be, and
therefore no compelling reason to limit them to two and to designate
them as ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’.
2.4. 1 Timothy 3:16
ς ανερη ν σαρκ δικαιη ν πνεματι

“God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,” (KJV)
“He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit,” (NRSV)
The second part of this statement contributed to Kenyon’s exposition:

Christ’s spiritual justification indicated His prior ‘spiritual’ condemna-
tion and death.
In 1 Timothy 3:16 Paul tells us that He was justified in spirit. He could
not be Justified until He was first condemned, and we know that He was
not Justified until the claims of Justice had been fully satisfied; then the
edict comes from the Throne of God, and our Substitute stands legally
acquitted in the presence of the demons in Hell. Next He is given Eternal
Life, and He that was Spiritually dead and under Satan’s Dominion is
now made alive in spirit.28
Quite apart from some of the more bizarre suggestions in this excerpt,
which will be discussed in later chapters, Kenyon’s understanding of
δικαιη is problematic, and may rest upon the English translation or
translations available to him at the time. Recognising a variety of past
understandings, modern commentators largely concur that δικαιη
in this context is best understood as ‘was vindicated’, and that the event
in view here is Christ’s physical resurrection. The vindication is not
perceived as an improvement in Christ’s standing before God, but as a
statement by God that Christ’s claims were true.29
26 McConnell, Promise, 128; cf. Bowman, Controversy, 164. McIntyre, a supporter of
Kenyon, concedes this point (Kenyon, 340).

28 Kenyon, Father, 138; cf. 133; Bible, 166; What Happened, 62–64.
29 I.H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 525; George
106 chapter three
2.5. 1 Peter 3:18
ανατωες μ!ν σαρκ "#ωπιηες δ! πνεματι

“He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit” (NRSV).
The superficial amenability of this text to JDS teaching is immediately

obvious, and both Kenyon and Copeland use it. Copeland explains
their reasoning simply and briefly: “If He was made alive in His spirit,
He must have been spiritually dead.”30 At least one New Testament
commentator has concurred. Kenneth Wuest (1893–1962), professor of
New Testament Greek at Moody Bible Institute, wrote: “To make alive
Christ’s human spirit presupposes the death of that human spirit.”31 If
JDS teachers and Wuest are right in seeing Peter32 refer to ‘a making
alive of Christ’s spirit’ while perhaps the body remained dead, in other
words in seeing a dualistic anthropology here, then this text might
indeed imply that Christ ‘died spiritually’.33
Most commentators, however, while recognising this passage’s diffi-
culties, do not relate "#ωπιηες δ! πνεματι to a ‘spiritual resurrec-
tion’ that can be distinguished from the physical. Some of their reasons
are stronger than others. For Feinberg, the “problem is that immate-
rial substances do not die, so they cannot be brought back to life.”34
W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1992), 184–185; Gor-
don D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984), 94;
A.T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982), 85–
86; P.H. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus (Leicester: IVP, 1994), 99: many with reference
to Romans 1:4. M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann (The Pastoral Epistles [Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1972], 62) agree about the translation ‘vindicated’, but refer to Christ’s
exaltation.
30 Copeland, Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 1; also Kenyon, What Happened, 64; Father, 138.
31 K.S. Wuest, First Peter in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1942), 95.
32 By ‘Peter’ is simply meant the author of 1 Peter.
33 There are other possible explanations, however. Bo Reicke (The Disobedient Spirits
and Christian Baptism [Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1946]), who did not consider
that Peter was interested in ontological anthropology (107), wrote (106),
If now it really says in verse 18 that Christ was brought to life ‘as regards’ the
spirit, . . . [i]t is then actually the spirit itself which is brought to life (which, of
course, does not here imply that it passes from death to life, for the spirit has
never been dead, but only that it becomes the bearer of the new Life which
follows upon humiliation of the body).
34 J.S. Feinberg, “1 Peter 3:18–20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State,”
Westminster Theological Journal, 48 (1986): 314–315.

This presupposes an ontology of ‘spirit’ which may be foreign to the

text. Elliott’s reasoning is opaque: “Nor can sarx and pneuma, as pointed
out by Michaels (1988, 204), denote differing material and immaterial
parts of Christ’s person (his ‘body’ and ‘soul’), since each is associated
with a different verb.”35 It is difficult to see why a difference in the rel-
evant verbs prevents the datives from denoting ‘with respect to Christ’s
flesh/spirit’.
Though Elliott indicates that he is following Michaels, the latter
actually expresses his reasoning rather differently, and arguably more
cogently:
Any attempt to distinguish between ωπιη ε ς πνεματι and Jesus’
bodily resurrection must do so by showing that only Jesus’ “soul” or
“spirit” was quickened while his body remained in the tomb, and this . . .
is not borne out by Peter’s σαρκ –πνεματι distinction.36
Michaels proceeds to indicate that Peter’s distinction is “not between
the material and immaterial parts of Christ’s person . . . but rather
between his earthly existence and his risen state.”37 Similar to Michaels’
reasoning, but more simply expressed, is Davids’. He points out that
Christ “died as a whole person, not simply as a body”, and thus
His resurrection is to be seen as that of His whole person.38 Goppelt
concurs: “Die Begriffe “Fleisch” und “Geist” . . . bezeichen nicht wie
für die griechische Tradition Bestandteile des Menschen.”39 In effect,
Michaels, Davids and Goppelt are challenging an anthropologically
dualistic reading of 3:18,40 of which the JDS reading is a clear example,
with a monistic one.
Whether Peter’s anthropology is monistic or dualistic is moot. The
clearest parallel to 3:18 is 4:6 (κρισι μ!ν . . . σαρκ "σι δ! . . . πνε-
ματι). However, it is so close that it simply reinforces the uncertainty,
rather than resolving it. Other passages are clearer. In favour of mo-
nism, Michaels’ reference to ‘earthly existence’ accords with the obvi-
ous meaning of σαρκ in 4:2 (NRSV: “earthly life”; cf. 1:24), which
is thus probably also the implicit meaning of the term in 4:1, where
35 J.H. Elliott, 1 Peter (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 645.

36 J.R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 204.
37 Michaels, 1 Peter, 204; against, e.g., A.M. Stibbs & A.F. Walls, 1 Peter (TNTC.
Leicester: IVP, 1959), 141–142.

38 H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 137.
39 Leonhard Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1978), 244–245.
40 All references in this subsection are to 1 Peter unless otherwise stated.
108 chapter three
Christ’s πα$ντς σαρκ parallels the ανατωες σαρκ of 3:18. The

inference is that in these cases, the word σ%ρ& does not denote some
‘compartment’ in a dualistic human makeup, but rather this earthly
human life in its fulness. Similarly, Peter’s use of σμα at 2:24 may dis-
play monism. However, at 3:21 σ%ρ& does more obviously refer to the
physical body, and limits the significance of its cleanliness in compari-
son to the importance of a clean conscience. This seems more dualis-
tic. Given the uncertainties in 1 Peter, a wider investigation into biblical
anthropology is called for, for if the canon is thoroughly and consis-
tently monistic, Peter can well be expected to follow suit (and vice versa).
The Bible has traditionally been assumed to present a consistently
dualistic anthropology. Augustine, Martin Luther (1483–1546) and Cal-
vin believed that they were reproducing biblical ideas when they distin-
guished sharply between the material and immaterial aspects of human
makeup.41 However, since the middle of the twentieth century a sus-
tained assault on these assumptions has been mounted by biblical schol-
ars. Their criticisms of the dualist case are concisely summarised by
Cooper: biblical authors were not attempting to present anthropologi-
cal data that were philosophically precise; they frequently used synec-
doche, whereby a seeming part of human makeup denoted the whole;
anthropological terms were often used interchangeably; where anthro-
pological terms were not used interchangeably, they were being used
functionally, not ontologically; where the soul or spirit was said to leave
the body at death, this may simply have meant that the life was over
(‘leaving’), rather than that an incorporeal ‘substance’ was leaving the
body to survive outwith and without it; and finally, the Pauline distinc-
tion between ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh’ was not between the immaterial and
material.42
In place of dualistic assumptions has come a widespread convic-
tion that the Bible presents an essentially monist anthropology. Early
advocates of this position highlighted the monism of both Hebrew
and Pauline thought. John A.T. Robinson quoted Wheeler Robinson
41 Augustine, “On the Soul and its Origin,” e.g. IV.4 (NPNF I/V, 355); “On the
Trinity,” XI.1 (NPNF I/III, 144); Luther, The Magnificat, (LW 21, 303–304); John Calvin,
Institutes of the Christian Religion I/XV, 2, trans. Henry Beveridge (London: James Clarke
& Co., 1962 [1536]), vol. I, 160–161. Augustine’s Platonism undoubtedly affected his
reading of the scriptures. The Aristotelianism of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274) gave
him a different outlook. See John W. Cooper, Body, Soul and Life Everlasting (Leicester:
Apollos, 2nd edition 2000 [1989]), 10–13.
42 Cooper, Body, 96–99.
approvingly: to a Hebrew, a person was “an animated body, not an

incarnated soul.”43 He went on to declare that for Paul, “σμα . . . does
not mean simply something external to a man [sic] himself, something
he has. It is what he is.”44 Bultmann’s study of Pauline theology simi-
larly concluded that for Paul ‘my body’ characteristically equalled ‘I’.45
More recently, Dunn concurs with respect to Paul’s use of ‘soul’.46 Var-
ious commentators extrapolate this conclusion to the whole of the New
Testament.47
However, there has alongside this change of perspective been a
recognition that in Paul’s writing, where most of the relevant New Tes-
tament material lies, there is in fact a flexibility. While much of his
thought seems monist, at times it can sound dualist. Bultmann noted
this in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 and 12.48 Others have fol-
lowed suit.49 The anthropological variety is perhaps unsurprising, in the
light of the observation, regularly repeated in the literature, that bibli-
cal writers were not seeking to present a carefully crafted and coherent
anthropology, but were writing occasional and pragmatic documents.
With this in mind, attention can now return to 1 Peter 3:18. If an
entirely consistent anthropology had been found elsewhere in the Bible,
it might be reasonable to suggest that 1 Peter was aligned to it. How-
ever, this is not the case. Instead, Paul’s flexibility merely reinforces the
uncertainty. Peter may have been monist or dualist, or may even have
betrayed both tendencies in the one letter. There is therefore no jus-
tification in claiming that a dualist reading of the text is necessarily
untrue to Peter’s intention. On the other hand, it cannot be claimed
that a dualist reading is the correct exegesis. An ‘open verdict’ must be
recorded as to whether 1 Peter 3:18 suggests that Jesus ‘died spiritually’
or not.
43 John A.T. Robinson, The Body (London: SCM, 1952), 14.

44 Robinson, Body, 28, italics original.
45 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament Volume 1, trans. Kendrick Grobel
(London: SCM Press, 1952), 192–194.

46 James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998),
76.
47 E.g. Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1983),
140; Bruce Reichenbach, quoted in Cooper, Body, 100.

48 Bultmann, Theology, 192, 201–202; cf. Robinson, Body, 77.
49 John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999
[1998]), xxiii–xxix; Pheme Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament (Minneapolis: For-
tress Press, 1993), 33–34; E. Schweizer, “πνε'μα,” (TDNT VI, 434); Reichenbach,
quoted in Cooper, Body, 100.
110 chapter three

Five passages have been surveyed, referring to humanity or to Christ. It
has been shown that the clearest allusion among them to some sort of
‘spiritual death’ is to that of pre-Christians in Ephesians 2:1. Of those
taken to refer to Christ, Isaiah 53:9 and 1 Timothy 3:16 simply do not
suggest that Christ ‘died spiritually’. The plural in Isaiah 53:9 has noth-
ing to do with a pair of deaths, ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’. 1 Timothy 3:16
does not speak of a ‘justification’ of a previously condemned, and there-
fore ‘spiritually dead’, Christ. In fact, the JDS reading of these texts
provides more information about JDS exegesis than it does about the
texts in question, for it illustrates the naïvety of the exegetical work that
leads to these conclusions. Immediately, the observer of JDS teaching is
alerted that other texts might be handled with a similar lack of skill.
1 Peter 3:18 offers possible support to JDS doctrine, but no certainty.
If the JDS reading is given the benefit of the doubt, then 1 Peter 3:18
declares that Christ was made alive in spirit (‘spiritually’), and must
therefore have previously been ‘spiritually dead’. This result of a search
for biblical statements that Christ thus died is hardly overwhelming.
Given the New Testament’s sustained focus, in various ways, on Christ’s
death, the extraordinary paucity of direct reference to a distinct ‘spiri-
tual’ aspect of this death might surely warn a JDS teacher that his or
her teaching does not reflect biblical material to any significant extent.50
Again, the observer of JDS teaching is learning more about the weak-
nesses of JDS exegesis than about Christ’s death. It emerged in chap-
ter 2 that the approach of JDS teaching to scriptural testimony makes
little allowance for the possibility that different biblical authors might
have had different perspectives on the death of Christ. There is no
overt concession, for instance, that Peter might have a view of the cru-
cifixion and its aftermath that was in some respects distinctive rather
than entirely conforming to other epistolary authors. Of course, JDS
teachers believe that Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ is entailed by more texts
than 1 Peter 3:18. However, there is the suspicion that even if it was the
only text to declare or entail this, no real distinction would be drawn
between “1 Peter says . . .” and “the Bible says . . .” The possibility of a
plurality of perspectives is effectively denied. Furthermore, and impor-
50 See Hanegraaff’s similar criticism in Crisis, 161–162, though his observation is
written with the uncritical assumption, shared by JDS teaching, that New Testament
anthropology is as dualistic as his own.
tantly, it must not be assumed that Peter meant by the notion of Jesus’
‘dying spiritually’ what JDS teachers mean.
Conversely, of course, if the benefit of the doubt is not given to
JDS teaching, then the conclusion to this section is simple: no direct
statement that Christ ‘died spiritually’ has been found in the Bible.
Care must be exercised, however, in applying this conclusion. From
it cannot be derived the statement, “JDS teaching is unbiblical.” The
fact that the Bible does not state in so many words that Jesus ‘died
spiritually’ does not prevent the possibility that the Bible does teach
the three ideas that JDS doctrine incorporates: in his ‘spiritual death’,
Jesus was separated from God; partook of a sinful, satanic nature; and
became Satan’s prey. Any biblical testimony to these concepts will be
considered individually in chapters 4, 5 and 6.
3. Historical references to ‘spiritual death’
While JDS teaching itself merely takes an overt interest in biblical data,
its debaters, as emerged in chapters 1 and 2, consider Kenyon’s possible
non-biblical sources. McConnell in particular believes that certain dis-
tinctives in JDS doctrine were sourced by Kenyon not in the Bible but
in New Thought and Christian Science. McConnell does not claim that
any New Thought spokesperson stated that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ in so
many words, any more than Kenyon claimed that the Bible does. How-
ever, he does believe that these sources presented to Kenyon a ‘spiritu-
alised’ view of Christ’s death, which Kenyon then incorporated into his
own teaching. In sharp contrast to this idea is that of McIntyre, who
claims that Kenyon’s JDS teaching was in at least broad conformity
with teaching about Christ’s death circulating among Christians from
the Higher Life and Faith Cure movements. This section will consider
both groups of possible sources, in order to investigate McConnell’s and
McIntyre’s opposing theses. 3.1 will test McConnell’s position by seek-
ing references to ‘spiritual death’ within New Thought and Christian
Science. 3.2 will review McIntyre’s research into influences on Kenyon
where reference to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ is evident. 3.3 will look fur-
ther afield than McIntyre did, seeking further references to Jesus’ ‘spir-
itual death’ among several other Higher Life and Faith Cure teachers
who influenced Kenyon.
112 chapter three
3.1. Jesus’ 51 ‘spiritual death’ in New Thought and Christian Science

Having briefly reviewed JDS teaching, McConnell states:
It is not surprising that the metaphysical cults also deny that Jesus’ phys-
ical death atones for sin. Mary Baker Eddy states 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 referred to the idea that God’s wrath must be propitiated by phys-
ical sacrifice as a “heathen conception.” Kenyon’s commitment to such
metaphysical concepts made it impossible for him to believe that Christ’s
physical sufferings on the cross could be sufficient to win man’s [sic]
redemption without some supposedly more significant spiritual suffer-
ing in the spiritual realm. This spiritualization of Jesus’ death, whether
implicit (as in the Faith theology), or explicit (as in metaphysics), destroys
the very core of the gospel. It is cultic and heretical.52
Thus it is necessary to explore whether New Thought proponents and
Christian Scientists did indeed ‘spiritualise’ Jesus’ death. The writers to
be reviewed were introduced in chapter 2 (pages 78–80), where reasons
for their choice were also set out. They are P.P. Quimby, Ralph Waldo
Emerson, Mary Baker Eddy, and Ralph Waldo Trine.
New Thought and Christian Science have no doctrines of sin requir-
ing vicarious atonement,53 and thus offer various other soteriologies.
Direct comparison between their soteriologies and ‘orthodox’ Christian
views concerning the death of Jesus is considerably complicated by the
meanings that these groups attach to the terms ‘God’, ‘Christ’, ‘Jesus’
and ‘death’. Caution in gathering evidence and tentativeness in offering
conclusions is therefore required.
To Quimby, Jesus’ mission was solely as a healer:
All will admit that a person can be deceived into a belief and his belief
make him sick. They will also admit that to correct his error or belief
will make him well. This process is all that Jesus ever intended to convey
to the world. This is a science and can be learned. . . Death is an idea
51 Reference here to ‘Jesus’ rather than ‘Christ’ is deliberate, as some of these writers,
unlike JDS teachers, distinguished between the human Jesus and the impersonal divine
‘Christ’ within him.
52 McConnell, Promise, 120. Quotations from Eddy are from Science, 330, and No and
Yes (Boston, MA: The First Church of Christ, Scientist, 1887), 44–45.
53 Ralph Waldo Trine, The Man who Knew (Electronic Edition: Cornerstone Pub-
lishing, 2001 [1936]), http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage.htm, ch. 15; Eddy,

Science, 11, 24.
or matter and all the acts of science destroy death and lead to life and
happiness.54
Quimby believed that he understood Jesus’ teaching on death. In His
resurrection,
Jesus would not allow that he was a spirit but that he had flesh and
bones as he had before he was crucified. So he either told a falsehood
or his dead body rose, and if that rose, he did give people to believe a
lie, for he said as touching the dead, God is not the God of the dead
but the living. He also said, They that rise from the dead, not that they
rise, etc. Now all this seems like a contradiction. So it is, if you take the
Christian’s explanation. But if you will take Jesus’ explanation, it is clear,
for he never had any idea of death as the Christians say he had; his ideas
were at variance with all the world. He never taught any other world as
was believed by the religious Jews. He made man up of ideas.55
The quotations above indicate that Quimby’s view of death, despite his
believing that it agreed with Jesus’, was not that of historic Christianity.
Moving to Jesus’ own death, Quimby believed in the physical crucifix-
ion of the human Jesus. His views about ‘the Christ’ were considerably
more esoteric:
Christ was crucified at the death of Jesus and laid in the tomb of Joseph’s
new doctrines, not with the body of Jesus. The Jews crucified Christ by
their false religion and the masses crucified the man Jesus, so Christ in
the tomb of every true disciple had the Christ lying in his breast crucified
by the world of opinions. This Christ is the one that Jesus Christ spake of,
not of the flesh and blood that the people saw by their natural eyes. So
all the truth that came through the man Jesus was Christ and it was the
garment of Jesus. So Jesus was clothed with the gospel or wisdom of God.
When the error murdered the man, they stole the body of Christ and
parted His garments or wisdom among them, while the people believed
that the flesh and blood that was laid in the tomb was the one that they
heard, when it was nothing but the medium of the one whom they never
54 Quimby, “Jesus’ Healing and His Mission,” (1860), http://cornerstone.wwwhubs

.com/framepage.htm through “Other Quimby Writings Online.”
55 Quimby, “What Is Death?” (1863), http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage
.htm through “Other Quimby Writings Online.” At least when taken at face value,
Quimby’s ideas about Jesus and death involved contradiction. He could write that Jesus
“disbelieved in death, in heaven and hell”, and state in the next paragraph that, for
Jesus, “Man must be born again in order to enter heaven.” While Quimby may have
meant different concepts by the term ‘heaven’ in these two statements, he did not clarify
this. In the same document he wrote, “In the wisdom of Jesus, the word death means
simply the change from brutish ignorance to a higher state of knowledge” (P. Quimby,
“Jesus, His Belief or Wisdom,” [1862], http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage
.htm through “Other Quimby Writings Online”).
114 chapter three
saw, only in a mystery. This same Christ rose again and is still in the
world of matter reconciling the world of error to the science of God.56
This confused and confusing writing offers no notion which entails a
‘spiritual death’ of Jesus.
Emerson’s ideas, as esoteric as Quimby’s, had no more in common
than his with historic Christianity. According to Geldard, Emerson did
not look to Jesus for salvation. Jesus was merely, along with Moses
and Buddha, “fully enlightened”.57 Thus, though Emerson wrote about
God, he did not write much about Christ or Christianity. When he did,
he was critical of the latter’s focus on the former:
Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts
to communicate religion. As it appears to us, and as it has appeared
for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the
personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious
exaggeration about the person of Jesus. The soul knows no persons.58
Although Emerson’s claim that humans are incarnations of the divine59
is echoed in Kenyon’s work, the sources of JDS language are not to be
found in Emerson’s writings.
Eddy wrote far more about Jesus than did Emerson. Nevertheless,
her soteriology, like Quimby’s and Emerson’s, departed utterly from
that of historic ‘orthodox’ Christianity. Her references to redemption
from matter echo themes familiar from classical Gnosticism: “Jesus
aided in reconciling man to God by giving man a truer sense of
Love, the divine Principle of Jesus’ teachings, and this truer sense of
Love redeems man from the law of matter, sin and death”; “To be on
communicable terms with the Spirit, persons must be free from organic
bodies”; and “the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to
uplift faith to understand eternal life, even the Allness of Soul, Spirit,
and the nothingness of matter.”60
56 Horatio W. Dresser, ed., The Quimby Manuscripts (Electronic Edition: Cornerstone

Books, 2000 [1921]), http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage.htm, ch. 16.
57 Geldard, Teachings, 26, 54, quoting 54.
58 Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Divinity School Address,” (1838), http://cornerstone
.wwwhubs.com/framepage.htm. Italics original.

59 “Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets . . . He saw that God incarnates
himself in man” (Emerson, “Address”).

60 Eddy, Science, 19, 74, 497; cf. The Treatise on the Resurrection 45:40–46:2; 46:22–47:24;
47:37–48:3; A Valentinian Exposition 35:28–37; On Baptism B throughout (James M. Robin-

son, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English [New York: HarperCollins, revised edition
To the extent that comparisons can be drawn, Eddy did teach that
Jesus engaged in a spiritual offering: “The spiritual essence of blood
is sacrifice. The efficacy of Jesus’ spiritual offering is infinitely greater
than can be expressed by our sense of human blood.”61 However, she
denied that a ‘spiritual death’ could be possible in his case:
Jesus could give his temporal life into his enemies’ hands; but when
his earth-mission was accomplished, his spiritual life, indestructible and
eternal, was found forever the same. He knew that matter had no life
and that real Life is God; therefore he could no more be separated from
his spiritual life than God could be extinguished.62
Trine’s soteriology involved conversion from fear, sickness and lack
to peace, power and plenty through the force of thought’s rule over
material circumstances. This especially required the realisation that
all humans are part of the Infinite Life, Power and Wisdom called
‘God’.63 Jesus occupied an important place in Trine’s scheme, though
he expressed concern, like Emerson before him, that Christians might
focus too much on Jesus’ person.64 Though Trine used the word ‘at-
one-ment’, and referred to Jesus as ‘Saviour’, this salvation was not
achieved through the crucifixion, but through revelation of oneness
with ‘God’:
By coming into this complete realization of His oneness with the Father,
by mastering, absolutely mastering every circumstance that crossed His
path through life, even to the death of the body, and by pointing out to
us the great laws which are the same for us as they were for Him, He has
given us an ideal of life, an ideal for us to attain to here and now, that we
could not have without Him. One has conquered first; all may conquer afterward.
By completely realizing it first for Himself, and then by pointing out to
others this great law of the at-one-ment with the Father, He has become
the world’s greatest Saviour.65
1990 (1978)] 55–56, 486, 488); also Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.21.4,5 (ANF I, 346–347).
Larry Hurtado is, however, wisely cautious about the extent to which the Nag Ham-
madi texts may be taken to reflect the earlier varieties of Gnosticism that Irenaeus
criticised (Lord Jesus Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003], 533–538).
61 Eddy, Science, 25.
62 Eddy, Science, 51; cf. No, 44–45.
63 Trine, Infinite, especially 174, 191, 195, 200. The book’s alternative title is: Fullness of
Peace Power and Plenty.

64 Trine, Infinite, 150.
65 Trine, Infinite, 150, italics original.
116 chapter three
While Trine accepted that Jesus died, he denied a ‘spiritual death’, if

such be defined in terms of abandonment by God:
He understood thoroughly why he was dying; it was a part of his plan
sanctioned by the love and wisdom of his Father that he should give his
life for the sealing of his truth. He knew even here that he would have
the same care and guidance of the Father that he had always had, and
that He would not desert him.66
In conclusion to this section, it is abundantly clear that, whatever con-
cepts Kenyon may have gained from New Thought and Christian
Science, he did not find direct statements concerning Jesus’ ‘spiritual
death’ there. Also, McConnell’s references to the implicit spiritualisa-
tion of Jesus’ death in JDS teaching and its explicit spiritualisation in
New Thought and Christian Science suggest a far greater similarity
between their ideas than actually exists. None of the latter’s teaching
about Jesus’ death bears even a remote similarity to that found in JDS
teaching. In fact, Eddy and Trine explicitly deny some of the ideas lying
behind Kenyon’s term. Thus one can conclude that Kenyon did not
learn that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ from direct statements or broad con-
cepts in New Thought and Christian Science. The following subsec-
tions consider whether he learnt it from the teaching of those around
him whose ideas conformed to historic mainstream Christianity more
than New Thought did.
3.2. McIntyre’s research into references to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’

Of research into ‘orthodox’ references to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ ante-
cedent to or contemporary with Kenyon, the most significant is that of
McIntyre, himself a JDS teacher and supportive of Kenyon. McIntyre
seeks to defend Kenyon stoutly against McConnell’s criticisms, regard-
ing Kenyon’s JDS teaching as beneficial, and fundamentally continuous
with a line of teaching stretching back for centuries:
Many people since the Reformation had taught about the spiritual suffer-
ings of Christ. . . Their similarity to Kenyon’s teaching may be shocking
to those who thought Kenyon’s teachings were unusual or unique!
Although Kenyon first saw this truth of Christ dying spiritually by rev-
elation of the Holy Spirit, this was a fairly widely taught concept in
the circles in which Kenyon moved. Many of his favorite Bible teachers
66 Trine, Man, ch. 16.

taught it. They did not see it quite the same as Kenyon, but the essential
idea—that Christ’s sufferings were more than physical in the work of the
atonement—was not an uncommon teaching at all.67
McIntyre’s search for references to a ‘more than physical’ death notes
the Calvinist milieu of New England, in which Kenyon ministered for
decades.68 McIntyre thus searches back as far as Calvin, finding a num-
ber of similar terms used of Christ’s suffering: ‘eternal death’ (Calvin);69
‘soul-death’ (London preacher C.H. Spurgeon: 1834–1892); ‘spiritual
agony’ (British minister R.W. Dale: 1829–1895); ‘essential death’ (British
Congregationalist G. Campbell Morgan: 1863–1945). In these cases, as
is clear from McIntyre’s lengthy quotations, when the authors indicated
what they meant by these phrases, they referred to Christ’s separa-
tion from God, this often arising from their understanding of the cry,
“My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46;
Mark 15:34).70 With the exception of Calvin, and Campbell Morgan
who often spoke at the Northfield conferences attended by Kenyon,71
McIntyre offers no evidence that these authors influenced Kenyon,
though it is plausible that they may have done.
Of particular possible significance among McIntyre’s discussion of
predecessors and contemporaries of Kenyon, however, is his research
into Henry C. Mabie (1847–1918), who wrote precisely of Jesus’ ‘spir-
itual death’. Mabie was a doctor of divinity, Home Secretary of the
American Baptist Missionary Union, and influential among Higher
Life advocates, speaking regularly at the Northfield conferences.72
McIntyre is joined by Lie in considering Mabie, but McIntyre’s dis-
cussion is more detailed.73 McIntyre refers to three books Mabie wrote
on the atonement, including The Meaning and Message of the Cross, in
which, McIntyre observes, Mabie wrote of “the spiritual death which
67 McIntyre, Kenyon, 182, 183–184.

69 According to Kenyon himself, “Calvin said that Jesus had to go to Hell . . . Calvin
taught that Jesus had to suffer in our stead.” (sermon preached at First Presbyterian
Church, Hollywood, CA, August 27, 1944; supplied by Lie, email message to author,
July 28, 2006).
70 McIntyre, Kenyon, ch. 17.
71 McIntyre, email message to author, August 1, 2006; Kenyon, 86.
73 Lie, “Theology,” 98. Lie is largely dependent upon McIntyre (Lie, “Theology,”
98, n. 77).
118 chapter three
Christ experienced.”74 Mabie meant by ‘spiritual death’, when applied

to Adam and Eve, both “separation from” and “moral unlikeness to”
God:
The death which our first parents in the garden died involved more
than mere mortal dissolution, the separation of soul and body. Such
a separation indeed was entailed, but sin itself effects spiritual death,
soul-death; not annihilation but a perversion of the functions normal
to personality, eventuating in moral unlikeness to God and separation
from Him. Such a separation in fellowship between the soul and its God,
itself is death in the profoundest sense: it is the destruction of the very
possibility of God-likeness resulting in malformation and reprobacy of
spiritual being. All this and vastly more is involved in spiritual death.
However, when he then applied the term to Christ, he only referred to

“separation from God”:
Surely no less a death than that spiritual one which I have represented
Christ as experiencing, could have power to “bring to nought” such
an adversary, as declared to have had “the power of death.” As by
sin came death, and so by death the bond of Satan was cast about all
mankind; so through death—death of an infinitely profound sort—Jesus
has destroyed even him that had the power of death, and potentially set
free all his intended victims . . . Thus, it was that self-imposed death—the
voluntary tasting of spiritual separation from God—which constituted
the reconciliation.75
McIntyre recognises difficulties in determining the extent to which

Mabie’s teaching affected Kenyon, but is justifiably confident that Ken-
yon would have heard Mabie preach at Northfield in “Kenyon’s the-
ologically formative years (1894–1897)”, and, though he is not able to
supply any evidence that Kenyon read The Meaning and Message of the
Cross, he has found that Kenyon preached in 1928 that he had read
Mabie’s How Does the Death of Christ Save Us? 76 This work, written at
least partly in response to the moral influence view of the atonement,77
also mentioned Christ’s ‘spiritual death’, as McIntyre notes without
quotation. Commenting on Christ’s words recorded in Matthew 27:46,
Mabie wrote:

75 H.C. Mabie, The Meaning and Message of the Cross (New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1906), 66–67, 74, 83–84, quoted in McIntyre, Kenyon, 193–194; italics removed.
77 Henry C. Mabie, How Does the Death of Christ Save Us? (London: Hodder and
Stoughton Publishers, 1908), 1–2.

To greater depths of condescending love even Deity could not go. Yet
to such a length of voluntary humiliation and conscious woe God did
go. This the Scriptures say “became Him” (Heb. ii. 10). Nor could he so
suffer without tasting for the time the bitterness of all that we conceive as
involved in spiritual death.
There was, of course, no sin in him to deserve the least he suffered,

much less the worst. But by the depth of his knowledge, the fulness of
his sympathy, and the largeness of his capacity of self-humiliation, he
grasped and endured in kind everything denoted by death—death of the
body, death of the soul, and death of the spirit.78
Perhaps, then, Kenyon built JDS teaching on the foundation of Mabie’s
ideas. Two factors, however, militate against the certainty of this con-
clusion. As McIntyre notes,79 the publication dates of The Meaning and
Message of the Cross, 1906, and How Does the Death of Christ Save Us?, 1908,
post-dated the year, 1900, when Kenyon began to teach JDS. Admit-
tedly, Mabie might well have been using this language prior to publish-
ing these books, but McIntyre offers no evidence for this. Furthermore,
Lie observes that when Kenyon mentioned Mabie in 1928, he preached
that Mabie’s understanding of Christ’s suffering did not extend signifi-
cantly beyond the physical,80 and McIntyre has to confess that Kenyon
either did not realise or did not admit that he and Mabie were in
any great agreement on this matter.81 Even if Kenyon was in some
way dependent on Mabie, it is clear that of Kenyon’s three concepts
inherent to JDS teaching, Mabie only taught the first—separation from
God—in relation to Christ, whatever he may have believed concerning
fallen humanity’s ‘spiritual death’.
The second reference to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ contemporary with
Kenyon that McIntyre offers is actually a quotation in Mabie’s writing,
of Alexander MacLaren (1826–1910):
We are not to set the physical sufferings of Christ in separation from,
or contrast with, the spiritual agonies, but let us not suppose that the
physical death was the atonement, apart from the spiritual death of
separation from the Father, which is witnessed by that cry of despair
mingled with trust that broke the darkness.82
78 Mabie, Death, 40–41.

80 Lie, “Theology,” 98.
82 Alexander MacLaren, quoted in McIntyre, Kenyon, 194.
120 chapter three
MacLaren preached in Britain. Published works may have reached

and been read by Kenyon, and this may have been before Kenyon
began to teach JDS, as MacLaren’s sermons were published from as
early as 1869.83 However, MacLaren’s exposition of Christ’s death was
by no means dominated by JDS language. He wrote of Christ’s ‘real
death’: “But this we know: that our sins, not His, wove the veil which
separated Him from His God. Such separation is the real death.”84
However, much of his preaching about the crucifixion did not even
approximate to JDS teaching,85 even though he unsurprisingly used the
language of death about unregenerate humanity: “Without Him, we
are dead whilst we live.”86 What MacLaren’s use, albeit limited, of the
term ‘spiritual death’ in relation to Christ indicates is that Mabie, by
quoting it, was not under the impression that he had invented the term,
and, furthermore, if Kenyon did adopt the term from Mabie he in turn
might not have regarded it as the isolated teaching of Mabie, perceiving
that it had a usage going further back among preachers and teachers of
the day.87
However, though Mabie was able to quote a preacher who used
the term, he wrote of Christ ‘dying spiritually’ in a way suggesting
that his language was not familiar, and that he was presenting the
language and associated ideas cautiously. For instance, he included the
83 Alexander MacLaren, Sermons Preached in Manchester: First Series (London: MacMil-

lan and Co., 1869).
84 Alexander MacLaren, St Mark Chapters IX to XVI (London: Hodder and Stough-
ton, 1906), 235.

85 E.g. “The Cross the Proof of the Love of God,” http://www.txdirect.net/~tgar-
ner/amac2.htm; “Love and Fear,” http://www.txdirect.net/~tgarner/maclaren8.htm;

“The Disciple’s Confession and the Master’s Warning,” http://www.puritansermons
.com/sermons/discip.htm.
86 Alexander MacLaren, “The Absent Present Christ,” www.txdirect.net/~tgarner/
amac5.htm.
87 A third early reference to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ identified by JDS teachers is
in A.R. Fausset’s writings. Edwards discusses exegesis of Hebrews 2:9 (Edwards, “The
Divine Son: Part 1”). He quotes Fausset’s contribution to Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s
commentary: “ ‘Taste death’ implies personal experimental undergoing it: death of
body, and death (spiritually) of soul, in His being forsaken of the Father” (A.R. Fausset,
“1 Corinthians to Revelation,” Vol. VI in A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical
on the Old and New Testaments, Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1945 (1869)], 531). There is neither claim nor evidence, how-
ever, that Kenyon was aware of or influenced by this further British contribution to
views of Christ’s death (Fausset was Irish but ministered in England. Jamieson and
Brown were both Scottish [Wilbur M. Smith, “Biographical and Bibliographical Fore-
word,” Vol. I in Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown]).
words ‘which we conceive’ in: “The spiritual death which we conceive

Christ to have undergone was so dire a thing that it resulted. . . in
actual heart rupture on the physical side.”88 It is also notable that
Mabie carefully introduced the idea with references to, more generally,
a ‘deeper death’: “On the supposition of the deeper death, which a little
later we shall predicate of Jesus, we provide for organic, vital power in
that death.”89 Such care does not suggest that Mabie regarded language
about Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ as a well worn path for him to tread.
Whether references to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ were in fact common in
the Higher Life movement to which Mabie belonged will be explored
in 3.3.
In conclusion, McIntyre successfully indicates that the application of
such terms as ‘spiritual death’ to Christ was not unique, among his
‘orthodox’ contemporaries and forebears, to Kenyon. The language
was used by Mabie and MacLaren. This is an important finding, for
it is the first time that such references have been identified at all in any
sources that Kenyon himself might plausibly have drawn from. How-
ever, McIntyre has offered no direct evidence that Kenyon gained his
language or ideas from these sources. Even Mabie’s influence, superfi-
cially the most likely, presents difficulties, as discussed.
Also, it is clear that what Kenyon conveyed when he referred to
Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ went beyond what those contemporaries
meant. Kenyon agreed that Christ endured, for humanity, separation
from God. But Kenyon meant more: first, Christ endured participation
in Satan’s nature; secondly, Christ became Satan’s prey (see chapters 5
and 6). Of these ideas there is no hint. McIntyre’s defence of Kenyon
is silent on this important point, and thereby weakened. True, McIn-
tyre does not claim that the sources he researches hold to precisely
the same view as Kenyon. Nonetheless, he does claim a coincidence of
concepts as well as language, writing of these sources that “to believe
that Christ’s separation from the Father was essential to our redemp-
tion is to believe that Christ died spiritually.”90 This claim does not take
88 Mabie, Death, 45; cf. Mabie’s reference to the “spiritual one [death] which I have
represented Christ as experiencing . . . ” (Mabie, Meaning, quoted in McIntyre, Kenyon,

194).
89 Mabie, Death, 26; cf. 28 (“death below death”); 36 (“far deeper than physical
dying”); Henry C. Mabie, The Divine Reason of the Cross (New York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, 1911), 164 (“death in every sense”).
90 McIntyre, Kenyon, 341, n. 2.
122 chapter three
account of the fact that Kenyon’s understanding of the ‘spiritual death’

of Christ involved his more unusual concepts.
3.3. Other Higher Life and Faith Cure portrayals of Christ’s death
A further limitation of McIntyre’s reported research is that it only
identifies, in a chapter entitled “Concurring Voices on the Sufferings
of Christ,”91 occasions where ideas and language similar to Kenyon’s
have been found. It offers no comment on the absence, if such is the case, of
these ideas and terms more widely among the teachers whom Kenyon
listened to or read, and who arguably influenced Kenyon the most.
Therefore it does not provide a balanced sense of the degree to which
Kenyon may have been exposed to this language and ideation. It is thus
necessary to consider how widespread such use was among individuals
held in high regard by Kenyon. Chapter 2 (pages 80–82) introduced
and justified the inclusion of: A.J. Gordon, who was a close friend
of Mabie;92 Carrie Judd Montgomery; Andrew Murray; A.T. Pierson;
A.B. Simpson; R.A. Torrey; and George D. Watson.
Reference to a ‘spiritual death’ in these teachers’ depictions of the
crucifixion is notable by its consistent absence.93 The nearest termino-
91 McIntyre, Kenyon, ch. 17.

93 E.g. in A.J. Gordon, Behold He Cometh (London: Thynne & Co. Ltd., 1934 [1896 as
Ecce Venit]), 20, 24, 59; In Christ: The Believer’s Union with his Lord (London and Glasgow:
Pickering & Inglis, n.d.), ch. II, “Crucifixion in Christ;” Judd Montgomery, Prayer, 41,
58; Andrew Murray, Abide in Christ (Philadelphia: Henry Altemus, 1895 [1864]), chs
10, “As Your Redemption” and 11, “The Crucified One;” Absolute Surrender (London &
Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, Ltd, n.d.), 36, 67; Holy in Christ (Minneapolis,
MI: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., n.d. [1887]), ch. 17, “Holiness and Crucifixion;” The New
Life (Minneapolis, MI: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., rev. ed. 1965 [1885]), chs 6, “God’s Gift
of His Son,” 10, “A Saviour from Sin,” and 12, “The Forgiveness of Sins;” A.T. Pierson,
Evangelistic Work in Principle and Practice (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1892), 39–41;
Many Infallible Proofs (London: Morgan and Scott, n.d.), 222, 308–309; A.B. Simpson,
The Gospel of Healing (London: Morgan & Scott Ld. [sic], new ed. 1915 [1888]), 5, 31;
Standing on Faith (London & Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Ltd, n.d.), 99, 108,
118; R.A. Torrey, ch. XIV, “The Certainty and Importance of the Bodily Resurrection
of Jesus Christ from the Dead,” in The Fundamentals vol. II, R.A. Torrey, Exec. Sec. (Los
Angeles, CA: The Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), 298–299; How to Obtain Fulness of
Power (London: James Nisbet & Co., Limited, 1902), ch. II, “The Power of the Blood of
Christ;” How to Succeed in the Christian Life (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1984 [n.d.]),
10–11; What the Bible Teaches (London: James Nisbet & Co., Limited, 1898), bk. II, ch. V,
“The Death of Christ;” G.D. Watson, Our Own God (Blackburn: M.O.V.E. Press, n.d.
[1904]), ch. 15, “The Blood of Sprinkling.”
logical approach is Watson’s reference to ‘soul death’ in his Our Own

God, published in 1904, but conceived in 1896:94
In His soul, He endured God’s wrath against sin, and in His body He
endured the malice and murder of wicked men against a Holy God. In
His soul He was smitten by the law of justice, and in His body He was
smitten by the nails of the hatred of sinners. Thus on the God-side He
poured out His soul unto death, and on the man-side He poured out His
precious blood unto death.95
Other vague similarities include: “I must yield myself to Him . . . im-
ploring to be admitted into the ever closer fellowship and conformity
of His death, of the Spirit in which He died that death”;96 “He was
going into deeper death . . . down to Joseph’s tomb, down into Hades”;97
“Jesus Christ’s soul was made a guilt-offering”.98
The absence of reference to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ is particularly
noteworthy when depictions of the crucifixion and atonement other-
wise use words which Kenyon himself favoured. Thus, Simpson wrote:
When Jesus Christ hung upon the Cross of Calvary He suffered as the
Substitute of every sinner who should afterward believe in Him. Hidden
somewhere in His wounded side we were there, and God counts it as if
it were our death and our execution. This was the day of judgment for
Christ and the believer. Every demand of justice was satisfied, every penalty
executed, every debt paid.99
Similarly, Watson asked:
How can that blood save us? In a twofold way. It satisfied all the claims of
Divine justice, and secures our justification. And then the vitality, the living
force in that precious blood, is imparted to our hearts, washing away the
sinful tempers and depravity of the soul.100
The words, ‘every demand of justice was satisfied’ and ‘satisfied all
the claims of Divine justice’ could be taken straight from Kenyon,
who frequently collocated ‘satisfy’ with ‘Justice’, linked by ‘claims’,
‘demands’ or ‘requirements’.101
94 Watson, God, 9.
95 Watson, God, 95.
96 Murray, Abide, 89.
97 Simpson, Faith, 101; cf. references in Mabie’s work to ‘deeper death’ (Death, 26).
98 Torrey, Bible, 147. Italics removed.
99 Simpson, Faith, 108. Italics added.
100 Watson, God, 97. Italics added.
101 E.g. Kenyon, Bible, 57, 145; What Happened, 47, 60, 69, 79, 89, 99; Father, 101, 116,
117, 129, 137, 138, 139; Wonderful Name, 6, 8; Two Kinds of Faith, 108; Jesus the Healer, 14, 28,
124 chapter three
Lack of reference to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ is also most noteworthy

in works which, it seems, were especially formative of Kenyon’s theol-
ogy. McIntyre suggests that Kenyon’s teaching on a Christian’s identi-
fication with Christ may well have been inspired by Gordon’s work, In
Christ.102 Again, one does not read in this book that Jesus ‘died spiritu-
ally’. The nearest similarity to Kenyon’s favoured terms is “justice has
executed his death-warrant, and is satisfied.”103
In conclusion, no evidence has been found that this wider selection
of Higher Life and Faith Cure teachers referred to a ‘spiritual death’
of Jesus. The only relevant word clusters shared by them and Kenyon
related to the satisfaction of divine justice. Mabie’s language concerning
Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ was thus not adopted widely among those
teachers beside whom he spoke at Northfield. It is possible that Kenyon
heard Mabie talk of such a death, but if so, this was a respect in
which Mabie stood out rather than conformed to wider language use
at the time.104 The previous subsection (3.2) concluded that the Bible
does not directly or consistently state that Christ ‘died spiritually’.
If it approaches doing so, then it does so only through one isolated
text that is not reflective of the whole (1 Peter 3:18). In effect, this
subsection has reached a similar conclusion. The overall testimony of
the ‘orthodox’ circles among which Kenyon ministered was not that
Jesus ‘died spiritually’. Mabie stands as an isolated ‘proof text’.

Various claims have been made concerning JDS teaching’s overall ori-
gins. While JDS teachers themselves see it as biblical, McConnell be-
lieves that Kenyon derived his distinctive view of Christ’s death from
New Thought and Christian Science. Examination of representative
writing on the subject that might have reached Kenyon cannot sustain
81, 82; Presence, 54, 205. A caution must be offered: such phrasing appears in a range of
contexts and eras, so the coincidence of terminology does not necessarily indicate direct
dependence or close association. In Britain, early in the twentieth century, Hastings
Rashdall wrote, “satisfy the claims of justice” (The Idea of the Atonement in Christian
Theology [London: MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1919], 307), and later in the century
Kelly wrote, “satisfy the claims of divine justice” (Early Christian Doctrines, 389).
103 Gordon, In Christ, 43.
104 Whether those in Higher Life and Faith Cure joined Mabie in believing that the
crucified Christ was separated from God, even if they did not use the same language to
describe this, will be considered in chapter 4 (page 155).
McConnell’s claim. In response and contrast to McConnell, McIntyre

claims that Kenyon drew his developing ideas from Higher Life and
Faith Cure. Here the ground is very slightly firmer. Kenyon may possi-
bly have inherited at least his terminology from a source such as Henry
Mabie. However, if he did, he clearly invested meanings in the term
which were not evident in Mabie’s usage. It is possible that to some
extent Kenyon’s thinking on the subject was original.
4. JDS teaching’s terminology in modern Christian theology
The search for material resembling JDS teaching now moves to the
second half of the twentieth century. JDS teaching as such is absent in
the wider Christian world. Clearly, if it was widespread, then the debate
about JDS teaching reported in chapter 1 would never have occurred
or would have taken a remarkably different form. However, references
to a ‘spiritual death’, or a spiritual aspect to the death, of Jesus are not
impossible to find, including among well-known teachers, evangelical
and otherwise. Use of the phrase by retired evangelist Billy Graham
was briefly mentioned in chapter 1 (page 6). A longer quotation clarifies
his view:
But the physical suffering of Jesus Christ was not the real suffering. Many
men before Him had died. Many men had become martyrs. The awful
suffering of Jesus Christ was His spiritual death. He reached the final
issue of sin, fathomed the deepest sorrow, when God turned His back
and hid His face so that He cried, “My God, why hast Thou forsaken
me?”105
Although McIntyre and Bitgood cite Graham in their defences of JDS
teaching,106 neither is claiming that Graham has been influenced by
or has influenced the Word-faith movement, where JDS teaching has
its home.107 Their implication is merely that JDS teaching is not to
be dismissed as ‘heterodox’ if ‘orthodox’ stalwarts like Billy Graham
use the same language. The coincidence in language, however, must
105 Graham, Peace With God, 83.

106 McIntyre, Kenyon, 183; Bitgood, “Mystery,” 19.
107 Nor do Graham’s biographers. See John Pollock, Billy Graham (London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1966); J.E. Barnhart, The Billy Graham Religion (London & Oxford:
Mowbrays, 1972); Marshall Frady, Billy Graham (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979);
cf. Billy Graham, Just As I Am (London: HarperCollins, 1997). The closest connection is
perhaps the person of Oral Roberts, “my longtime friend” (Graham, Just As I Am, 563).
126 chapter three
not mask the fact that Graham, like Mabie and MacLaren before him
(see pages 118; 119), only refers to separation from God by his use of
the term ‘spiritual death’. There is no exposition here of Kenyon’s
other two concepts of partaking of Satan’s nature and becoming Satan’s
prey. Furthermore, Graham is at other times content to portray the
crucifixion repeatedly without any reference to JDS.108
Another famous evangelical name writing, at least obliquely, of
Christ’s spiritual death is J.I. Packer (1926–), a professor of theology at
Regent College, Vancouver. He links Christ’s death, by way of substitu-
tion, with humanity’s. The latter death is “spiritual as well as physical,
the loss of the life of God as well as that of the body.” The former is “all
the dimensions of the death that was our sentence.”109 Clearly, it too is
a ‘spiritual as well as physical’ death. Like Graham, Packer understands
this in terms of separation from God.110 Other examples among evan-
gelicalism can be found,111 including among biblical commentators.112
At a greater theological distance, Roman Catholic Hans von Baltha-
sar (1905–1988) used both the terms ‘second death’ and ‘spiritual death’
of Christ’s suffering.113 He too wrote of Christ’s abandonment by the
Father.114 Similarly, at a greater linguistic distance, McIntyre’s list, re-
ferred to earlier (page 117), of terms such as ‘eternal death’, ‘soul-
108 Billy Graham, Answers to Life’s Problems (Minneapolis, MN: Grason, 1960), chs 12,
“I Feel So Guilty,” and 18, “Is There Life After Death?”

109 J.I. Packer, Celebrating the Saving Work of God (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 109.
110 Packer, Celebrating the Saving Work, 121.
111 E.g. Gotquestions.org, a “conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-de-
nominational” web-based information service (http://www.gotquestions.org.html,

homepage), which is negative about the Word-faith movement, at least with respect
to prosperity and positive confession (N.a., “What Does the Bible Say About the Pros-
perity Gospel?” http://www.gotquestions.org/prosperity.htm). It states:
When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He experienced a spiritual death. After
three hours of supernatural darkness, He cries, “My God, My God, why hast
Thou forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:33–34). This spiritual separation from the Father
was the result of the Son’s taking our sins upon Himself.
(N.a., “What Is Spiritual Death?” http://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-death.html,
emphasis removed). Again, it is clear that the term is used to convey only the sense
of Christ’s separation from the Father.
112 E.g. Wuest, First Peter, 95–96. As with earlier examples, Wuest links the term with
the ‘cry of dereliction’ and regards it as an abandonment or desertion of Christ by God

(specifically, in his case, “the two other members of the Triune God” [96]).
113 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, trans. Aidan Nichols (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1990 [1970]), 50, 52; The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics VII, trans.
Brian McNeil (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989 [1969]), 230.
114 Balthasar, Mysterium, ix, 79, 81.
death’, ‘spiritual agony’ and ‘essential death’ from the pens of Calvin,
Spurgeon, Dale and Campbell Morgan can be extended to mid- and
late-twentieth century sources: ‘eternal death’,115 ‘absolute death’,116 and
‘final agonies of soul and body’.117 Examples such as Karl Barth (1886–
1968), Jürgen Moltmann (1926–) and Alan Lewis (1944–1994) do not
depart markedly from their earlier counterparts in the meaning they
invest in such terms: they refer to some sort of abandonment or sepa-
ration from or in God occurring in Christ’s death (see pages 164; 174;
180). There is, however, a distinct difference between earlier sources
and these more recent authors: the latter are anthropological monists.
Balthasar’s monism in particular is explicit in his refusal to see any
ultimate distinction between physical and spiritual death (this is true
despite the fact that he offers certain exegetical observations as immedi-
ate reasons for his refusal).118 In this monistic presentation, the death of
Christ is, simply, total. ‘Absolute death’ becomes an especially apposite
term. The implications of anthropological monism for understanding
and expressing Christ’s death are explored further in section 6 (pages
143–144).
In conclusion to this section, language approximating to that found
in JDS teaching is occasionally found outside it. When this is the case,
the meaning generally attached to it is that Christ was separated from
God. This concept will be explored in chapter 4. Another noteworthy
observation is that any meaning intended by the phrase ‘Jesus died
spiritually’ is clearly affected by the anthropology of the person making
the statement. The anthropology of JDS teachers themselves forms the
focus of the next section.
5. The necessity of Christ’s ‘spiritual death’
It was stated in chapter 1 that JDS teachers believe that ‘I am a spirit,

I have a soul, and I live in a body’. This distinctive pneumocentric
trichotomy interacts with JDS teaching in that its promotion of the
115 Barth, CD IV/1, 247.

116 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, trans. of 2nd edition R.A. Wilson and John
Bowden (London: SCM, 1974 [1973]), 246; Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations Vol. 7,
trans. David Bourke (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1971 [1966]), 139.
117 Alan E. Lewis, Between Cross & Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 122.

118 Balthasar, Mysterium, 155, 157.
128 chapter three
spiritual over the material (and ‘soulish’) leads to the unsurprising con-
clusion that the most important aspect of Christ’s death was its spiritual
aspect, and that if Jesus had only died physically, atonement for lost
humanity would not have been achieved. Thus this stark promotion
needs to be examined. As a preliminary step, the underlying distinc-
tions between aspects of humanity that JDS teachers identify must be
studied, for it is only valid to promote one aspect over another if in fact
they are distinguishable in the first place. First, JDS teaching about the
necessity of Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ and its underlying anthropology
will be presented (5.1). Thereafter, 5.2 considers distinctions between
the immaterial and material, 5.3 discusses the promotion of the imma-
terial over the material, 5.4 studies distinctions between spirit and soul,
and 5.5 ponders the promotion of the spirit over the soul.
5.1. A basis for the necessity of Christ’s ‘spiritual death’

One of the most infamous aspects of JDS teaching is its demotion
of the physical death of Christ.119 The three authors under review
are unanimous: “[W]e hold that the physical death of Jesus did not
touch the sin issue at all. It was only a means to an end, and the real
suffering of Jesus, the Substitute, must be spiritual as well as physical.”
Christ’s “[p]hysical death would not remove our sins. He tasted death
for every man—spiritual death.” “When His blood poured out it did
not atone.”120 From the first two of these quotations it is not only clear
that Christ’s physical death was insufficient, but that it was the spiritual
death which was pivotal. Effectively, Christ had to die spiritually. The
causes of this necessity are twofold. The more direct cause has to do
with substitution. Adam suffered ‘spiritual death’ as a result of his sin,
requiring Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ as a satisfactory substitute. However,
the underlying cause is that the problems of sin and sickness with
which Christ’s death dealt are essentially spiritual rather than physical
matters,121 and are so because humanity is essentially spiritual in its
makeup. There is a noteworthy irony here: JDS teaching emphasises
119 A full examination of JDS teaching’s views concerning the physical death of Christ
lies beyond the limits of this work, although a brief survey was offered in chapter 1
(pages 31–34).
120 Kenyon, Father, 118; Hagin, Name, 29; Copeland, correspondence with McConnell,
quoted in McConnell, Promise, 120, italics removed.

121 Kenyon, Happened, 59; Healer, 27; Hagin, Zoe, 6.
spiritual method in the atonement; conversely, its accompanying wider

teaching emphasises physical results—bodily health and material wealth.
The anthropology is in turn part of a similar cosmology. In his
repeated affirmations that the spiritual is more important than the
material Kenyon went so far as to envisage a world controlled by God-
given spiritual forces and laws, that took precedence over for instance
physical ones.122 As commentators have noted,123 Hagin and Copeland
teach likewise.124
Kenyon held to a rigidly trichotomous view in which human nature
comprises spirit, soul or mind, and body.125 This trichotomous formu-
lation involved such dualistic disjunction between the parts that he
insisted that of these three the spirit alone was the true ‘I’ to the exclu-
sion of the others.126 Hagin’s anthropology was essentially the same.
While, rarely, he could write in dichotomous terms,127 his generally per-
vasive trichotomy consistently followed Kenyon in subjugating the body
to the soul, and that in turn to the spirit, leading to the well known for-
mula: “Man is a spirit, has a soul, and lives in a body.”128 Copeland
also offers a clearly pneumocentric trichotomy.129 This characterisation
of humanity has moral repercussions. For Kenyon, Adam’s sin caused
demotion of the spirit ‘below’ the mind in human affairs, while for
Hagin and Copeland obedience to God requires a state in which spirit
dominates soul and, in turn, body in making moral decisions, while in
contrast immorality results when body or soul dominates.130
The reasoning for this position commences with the biblical state-
ment that humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). Since God
is spirit (John 4:24), then humans must essentially be spirit as well.131
JDS anthropology is further supported by references to 1 Thessalonians
5:23 and Hebrews 4:12. Kenyon and Hagin clearly regarded 1 Thessa-
122 Kenyon, Knowledge, 32; Bible, 15.

123 Bowman, Controversy, 106; Perriman, Faith, 33.
124 Hagin, In Him, part I; Kenneth Copeland, “Don’t Hang the Curtains . . . Hang
the Rod!” Believer’s Voice Of Victory 33.6 (June 2005): 3; Force of Righteousness, 11.
125 Little effort is made to define these terms in JDS teaching, though Hagin did
characterise the soul as “the intellect, sensibilities, and will” (Redeemed, 2nd edition 56).
126 Kenyon, Bible, 17–18.
127 Hagin, Real Faith, 13.
128 Hagin, Human Spirit, 8; Man on Three Dimensions, 7; Redeemed, 56; similarly Real Faith,
14; Zoe, 3.
129 Copeland, Force of Faith, 6, 8; “To Know,” 6.
130 Kenyon, Wonderful Name, 25; Hagin, Zoe, 7; Copeland, Force of Faith, 6.
131 Kenyon, Bible, 17–18; Two Kinds of Faith, 46; cf. Two Kinds of Knowledge, 32.
130 chapter three
lonians 5:23 as self-explanatory, both using it as a proof text for their tri-
chotomy without elaboration.132 Copeland makes somewhat more con-
sidered use of the verse. For him, the word order (spirit, soul, body) sup-
ports the prioritisation of the spirit.133 In similar vein, Copeland refers
to Hebrews 4:12 in his explication of his trichotomous view, with no
further comment beyond the observation that “only the Word can put
the spirit, soul and body of a man in proper order.”134 The third way
in which these authors’ trichotomy is supported involves Kenyon and
Copeland both justifying the claim that one’s spirit should rule one’s
mind and body with reference to the writings of the apostle Paul, in
which the latter famously contrasts ‘the spirit’ with ‘the flesh’, portray-
ing spirit and flesh as at war (e.g. Romans 8:4–7; Galatians 5:16–17).135
This anthropology has met with firm resistance. Its critics have
claimed that it has more in common with Platonism,136 Gnosticism,137
or New Thought138 than it does with biblical Christianity. Several issues
intertwine, and require individual analysis. Both the distinctions be-
tween and the evaluations of spirit, soul and body will be studied in
the ensuing sections.
5.2. Distinctions between the immaterial and material

Clearly, JDS teachers distinguish sharply between immaterial and ma-
terial aspects of human being. This is a necessary step for them to
promote one over the other. Whether it reflects biblical teaching has
already emerged (pages 107–109): the Bible does not offer a consistent
anthropological position, certainly not a consistently dualistic one. JDS
teaching’s appeal to God’s image and John 4:24 does not suffice.139
132 Kenyon, Bible, 17; Hagin, New Birth, 6–7.

135 Kenyon, Father, 156; Copeland, Force of Faith, 6–7.
137 Matta, Born Again Jesus, throughout; McConnell, Promise, 110.
138 McConnell, Promise, 105–109.
139 Difficulties with dualistic thinking about the divine image have been traced by
Gunton from Irenaeus to Descartes. Gunton concluded that, because in these tradi-
tional formulations the image was classically seen in terms of reason, and the likeness
of soul rather than body to God, “one implication is that our embodiedness cannot be
the place where the image, and hence our true humanity, is found” (Colin E. Gunton,
“Trinity, Ontology and Anthropology: Towards a Renewal of the Doctrine of the Imago
Dei,” in Persons, Divine and Human, Christoph Schwöbel and Colin E. Gunton [Edin-
burgh: T&T Clark, 1991], 49).
The logic applied by the authors under study could equally be applied
the other way round: since humanity is made in God’s image, and
humanity is self-evidently physical in nature, then this must imply some
physicality in God’s being.140 John 4:24 would not of itself preclude this
possibility: the statement that God is spirit might in context be best
understood functionally rather than ontologically.141 Of course, and far
more importantly, the concept of ‘image’ need not preclude ontological
differences between divine spirituality and human nature.
Given that JDS teaching does not derive its dualism from the clear
testimony of scripture, Kenyon may have learned it from either New
Thought and Christian Science, or Higher Life and Faith Cure. There
is no doubt that all these groups distinguished clearly between the
immaterial (spirit, soul, or mind) and matter. Within New Thought,
however, matter was sometimes regarded as illusory.142 Mary Baker
Eddy went so far as to deny matter and was thus essentially monistic:
“[M]y system of metaphysics . . . rests on God as One and All, and
denies the actual existence of both matter and evil.”143
Higher Life and Faith Cure, on the other hand, were dualistic,
thereby mirroring the traditional position of Christianity and its read-
ing of scripture (see pages 108–109). Thus JDS teaching does not depart
from historic Christianity in this respect. Indeed, a significant num-
ber of commentators continue to advocate forms of dualism, though
often moderate or even ‘monistic’ ones. Examples can be found among
biblical scholars,144 theologians,145 philosophers146 and psychologists.147
140 David Cairns, The Image of God in Man (London: Collins, rev. ed. 1973 [1953]),
30–31, considers the idea, with reference to the Gilgamesh epic and the work of von
Rad, that Genesis 1:26 might imply some physicality in God. He does not rule out the
possibility. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1989), 12, on the other hand, wisely does.
141 So George R. Beasley-Murray, John (Milton Keynes: Word [UK], 1991 [1987]), 62;
contrast Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995), 240.
142 Geldard, Teachings, 118–119.
143 Eddy, No and Yes, 29. Eddy’s denial of the existence of matter, however, seems to be
contradicted by her belief in physical healing (e.g. Science, 14).

144 George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974); James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (London: SCM, 1992).
145 A.A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1986); Cooper,
Body.
146 Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed (London: SPCK, 1993).
147 Jeffrey H. Boyd, “A History of the Concept of the Soul during the 20th Century,”
Journal of Psychology and Theology 26.1 (1998): 66–82.

132 chapter three
However, this dualism has been strongly criticised in recent decades,

being replaced by monistic anthropologies that have enjoyed wide-
spread support among not only biblical scholars,148 but also theolo-
gians,149 philosophers150 and psychologists.151
Given the uncertainty of the biblical picture, the complexities of the
theological, philosophical and psychological arguments, and the dispar-
ity of views among current authorities, this project will admit agnos-
ticism on the matter. For the sake of present discussion, it will be
accepted that an anthropological dualism that distinguishes between
spirit/soul on one hand and body on the other has been widely held
within historic Christianity, maintains many supporters today, and has
a number of arguments in its favour. Therefore, JDS teaching’s promo-
tion of the immaterial over the material, which builds on its distinction
between the two, deserves discussion in its own right. This matter will
now be considered.
5.3. The promotion of the immaterial over the material

As stated earlier, Kenyon and Copeland justify the claim that one’s
spirit should rule one’s body with reference to the Pauline contrast
between ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh’ (e.g. Romans 8:4–7; Galatians 5:16–17). This
is a naïve reading of Paul. Occasionally, he used ‘flesh’ in ways that
denoted or at least connoted the physical (e.g. Romans 2:28; 2 Corinthi-
ans 4:11; 7:5; Colossians 2:1). However, this denotation was not true
of those passages where Paul contrasted flesh with spirit. Although
there is disagreement about whether the distinction Paul drew was
primarily ethical152 or eschatological,153 and sometimes about whether
148 See brief discussion in section 2.5.

149 E.g. George Carey, I Believe in Man (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1977); Clarke
H. Pinnock, “Foreword,” in Immortality or Resurrection?, Samuele Bacchiocchi (Berrien
Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1997), 13.
150 E.g. Nancey Murphy, Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism (Valley Forge, Pen: Trinity
Press International, 1996), ch. 6.

151 Evident, e.g., in John Radford and Ernest Govier, A Textbook of Psychology (London:
Sheldon Press, 1980), ch. 6, “Physiological Studies;” Michael Gelder et al, Oxford Textbook
of Psychiatry (3rd edition Oxford: OUP, 1996 [1983]), ch. 4, “Aetiology.”
152 So Bultmann, Theology, 234–241, 332–335; James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC.
Milton Keynes: Word [UK], 1991 [1988]); Theology, 62–66.

153 So Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994),
Paul’s references to spirit were to the human or the divine,154 there

is certainty that Paul did not refer in these contexts to physiological
flesh.155 That this is the case can be seen, simply, from the fact that
sins listed as ‘fleshly’ included those that self-evidently do not arise from
physical urges, desires or temptations (1 Corinthians 3:3; Galatians 5:19–
21). Rather, Paul referred to the moral frailty and even failure that is
characteristic of this age.
If biblical justification is sought for the promotion of the immaterial
over the material, beyond Paul’s spirit/flesh contrast and banal obser-
vations such as the word order in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, appeal might
be made to Paul’s sense of necessity, for instance, that “I remain in
the body” (Philippians 1:24). This statement might suggest the belief
that the real ‘I’ is an entity other than the body, and the body its
home. However, Paul can also refer to an ‘I’ that he distinguishes
from his mind or spirit (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:14,15). Scholars agree
that for Paul full personal existence involves bodily existence.156 Inso-
far as the soul can be distinguished from the body, its disembodied
existence is ‘naked’, and this existence is something to be avoided
(2 Corinthians 5:2–4). There seems to be no biblical reason to site the
‘I’ in one ‘part’ of the human make-up rather than the whole, or to
argue that one ‘part’ controls, or ought to control, the other(s). There-
fore, a Christian anthropological dualism need not postulate that the
‘real person’ is immaterial; still less that it should control the material.
The whole person can be seen, with Barth, as ‘bodily soul’ or ‘besouled
body’.157 On this basis, JDS teaching’s prioritisation of the spirit as the
true self is less than satisfactory.
Accepting that the Bible does not offer a sound basis for prioritising
the immaterial over the material in human nature, it is necessary to
concede that until the twentieth century, Christian writers not only
distinguished between body and soul but frequently promoted the latter
over the former. For example, Augustine, working within a Platonist
816–822; Walter B. Russell, The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians (Lanham, NY: University
Press of America, 1997), 2.
154 Fee equivocates, using the deliberately ambivalent term ‘S/spirit’ (Presence, 25).
155 Bultmann, Theology, 238.
156 They include those who see Paul as mainly monist (e.g. Robinson, Body, Bult-
mann, Theology) and those who give greater credence to the dualistic elements in his
writing (e.g. Cooper, Body).
157 Barth, CD III/2, 350. It is not necessary thereby to agree with Barth’s monism:
“soul would not be soul, if it were not bodily.”

134 chapter three
framework, overtly prioritised the soul over the body. This is evident
throughout his treatise on the origin of the soul, where it is clear that
the soul dominates the body, which is its home.158 It is also evident from
his treatise on the Trinity that the mind, to the exclusion of the body,
is the true self.159 Augustine did, however, reject “utterly” “the theory
which affirms that each soul is thrust into the body as into a prison.”160
Luther also relegated the body: “the spirit may live without the body,
but the body has no life apart from the spirit.” Furthermore, the work
of the body “is only to carry out and apply that which the soul knows
and the spirit believes.”161 Calvin perhaps most overtly prioritised the
soul/spirit over the body, in words even reminiscent of Plato and Nag
Hammadi:
Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a
soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his
nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. . . Christ, in commending his
spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ, simply mean, that when
the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, God becomes its perpetual
keeper.
[Biblical] passages which everywhere occur, not only clearly distinguish

the soul from the body, but by giving it the name of man, intimate that it
is his principal part.162
Among the Higher Life and Faith Cure authors who might have influ-
enced Kenyon most directly, A.J. Gordon’s dualism seemed particu-
larly moderate. He did not believe that the soul was the real or whole
person, but humanity’s “complete condition” required “body and soul
united”.163 A.T. Pierson could appear to prioritise the spiritual. In call-
ing his hearers to view modern missionary activities as in some way
paralleling the initial missionary expansion depicted in the Acts of the
Apostles, he wrote: “Only a spiritual eye can read them: only a spiritual
mind interpret them.” However, it is clear from the context that Pierson
158 Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin (NPNF I/V) e.g. IV.4: the soul “moves the
body” (355).
159 Augustine, On the Trinity XI.1 (NPNF I/III, 144).
160 Augustine, Letter CLXIV (NPNF I/I, 521).
161 Luther, Magnificat, LW 21, 303–304.
162 Calvin, Institutes I/XV, 2, 160–161, italics added; cf. Plato, The Republic X:611,
trans. John Davies and David Vaughan (London: MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1941),
357–358; The Treatise on the Resurrection 45:40–46:2; 46:22–47:24; 47:37–48:3; A Valentinian
Exposition 35:28–37; On Baptism B throughout (Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library 55–56,
486, 488). Calvin’s reliance on Platonism is noted by Hughes, Image, 399.
163 Gordon, Behold He Cometh, 202.
simply meant by these terms the eye and the mind guided by the Holy
Spirit.164 In similar vein, the following words by G.D. Watson seem ini-
tially to foreshadow Kenyon’s favouring of ‘revelation knowledge’ over
‘sense knowledge’: “There are two hemispheres of knowledge; first, the
hemisphere of what we learn through our senses; secondly, the hemi-
sphere of knowledge revealed intuitively by the Spirit.” However, Wat-
son was actually valuing sensory knowledge as well as intuitive knowl-
edge, with respect to 2 Peter 1:16–19.165
Andrew Murray did more clearly promote the immaterial over the
material: he regarded the soul as the true self, and wrote, “the spirit,
as linking him [the soul] with the Divine, was the highest [part]; the
body, connecting him with the sensible and the animal, the lowest”.166
He could thus write, in ways quite similar to Kenyon’s, “Sin entered
in, and appeared to thwart the Divine plan: the material obtained a
fearful supremacy over the spiritual.”167 Sin altered what had previously
been a perfect harmony between spirit and matter: “Man was to be
the highest specimen of Divine art: the combination in one being, of
matter and spirit in perfect harmony, as type of the most perfect union
between God and His own creation.”168 A.B. Simpson’s writing also
contained a prioritisation of the immaterial over the material: “the soul
is superior to the body,”169 and physical healing must be sought through
“spiritual channels.”170 Nevertheless, Simpson held a holistic view of
humanity’s spirituality and physicality: “Man has a twofold nature. He
is both a material and spiritual being.”171 In summary, Higher Life and
Faith Cure offered various forms of dualism, some more moderate and
balanced than others. The seeds of Kenyon’s ideas may have lain in
the teaching of those, like Andrew Murray and A.B. Simpson, who
most explicitly promoted the immaterial. Given that there is ample
precedent for JDS teaching’s promotion of the spirit over the body in
164 A.T. Pierson, The New Acts of the Apostles (London: James Nisbet & Co., Limited,
1901), 10.
165 G.D. Watson, Coals of Fire: Being Expositions of Scripture on the Doctrine, Experience, and
Practice of Christian Holiness (n.pl.: n.pub., 1886), 119–120, quoting 120.

166 Andrew Murray The Spirit of Christ (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1888), 333.
167 Murray, Abide in Christ, 83.
168 Murray, Abide in Christ, 83.
169 A.B. Simpson, The Holy Spirit or Power from On High Volume I (New York: The
Christian Alliance Publishing Co., 1895), 42.

170 Simpson, Gospel of Healing, 28.
136 chapter three
historic Christianity, including among Kenyon’s own circle, there is no

pressing need to appeal to New Thought in considering JDS teaching’s
sources at this point. However, comparison is still worthwhile, to see if
there is a contrast between the two streams of teaching on this subject.
Quimby wrote of soul and matter in typically esoteric and puzzling
terms:
Everyone will admit that all the qualities of ‘soul’ which I have men-
tioned will apply to man’s intelligence, and that ‘mind’ according to
every definition can change; also admit that Wisdom cannot change, that
it is the same today and forever. Now can anyone tell me what there is
that is not matter that can be changed? . . . what is it that is not Wisdom,
God, or spirit, and not matter and yet can be changed? It is matter held
in solution called mind, which the power of Wisdom can condense into
a solid so dense as to become the substance called ‘matter’. Assume this
theory and then you can see how man can become sick and get well by a
change of mind.172
While, according to this ontology, soul, or mind, seems to be derivative
of matter, being matter ‘held in solution’, nevertheless mind, by the
operation of ‘Wisdom’, dictates the behaviour of matter, such as the
sickness or health of a human body.
Emerson, similarly, building on the works of Plato and Platonists,173
taught that, in Geldard’s words, “the mind had to rule the body.”174 He
also drew on Hindu ideas to teach that sensory perception of matter
could be an illusion trapping an individual in a state of less than full
actualisation.175 Eddy’s view was yet more negative about matter:
I learned these truths in divine Science: that all real being is in God,
the divine Mind, and that Life, Truth, and Love are all-powerful and
ever-present; that the opposite of Truth,—called error, sin, sickness, dis-
ease, death,—is the false testimony of false material sense, of mind in
matter; that this false sense evolves, in belief, a subjective state of mor-
tal mind which this same so-called mind names matter, thereby shutting
out the true sense of Spirit. My discovery, that erring, mortal, misnamed
mind produces all the organism and action of the mortal body, set my
thoughts to work in new channels, and led up to my demonstration of
the proposition that Mind is All and matter is naught as the leading fac-
172 Quimby, “The World of the Senses,” (1860–1865) in Quimby Manuscripts, Dresser,
ch. 15.
174 Geldard, Teachings, 24. Emerson used the word ‘soul’ pantheistically (Emerson,
“Address”).
tor in Mind-science. Christian Science reveals incontrovertibly that Mind

is All-in-all, that the only realities are the divine Mind and idea.176
Trine, though using the three-fold terminology of soul, mind and body,
rather than spirit, soul and body, wrote material to which Kenyon’s
ideas came closest. He advised his readers to realise their oneness with
the Infinite Life and Power in quiet receptivity:
Calmly, quietly, and expectantly desire that this realization break in
upon and take possession of your soul. As it breaks in upon and takes
possession of the soul, it will manifest itself to your mind, and from this
you will feel its manifestations in every part of your body.177
It is clear from these brief quotations that Kenyon’s prioritisation of
spirit and soul over body did not reflect the extreme anti-materialism of
Eddy. The positions of Quimby, Emerson and Trine, however mysteri-
ously expressed, have more in common with Kenyon, all indicating that
soul, or mind, is the originating force that affects physical outcomes in
the body. That stated, the observations, already indicated, that similar
prioritisation of the soul is to be found scattered throughout traditional
Christianity and that the nearest terminological similarity is in Simp-
son’s work, suggest that JDS teaching’s promotion of the spiritual over
the material owes its form to traditional Christian anthropologies.
5.4. Distinctions between spirit and soul

As stated earlier, JDS teachers refer to 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and He-
brews 4:12 to support their trichotomous distinction between spirit and
soul or, as Kenyon often expressed, between spirit and mind or intellect.
However, they have many modern commentators on 1 Thessalonians
against them,178 and rightly so. Paul’s clear emphasis is on God’s preser-
176 Eddy, Science, 108–109, italics original, paragraph breaks removed.

177 Trine, Infinite, 192.
178 E.g. Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC London:
A & C Black, 1972); Dunn, Theology, 57; Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians
(Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 269; Hoekema, Image, 208; Leon Morris, The First and Sec-
ond Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, revised edition 1991 [1959]),
182; Robinson, Body, 27; Charles Sherlock, The Doctrine of Humanity (Downers Grove,
IL: Intervarsity Press, 1996), 218; Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 207. I. Howard Marshall, in contrast, believes the tri-
adic wording is “a description of human nature as consisting of three parts.” However,
the “distinctions are loose, and do not suggest three ‘parts’ of man which can be sharply
separated, but rather three aspects of his being” (1 and 2 Thessalonians [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983] 162–163). Similarly, E. Schweizer believes that 1 Thessalonians 5:23
138 chapter three
vation of the whole person, as indicated by (λτελες and (λ$κληρν,

and he ‘piles up’ words to express this emphasis. There is no more
need to see trichotomy here than to see tetrachotomy in the ‘greatest
command’ as recorded at Mark 12:30.179 Hebrews 4:12, similarly, can
no more be used to argue that spirit and soul are separate parts of
a three-fold structure than to argue that joints and marrow are. The
emphasis of the verse is clearly on the penetration of God’s word to the
deepest recesses of the person.180
Nevertheless, trichotomous formulations have a long history in
Christianity. Hoekema traces the existence of trichotomy from Irenaeus
in the second century to Watchman Nee, for instance, in the twen-
tieth.181 This is despite the fact that trichotomists are, in the eyes of
mediaeval Christianity, in error, for trichotomism was condemned at
the fourth Council of Constantinople (869–870). Conceiving of differ-
ences between spirit and soul is not as easy as doing so with respect to
soul and body. Theologians have tackled the difficulty, and the relevant
biblical material, in a number of ways, not all of them trichotomous.
One way, beloved of anthropological monists, is to understand all
biblical references to spirit to refer to divine spirit, so that ‘spirit’
does not denote a constituent aspect of human nature.182 However,
this narrowly theological understanding of spirit had already been cast
into doubt by H. Wheeler Robinson.183 Niebuhr was thus right to
demur: Paul could speak of the human spirit.184 While, occasionally,
Niebuhr used ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ in apparently interchangeable ways,185
he was encouraged by the biblical data to make a conceptual distinc-
refers to a tripartite constituency, but regards the wording as traditional or liturgical,

not Pauline (“πνε'μα,” TDNT VI, 435 and n. 685). Calvin saw a tripartite constitution
here, in which ‘spirit’ is “reason or intelligence” and ‘soul’ is “the will and all the affec-
tions” (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, trans. William Pringle [Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 (1550)], vol. XXI, 304).
179 Morris, Epistles, 182; Hoekema, Image, 208–209.
180 “It would indeed be precarious to draw any conclusions from these words about
our author’s psychology” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, revised edition 1990 (1963)], 113; cf. Hoekema, Image, 208; Sherlock, Doctrine
of Humanity, 218).
181 Hoekema, Image, 205.
182 E.g. Barth, CD III.2, 354; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 519, 522, 529–530.

183 The Doctrine of Man (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911), 110.
184 Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man Vol. I (London: Nisbet & Co.,
1941), 163 and n. 1; cf. Bultmann, Theology, 205–208; Dunn, Theology, 76–77.
185 Niebuhr, Nature, 13.
tion between the two: soul is “the life principle in man”, while spirit
is “man’s organ of relation to God.”186 This coheres with what he
regarded as Christianity’s definition of spirit: it is suprarational, and is
associated with freedom, transcendence, and the search for the ultimate
“ground of existence.”187
Niebuhr’s understanding of the biblical term is, however, question-
able. Others are adamant that spirit and soul are used interchangeably
throughout scripture,188 and it is certainly difficult to see how Niebuhr’s
assertion that the spirit rather than the soul is the ‘organ of relation’
to God fits with such scriptural proclamations as “my soul magni-
fies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God” (Luke 1:46–47). Simi-
larly, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind”
(1 Corinthians 14:15) does not suggest that the spirit is an ‘organ’ that
relates any more obviously to God than does the mind. Those who fol-
low Niebuhr in positing any distinction between spirit and soul must
either create their own definitions to suit, or must be highly tentative in
the undertaking.189 Nothing is lost to theological discussion by following
the biblical lead and using the terms interchangeably. Trichotomous
readings of ‘spirit’ are suspect, and the Bible certainly does not set a
precedent in offering an ontological distinction between spirit and soul.
This conclusion means immediately that JDS teachers’ attempts not
only to distinguish between spirit and soul but also to promote the for-
mer over the latter are suspect. Furthermore, their arguments for this
promotion are sparse. They will be noted below, before further consid-
eration is given to possible sources of this idea.
5.5. The promotion of the spirit over the soul

Because JDS teaching makes no clear distinction between discussing
how the spirit should rule over the body and how it should rule over the
soul, they do not offer two separate sets of reasoning. Thus arguments
186 Niebuhr, Nature, 162; cf. 163. According to Niebuhr, biblical distinctions between
spirit and soul are not sharp (163). More recently, Dunn, writing about Pauline anthro-
pology, has reached a similar conclusion. While for him the Pauline soul is “the whole
person” (Theology, 76), he writes that the spirit in Paul is “evidently that dimension of
the human person by means of which the person relates most directly to God” (77;
cf. 78).
187 Niebuhr, Nature, 14–15, quoting 15.
188 E.g. Hoekema, Image, 206–207.
189 E.g. Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 220.
140 chapter three
already presented and evaluated pertain once more. For JDS teaching,
God is spirit (John 4:24) and humans are made in God’s image. Thus
they, like God, are essentially spirits, not souls. So the spirit, because it
is the true self, should be uppermost in human life. The reasoning from
God’s image has already been evaluated (pages 130–131). So too has the
claim that the spirit rather than the soul is the organ of communication
with God (page 139). Furthermore, it has already been indicated that
neither the word order in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 nor the wording of
Hebrews 4:12 supports such claims.
Given the lack of biblical support for Kenyon’s prioritisation of spirit
over soul the question arises as to the source from which he gained it.
To address this question, it is necessary to divide Kenyon’s prioritisa-
tion into two aspects: the spirit is the true self; and the spirit should
control the soul. With regard to the second aspect, it is likely that
Kenyon heard such ideas preached in Higher Life and Faith Cure cir-
cles. Simpson, a trichotomist, held that “the soul represents the intel-
lectual and emotional elements that constitute man. The spirit repre-
sents the higher and the Divine life which links us directly to God, and
enables us to know and to come into relationship with Divine things.”190
This belief that God communicates directly with only the human spirit
led Simpson to conclude that “our higher spiritual nature should con-
trol the soul. Just as the soul is superior to the body, so the spirit should
be predominant to the soul. The fatal defect of natural life is that the
soul is predominant, and the natural mind controls spirit and body.”191
Similarly, Jessie Penn-Lewis taught that the soul should be a ‘handmaid’
of the spirit.192
With respect, on the other hand, to the first aspect (the spirit is the
true self, as opposed to the soul), a source is sought in vain. There
is no such statement in historic Christianity that Kenyon seemed to be
echoing. Even historic trichotomism, while distinguishing between spirit
and soul, did not declare that spirit was the true self, while soul was, in
contrast, an appendage. Advancing the scrutiny to Kenyon’s immediate
historic predecessors and possible influencers, neither Higher Life and
190 Simpson, Spirit, 36.

191 Simpson, Spirit, 42.
192 Jessie Penn-Lewis, Soul and Spirit (Leicester: Overcomer Book Room, 3rd edition,
n.d.), 8. McIntyre (Kenyon, 116) and Lie (email message to author, September 16, 2005)
both consider Kenyon to have read her work favourably.
Faith Cure193 nor New Thought and Christian Science194 offered a

precedent. Some echoes of Gnosticism are discernible,195 but if they
reached Kenyon’s mind the route is not readily identifiable.

In conclusion to this section, Kenyon’s, Hagin’s and Copeland’s state-
ments concerning the necessity of Jesus’ spiritual death depend upon
their belief that ‘I am a spirit, I have a soul, and I live in a body’.
This anthropology does not have a strong biblical or theological basis.
Its prioritisation of the immaterial over the physical cannot be justified.
Furthermore, its distinction between spirit and soul, let alone its pro-
motion of one over the other as controlling self, cannot claim support.
As this anthropology has the weaknesses that this section has explored,
JDS teaching cannot claim that a certain ‘spiritual’ aspect of Christ’s
death is more important than others, still less that a distinctly ‘spiri-
tual’ aspect to Christ’s death was essential to atonement while a lesser
physical aspect was merely a necessary consequence of the former.
6.1. Summary
This chapter has explored the overall idea that Jesus ‘died spiritually’.
First, section 2 considered the implicit claim that this death is taught
in the Bible, concluding that the claim cannot be sustained. Although
Genesis 2:17 and Ephesians 2:1 offer some biblical precedent for refer-
ring to fallen unregenerate humanity as ‘spiritually’ dead, Isaiah 53:9
and 1 Timothy 3:16 do not make the same assertion of Christ in his
193 Anthropological formulations among these authors varied between dichotomous
and trichotomous ones. Those which distinguished between spirit and soul did not limit
selfhood to the spirit. If anything, Murray (Spirit, 333) and Penn-Lewis (Soul, 7) regarded
the soul, not the spirit, as the self.
194 For Eddy, ‘spirit’, ‘soul’ and ‘mind’ were synonymous (No and Yes, 20, 32). Trine’s
advice, already referred to, that realisation of oneness with Infinite Life should reach
soul first, then mind, and then body (In Tune, 192) does resemble Kenyon’s spirit-soul-
body prioritisation, but does not view Trine’s ‘soul’ exclusively as the true self.
195 Treatise 45:40–46:1 (Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 55); cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies
1.21.4 (ANF I, 346). According to Schweizer, some Gnostics, in contrast, relegated the
spirit beneath the soul (Schweizer, “πνε'μα,” TDNT VI, 396).
142 chapter three
suffering. Only 1 Peter 3:18, an ambiguous text, might be claimed as a

‘proof-text’, if it is read from the point of view of anthropological dual-
ism. Whether Peter would have intended it to have been read this way
is not clear.
Section 3 discussed Kenyon’s possible contemporary and immedi-
ately antecedent sources. No material was found in the selected New
Thought and Christian Science sources that even approximated to
a declaration that Jesus ‘died spiritually’. Eddy explicitly and Trine
implicitly denied it. Thus McConnell’s claim that Kenyon developed
his ‘spiritualisation’ of Jesus’ death from these sources is misplaced. Cer-
tainly, Kenyon might yet have found some of the ideas entailed in Jesus’
‘spiritual death’ (separation from God; participation in a sinful, satanic
nature; becoming Satan’s prey) in New Thought and Christian Sci-
ence. Such possibilities remain to be explored in future chapters. But
the overall idea did not lie there.
McIntyre’s research into Higher Life and Faith Cure was a little
more successful. Kenyon may have first heard the phrase ‘Jesus died
spiritually’ in the preaching of Henry Mabie. However, if so, Kenyon
invested new meanings in the term. Furthermore, other teachers in
the movements, such as A.J. Gordon and A.B. Simpson, did not teach
a ‘spiritual death’, even though their descriptions of the crucifixion
resembled Kenyon’s in other ways.
Section 4 noted that references to a ‘spiritual death’ of Christ are not
entirely absent from modern Christian teaching outside JDS doctrine.
They are found, very occasionally, in evangelical and other material.
Some of these recent theologians hold to a monistic anthropology. The
implications of the anthropological foundation of the statement that
Christ ‘died spiritually’ will be explored in 6.2. In those cases where a
clear meaning is attached to the idea of Christ’s ‘spiritual death’, it is
that Christ was separated from or abandoned by God.
Section 5 considered the further claim of JDS teaching, that Jesus
had to ‘die spiritually’ to bring about salvation. Discussion required
an investigation of JDS doctrine’s rigidly pneumocentric trichotomism.
Although an immaterial-material anthropological dualism was not dis-
counted (though neither was it confirmed), promotion of the imma-
terial over the material was shown to be suspect. Kenyon may have
gained his form of this promotion from either New Thought or from
Higher Life, as both groups exhibited a similar tendency. A trichoto-
mous distinction between spirit and soul could not be sustained, and
so promotion of the former over the latter was shown to be invalid,
as indeed JDS teaching’s reasons for this promotion had already been
found wanting. Precedent, nevertheless, for Kenyon’s relegation of soul
beneath spirit was detected in Higher Life and Faith Cure material.
Given these critiques of JDS anthropology, the concomitant claim that
Jesus had to ‘die spiritually’ for the true work of atonement to occur
cannot rest on the reasons given by JDS teachers.
6.2. Implications
A number of implications arise from these findings. The first relates
to JDS exegesis of the Bible. Given the poverty of the exegetical work
evident so far, no great optimism can be maintained regarding the han-
dling of further passages. Also, the criticisms of JDS exegesis offered by
others (see pages 71–72) are confirmed. Throughout, the sheer brevity
of exegetical discussion is remarkable: authors’ intentions are normally
assumed, rather than demonstrated.
The second implication relates to the genesis of JDS teaching. It has
been found, in the form expressed by Kenyon, neither in New Thought
and Christian Science nor in Higher Life and Faith Cure. However,
some of its roots are evident. First, the phrase ‘spiritual death’ was
used with reference to Christ (by Mabie and MacLaren) and may have
reached Kenyon from such sources. Secondly, the entailed idea that
Christ in his suffering was separated from God was taught by these
expositors. Thirdly, some sources from both New Thought, and Higher
Life and Faith Cure exhibited an anthropology which promoted the
immaterial over the material, and within Higher Life and Faith Cure a
similar promotion of the spirit over the soul was evident. Given these
three roots, along with a highly dualistic cosmology which gave Satan a
major role in the drama of redemption (see pages 26–27; 188–189), the
main lines of thought were in place which enabled Kenyon to develop
JDS teaching in the form known today. The research presented to this
point (which is not overturned by that set out in later chapters) suggests
that Kenyon was more influenced, with regard to the development of
JDS doctrine, by ‘orthodox’ groups than by ‘heterodox’ ones. However,
it also implies that Kenyon exhibited a fair degree of creativity. He
seems to have taken a number of relatively disparate ideas current in
his day and drawn them together originally to develop a doctrine that
did not exist before him.
A final implication concerns the importance of anthropology in this
discussion. It was observed in section 4 that some modern theologians
144 chapter three
state that Christ ‘died spiritually’, or use vaguely similar language, and
that some of these are anthropologically monist. Balthasar is a clear
example, not only of the use of the term, but of a monism behind it.
To use the language of Davids, quoted on page 107, Christ died “as a
whole person, not simply as a body.” In the language of Moltmann and
Rahner (page 127), Christ experienced “absolute death.” It is important
to observe the logic behind the potentially easy acceptance by a monist
of the idea that Christ ‘died spiritually’, assuming that a truly and fully
human death is being referred to. A logical monist, asked, “Did Jesus
die spiritually?” might answer, “Of course: if he died at all, he died
spiritually!” If this logic is employed, ‘Christ died spiritually’ becomes
simply another way of saying that he died physically, or, put more
simply, that he died, for there is no ontological distinction between
body and spirit, or soul (though a variety of functional ones might
be suggested). ‘Christ’s spirit’ may be a way of referring to Christ’s
whole human being, as much as ‘Christ’s body’ is. A thoroughly monist
anthropology requires no further definition of Christ’s ‘spiritual’ death.
The matter is very different, however, in the case of an anthropo-
logical dualism. In this case, some sort of distinction is implicitly being
made between Christ’s ‘spiritual’ death and his ‘physical’ death (not to
mention the possibility of a ‘soulish’ one: see page 34). Physical death
is reasonably easy to define, be it in medical or in other terms. In fact,
JDS teaching defines it in dualistic terms as the departure of the spirit
and soul from the body.196 ‘Spiritual death’, however, requires its own
definition, be it a metaphorical one resting upon some analogy with
physical death, or an absolute one.
Given the assertion of JDS teaching that only the spirit, as opposed
to the soul and the body, is the true self, one might well expect the
teaching to define ‘spiritual death’ as the death of the true self, and
at this point to declare that Christ had to ‘die spiritually’ so that he
himself died. In other words, one might expect to find an anthropolog-
ical definition. Or again, given JDS teaching’s belief in both the divin-
ity and humanity of Christ, expressed in somewhat Apollinarian terms
(see pages 29–30), one might expect Christ’s ‘physical’ death to refer
to his human death, and his ‘spiritual’ death to refer to some sort of
‘death’ of his divinity: an incarnational definition, however bizarre. Per-
haps surprisingly, neither of these is the case. Instead, one finds a broad
196 E.g. Kenyon, Bible, 28–29.

definition, which includes a range of concepts, which can be regarded,

rather than anthropologically, as quasi-theological and ‘satanological’.
The first does bear some sort of analogical relationship to JDS doc-
trine’s definition of physical death, summed up in the concept of sep-
aration: as physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body,
so ‘spiritual death’ is a separation of the spirit from God. As this bears
a degree of similarity to references to death in, for example, Gene-
sis 2:17 and Ephesians 2:1 (see pages 100–104), it is unsurprising to find
this as part of the definition of the term in JDS doctrine, as well as
in the work of Henry Mabie, Alexander MacLaren, Kenneth Wuest,
Billy Graham, J.I. Packer, and others. What is perhaps more surprising
to those who, whether or not they share JDS teaching’s anthropologi-
cal dualism, do not agree with its cosmological dualism, is that further
aspects of JDS doctrine’s definition of ‘spiritual death’ involve Satan so
integrally: ‘spiritual death’ is participation in Satan’s nature, and expe-
rience of his mastery. The next three chapters will explore these aspects
of ‘spiritual death’ as understood by JDS doctrine, starting, in the next
chapter, with separation from God.

Kenyon’s claim that Christ ‘died spiritually’ was not, contra McConnell,
an implicit continuation of an explicit ‘spiritualisation’ of Christ’s death
in New Thought and Christian Science. However, neither was it a mere
extension of established teaching in the Higher Life and Faith Cure
movements. In the latter movements, the terminology was rare, and
did not denote the full range of ideas which Kenyon invested in it.
The distinctive anthropology that JDS teachers promote, summed
up in the famous phrase, “Man is a spirit, has a soul, and lives in a body,”
is unsustainable both in its rigid distinction between spirit and soul, and
its promotion of the former over the latter. In turn, the use to which this
anthropology is implicitly put, in supporting the assertion that Jesus had
to ‘die spiritually’ in order for his death to be of atoning significance, is
invalid. The assertion might yet be true, but other reasons would need
to be offered for making it.
chapter four
JESUS’ ‘SPIRITUAL DEATH’

AS SEPARATION FROM GOD
1. Introduction
Hagin and Copeland, following the lead of Kenyon, incorporate three

primary concepts into their declaration that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ (see
pages 31–34). These three beliefs are that in his ‘spiritual death’, Jesus
was separated from God, partook of Satan’s nature, and became Sa-
tan’s prey. The first of these concepts is the one in which the greatest
degree of agreement among them is evident, and it forms the focus
of the present chapter, whose purpose will be to offer an analysis
and evaluation of the belief, as part of this work’s overall appraisal
of JDS doctrine. As an introduction to the evaluative sections, existing
criticisms of the JDS belief in Christ’s separation will also be elucidated.
In section 2, the JDS articulation of Jesus’ separation from God will
be set out. Thereafter, section 3 will review criticisms of this claim
offered by participants in the debate introduced in chapter 1. In the
light of these criticisms, sections 4 and 5 will consider the possibility
that a separation occurred (section 4); and the timing of this possible
separation (section 5). Finally, section 6 will consider further aspects of
the JDS presentation, to do with the nature of the postulated separa-
tion, before section 7 concludes the chapter.
2. The JDS articulation of Jesus’ separation from God
In JDS teaching, the idea that Jesus was separated from God is con-
sistently linked with his becoming sin.1 Although the chapter divisions
of this book create a distance between this separation and the other
two elements in JDS teaching, it is important to remember that Jesus’
1 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 126, 135–136; Hagin, Name, 32; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually,
3–4.
148 chapter four
separation from God is in fact seen in continuity with his participating

in a sinful, satanic nature (see pages 188–195), and becoming Satan’s
prey (see pages 218–226). Thus, imbued with ‘sin’ and characterised in
some way as ‘satanic’, Jesus was now in a vastly different state from the
holy Son who knew the intimate fellowship of God. The implication is
that God in his holiness and justice was unable or unwilling to com-
mune with Jesus while the latter was in this state. The ‘separation’ (a
favourite word for this phenomenon in JDS teaching) was thus a break-
down of relations. Other descriptive terms illustrate this: “turns His
back”; “shut out”; “outcast”;2 “estranged”;3 “severed”; the opposite of
“intimate companionship”.4 Clearly, the presentation is of a breakdown
and failure of intimacy, a sense of hostility and distance, and presum-
ably of disapproval.
The following subsections analyse five aspects of Kenyon’s, Hagin’s
and Copeland’s teaching about the separation on the cross: how long
the separation lasted (2.1); whether the relational separation is also to
be understood as spatial (2.2); between whom the separation occurred
(2.3); and at whose behest the separation occurred (2.4). Thereafter,
consideration is given to the sources of these beliefs (2.5).
2.1. The timing of the separation

In some varieties of JDS teaching, Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ is traced
from Gethsemane.5 However, Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland all see its
inception while Jesus was on the cross. Kenyon believed that Jesus ‘died
spiritually’ and was separated from God after hanging on the cross for
three hours.6 Hagin and Copeland are not so specific.
All three believe that Jesus was separated from God for three days.7
The belief is that while Jesus hung on the cross and lay in the grave, the
‘spiritual death’ that he suffered occurred both while he was physically
alive and physically dead. His reunion with God, which marked his
2 Kenyon, Father, 126, 135, 136.

3 Hagin, Name, 29.
4 Copeland, What Happened, side 2; “Worthy,” 6.
5 E.g. F.K.C. Price, quoted in Hanegraaff, Crisis, 157. Kenyon denied this (Father,
136).
7 Kenyon, What Happened, ch. IX; Hagin, El Shaddai, 7, Present-Day Ministry, 8;
Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 3–6. Hagin was less consistent than Kenyon and Cope-
land: see his Zoe, 45.
separation from god 149
‘spiritual resurrection’, occurred immediately before his physical resur-

rection. As his ‘spiritual death’ was the cause of his physical death, so
too his ‘spiritual resurrection’ (or rebirth) was the immediate cause of
his physical resurrection.
2.2. The nature of the separation

Separation between persons can be viewed either relationally or spa-
tially. As already stated, the separation of the ‘spiritually dead’ Christ
from God is clearly relational for all three authors. However, the very
word ‘separation’, as opposed for instance to ‘abandonment’, ‘deser-
tion’, or ‘forsakenness’, might be taken to carry spatial connotations.
Kenyon wrote in apparently mixed terms:
He has taken Man’s place, and the whole human race is now represented
in Him, and as He hangs there under judgement on the accursed tree,
God takes your sin and mine, yes, the sin of the whole world and lets
it fall upon the sensitive spirit until the sin of a world has entered into
His very Being and He has become the outcast from Heaven, until God
turns His back upon Him, and He cries out, “My God, My God, why
hast Thou forsaken Me. [sic]”8
The idea of God ‘turning His back’ implies a relational concept. How-
ever, the phrase ‘outcast from heaven’ might indicate spatial thinking,
if Kenyon thought of heaven in spatial terms. That he did so is sug-
gested by his writing about hell, which would appear to be an equiva-
lent opposite in Kenyon’s mind. He wrote of Christ’s ‘sinking’: “Holy, as
God was Holy, pure, as God was pure, yet for you and for me that pre-
cious Being sank to the lowest depths of Hell.”9 So, although Kenyon
thought in relational terms, he also wrote in spatial ones.
Hagin’s prioritisation of relational language is perhaps clearer. Hav-
ing declared of Christ that “He became like we were, separated from
God”, Hagin signified what ‘our’ separation is: “When we talk about a
sinner’s spirit being in spiritual death, we do not mean his spirit does
not exist . . . the sinner’s spirit is not in fellowship, and not in relation-
ship with God.” Unsurprisingly, Hagin related this to Adam’s fall. It
is revealing that Hagin did not time Adam’s ‘spiritual death’ from his
(at least metaphorically) spatial expulsion from Eden’s garden (Gene-

9 Kenyon, Father, 130; cf. 119: “The Holy, innocent Son of God [went] into Hell’s
dark recesses as our sin Substitute.”
150 chapter four
sis 3:23), but from his more relational hiding within the garden (Gene-
sis 3:8–10).10 However, like Kenyon, Hagin could write of Christ going
“down into the prison house of suffering.”11
Copeland follows Hagin in seeing Adam’s ‘spiritual death’ as occur-
ring while Adam was still in Eden, as indicated for Copeland by Adam’s
fear (Genesis 3:10),12 rather than on Adam’s expulsion from the gar-
den. This suggests that spatial separation is not foremost in Copeland’s
mind. He also defines Adam’s ‘spiritual death’ as ‘being separated from
the life and glory of God’.13 Similarly, he writes of Christ’s death: “On
the cross, Jesus was separated from the glory of God.”14 Copeland
defines God’s glory as His goodness.15 This might imply that separa-
tion from it is experienced relationally, insofar as goodness possibly sug-
gests kindness. However, the picture is not clear-cut. Copeland refers
frequently to Christ’s ‘going to hell’, and certainly describes hell in spa-
tial terms.16 Thus, although his presentation of God’s voice and power
being active in hell to restore His Son is relational, it is reasonable to
conclude that, for Copeland, Christ’s separation from God was spatial
as well as relational.
In conclusion to this subsection, although all three authors charac-
terise the separation that occurred on the cross as a relational one,
they all also write in spatial terms. It is unclear how much degree of
metaphor is being employed in these spatial references. Given their
habit of reading the Bible in ways that they would label as ‘literal’ (see
page 71), it seems likely that JDS teachers intend to be taken ‘literally’
themselves. Jesus was ‘sent away from’ God and ‘travelled down’ to hell.
2.3. The separated beings

The idea that Jesus was separated from God can be understood, in
terms of the beings involved, in three primary ways. First, it can be
taken to indicate that the human Jesus was separated from undifferen-
tiated God. Secondly, in trinitarian terms, it can be understood as a
statement that the Son was separated from the Father. Thirdly, the con-
10 Hagin, Name, 29–31, quotations from 29, 30; cf. Redeemed, 2nd edition 60.
11 Hagin, El Shaddai, 7.
13 Copeland, Force of Faith, 14; “To Know the Glory,” 6.
14 Copeland, “To Know the Glory,” 6.
15 Copeland, “To Know the Glory,” 5.
16 Copeland, e.g. Covenant, 39; “Gates,” 5, 6.
cept can be taken to represent both the first two ideas, albeit perhaps
paradoxically. Neither Kenyon, Hagin nor Copeland deliberately clar-
ifies which of these three he favours. It seems highly likely, in view of
their lack of formal theological education and sophistication (see pages
14–24; 90), that none of them has considered these possibilities or their
implications.17 However, the language that each uses offers clues as to
his assumptions.
Kenyon employed a variety of phrases that suggested both divine-
human and intra-trinitarian rupture. Representing the former, he could
simply write that Jesus on the cross was “an outcast from God.”18
Representing the latter, he wrote a few pages earlier that the one who
went to hell “under judgment”, “forsaken by the Father”, was “the
Eternal Son.”19 However, he did not discuss these ideas further, in order
for instance to explore the apparent contradiction between the two
ideas, or wider Christological questions that his statements prompted.
Hagin did not describe the separation in sufficient detail to allow
a clear picture to emerge. The only clue lies in his use of the term
‘spirit’, which, given his consistent anthropological use of the word,
might suggest that he thought predominantly in terms of the human
Jesus being separated from the Godhead. He wrote: “Jesus became sin.
His spirit was separated from God.”20
Copeland, like Kenyon, makes statements that support both a divine-
human separation and an intra-trinitarian one. The former is suggested
by his reference to the ‘anointing’ in: “Jesus was separated from the
presence of God. He was cut off from the Anointing.” However, this
statement is immediately followed by, “He’d known the life and inti-
mate companionship of God within His spirit for all eternity.”21 His
reference to eternity here indicates, unless he believes that Christ’s
humanity is from eternity, that the divine Son was separated from the
Father. The fact that this eternal companionship was known in Christ’s
‘spirit’, which term seems to be anthropological in Copeland’s use,
probably merely indicates the lack of precision in Copeland’s Christo-
17 Lie stresses his belief that Kenyon did not (email message to author, January 6,
2006).
18 Kenyon, Father, 136; cf. 126, 127; Presence, 205; What Happened, 45.
19 Kenyon, Father, 130; cf. 129, 135; What Happened, 42, 44.
20 Hagin, Name, 32, italics added; cf. 29–30.
21 Copeland, “Worthy,” 6.
152 chapter four
logical exposition. In particularly unsophisticated language, Copeland

also recognises in his preaching that intra-trinitarian dynamics were at
work on the cross: “There’s not any further that God can go because
that is part of Himself hanging on that cross. And the very inside of
God hanging on that cross is severed from Him . . .”22 However, in
this sermon Copeland’s focus quickly moves on to the separation of
the human Jesus from undifferentiated God: “. . . and in that moment
of severing, the spirit of Jesus accepting that sin and making it to be
sin, He’s separated from God and in that moment He’s mortal man,
capable of failure, capable of death.”23 Like Kenyon, Copeland makes
no mention of the possible paradox or even contradiction involved in
these statements. As in the case of Kenyon, the impression is created
that Copeland has not thought the issues through.
Of these three authors, Copeland is the one who makes the most
hortatory use of his understanding of the separation. The humanity, in
distinction to the deity, of Christ in his ‘spiritual death’ and ‘rebirth’
is highly significant to Copeland, who regards Jesus, called in the New
Testament the ‘Firstborn’ (Romans 8:29, etc.), as “the first born again
man—the first man to ever be lifted from death unto life . . . from spir-
itual death.”24 The practical inference is clear: born-again Christians
today enjoy precisely the heritage of the born-again Christ. In this
respect, Copeland appeals to a message he claims to have received
from the Holy Spirit: “Don’t you realize that a reborn Man whipped
Satan hands down in his own territory. . . And I’ll say this: any reborn
man that knew as much of the Word of God as He did could do the
same thing.”25 Victorious Christian living therefore depends upon Jesus’
(regenerate) human victory over Satan. That this view contradicts his
preaching cited in the previous paragraph, that ‘part’ of God is cruci-
fied and his ‘very inside’ is severed from him, rather than the human
from the divine, does not gain his attention. It will, however, gain the
attention of 6.2.26
22 Copeland, What Happened, side 2.

24 Kenneth Copeland, What Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost, audio tape 02–0022 (Fort
Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.), side 1.

25 Copeland, What Satan Saw, side 1; cf. What Happened, side 2.
26 It will emerge in chapter 5 that uncertainty exists concerning Christ’s continuing
divinity in his ‘spiritual death’. Clearly, this uncertainty coheres only with an emphasis
on a human Jesus being separated from undifferentiated God.
2.4. The initiative behind the separation

Arguably, there is a difference between a situation in which Jesus feels
separated from a God who is actually nearby, for instance because
Jesus’ outward circumstances are appalling, and one in which God has
actually distanced himself from Jesus, or shown real hostility to him.
In other words, there is a difference between a separation only felt
internally by Jesus, and one that was actually initiated by the hostility
of the one from whom he feels separated. It is clear from the general
tenor of their writings that JDS teachers believe that Christ’s separation
from God was in this sense actual: to believe in a merely apparent
separation robs the doctrine of substitutionary atonement of its internal
logic, in their view, and falls short of reflecting the biblical witness. Thus
Jesus felt separated from God precisely because God actively shunned
him. This is clearest in Kenyon’s exposition, but implicit in Hagin’s and
Copeland’s.27
Relational separation between God and the human Jesus, or even be-
tween the Father and the Son, is in JDS thinking a separation between
two unequal partners, in which relationship the presence of God is far
more important to Jesus (the difference, in fact, between ‘spiritual life’
and ‘spiritual death’) than the other way round. Also, Jesus is depen-
dent, and God is in control. Much JDS testimony centres on God’s
action, of which Christ seems merely the suffering object. Kenyon espe-
cially wrote at length in these terms, for instance writing graphically
of “God taking our sin nature, hideous spiritual death, and making
it strike, as the Prophet says, upon His [Christ’s] soul.”28 Neverthe-
less, this is not the only element in their portrayal. All three make it
clear that Jesus was actively involved in giving his own life and accept-
ing his own ‘spiritual death’.29 Thus while their message is clear that
Jesus experienced separation from God because God rejected him,
rather than the other way round, this rejection was, with reasonable
consistency, because of Christ’s own voluntary acceptance of the ‘sin
27 This is despite, in Hagin’s case, the analogical separation of the first Adam
occurring through Adam’s action (hiding), rather than God’s action (expelling).
28 Kenyon, Father, 125–127, 135–138, quotation from 125; cf. What Happened, 43–47.
29 Kenyon, Father, 136; Hagin, Redeemed, 64; Copeland, Force of Righteousness, 7, 13, 15.
However, on this point Kenyon vacillated. He also wrote, “You see, on the cross He
died spiritually, a partaker of sin—not of His own volition. God laid upon His spirit our
sin” (Advanced Bible Course, 282, quoted in Lie, “Theology,” 101).
154 chapter four
nature’ which God, in his justice, must reject.30 This is the closest that
JDS teaching comes to portraying any sort of paradoxical unity-in-
separation between Christ and God. There is not a strong exposition of
the complete marriage of resolute paternal and filial will and purpose
expressed, for instance, as the outcome of the Gethsemane prayers.
This failure will receive further attention in 6.3.
2.5. Sources for the doctrine

These authors of course believe that their ideas are taught in the Bible,
which is the sole source they explicitly cite. They believe that it is
directly stated with reference to Jesus himself, and is also entailed in
their understanding of his substitutionary experience, in which he went
through the ‘spiritual death’ that Adam had brought on himself and
on the rest of humanity in the fall. Thus the biblical basis commences
with material in Genesis that indicates to them that Adam and Eve, as
a consequence of their sin, experienced ‘spiritual death’ that involved
separation from God, and led in time to physical death (Genesis 2:17;
3:8–10, 19, 23).31
They find biblical evidence for Jesus’ own experience especially in his
‘cry of dereliction’: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
(Matthew 27:46 = Mark 15:34). This is not analysed in any detail, but is
simply taken to indicate that Jesus was separated, and subjectively expe-
rienced this separation. It is evident in every case cited below that the
cry is held in close association with, among others, 2 Corinthians 5:21.32
It is not clear in every case, as discussion is sometimes too brief, that
the cry is actually being interpreted in the light of the Pauline text. It
might simply be that Christ’s and Paul’s meanings are assumed, and
then a commonality discerned on the basis of these assumptions. How-
ever, in some cases,33 2 Corinthians 5:21 does seem to function as a ‘key
to unlock’ the cry. Very occasionally, allusions to Galatians 3:13 are jux-
taposed with 2 Corinthians 5:21.34
30 Kenyon, Father, 125–126; Hagin, Name, 33; Copeland, Force of Righteousness, 24.
31 Kenyon, Father, 91, 219 in the light of one another; Hagin, New Birth, 9; Name,
30–31; Copeland, What Satan Saw, side 1.
32 Kenyon, Father, 126, What Happened, 43–44; Hagin, Present-Day Ministry, 6; Name,
29–32; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 4–5.

33 Kenyon, Father, 126; What Happened, 43; Hagin, Present-Day Ministry, 6.
Further, their understanding that this state lasted until Jesus was
‘born again in hell’ immediately prior to his physical resurrection rests,
for instance, on Acts 2:24,35 which is taken to indicate that Christ’s
physical resurrection occurred immediately after God loosed him from
the ‘pains’ (therefore consciously experienced) of (‘spiritual’) death.
While each author points to the Bible as the only source of his
thinking, there is reason to assume that his interpretation of the relevant
passages is not originally conceived by him. Hagin seems to be directly
dependent on Kenyon, in view of his widespread plagiarism of the
latter (see pages 21; 46), sometimes of passages directly relevant to
JDS teaching (see page 222). In turn Copeland probably depends on
Hagin and Kenyon (see pages 22–24). Kenyon’s sources are less clear.
As discussed in chapter 2, he listened to, read, and appreciated the
teaching of a number of prominent leaders in the Higher Life and Faith
Cure movements, but McConnell especially claims that he drew upon
themes in New Thought and Christian Science.36
A survey of both sets of sources achieves scant results. Higher Life
and Faith Cure authors paid little attention to the concept of Christ’s
separation from God, or to the biblical passages, such as records of the
‘cry of dereliction’, that might undergird it. Their interest was far more
consistently in the ‘blood’. However, attestation to this theme was not
entirely absent. A.J. Gordon, the author Kenyon quoted most, wrote
that Christ “was forsaken of God, during those fearful agonies.”37
New Thought and Christian Science writers did not teach that Jesus
was separated from God on the cross. Mary Baker Eddy and Ralph
Waldo Trine both referred to the ‘cry of dereliction’, but with different
results. For Eddy,
The burden of that hour was terrible beyond human conception. The
distrust of mortal minds, disbelieving the purpose of his mission, was
a million times sharper than the thorns which pierced his flesh. The
real cross, which Jesus bore up the hill of grief, was the world’s hatred
of Truth and Love. Not the spear nor the material cross wrung from
his faithful lips the plaintive cry, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” It was
the possible loss of something more important than human life which
35 Kenyon, Father, 132; What Happened, 59; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 5; Did Jesus
Die Spiritually?, 2–3; cf. Hagin’s use of Acts 2:27 in Name, 32–33.
36 McConnell, Promise, part 2; cf. Perriman, Faith, 66, 70.
37 Gordon, In Christ, 41. He also referred to the ‘cry of dereliction’ (In Christ, 46, 59),
but for other expository purposes. References in Mabie’s work to Jesus’ separation from
God have already been noted (pages 118–119).
156 chapter four
moved him,—the possible misapprehension of the sublimest influence of

his career. This dread added the drop of gall to his cup.38
Trine, on the other hand, declared:

Concerning that love and care he never had had any doubt; and he had
no doubt here. When he cried near the close: ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,’
he neither thought: nor said: ‘My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’
The real meaning of these Aramaic words is: ‘My God, for this end was
I kept. I am fulfilling my destiny. I am dying for the truth that Thou
gavest me; to this end was I born; to this end I am now come.’39
It is clear that neither Eddy’s understanding nor Trine’s bizarre rendi-

tion of the cry resembles Kenyon’s viewpoint.40 If any doctrinal influ-
ence on this point can be traced among Kenyon’s immediate predeces-
sors, it was the prominent proponent of Faith Cure, and opponent of
Christian Science, A.J. Gordon.

Such is Kenyon’s, Hagin’s and Copeland’s case: a separation occurred
which lasted until just before Christ’s physical resurrection. While the
separation was relational, it is also understood to have been spatial.
In this separation, God was turning aside in justice from the sin that
Christ had become. This could be expressed as either the human Jesus
suffering separation from God, or abandonment of the Son by the
Father. This understanding is seen by them to be biblically based. In
fact, the texts they refer to are relatively few in number, and Jesus’
‘cry of dereliction’ receives the most attention, often in association with
2 Corinthians 5:21, while the timing of the separation primarily finds
support in Acts 2:24. There is no evidence that Kenyon gained his
view from New Thought or Christian Science, but it may have been
supported by testimony within Faith Cure.
The rest of this chapter will consider existing evaluations of this
position, and offer further discussion about its possible usefulness. At
this stage, however, it is worth observing the lack of sophistication in
38 Eddy, Science, 50–51.

39 Trine, Man, ch. 16.
40 If, as McConnell in particular asserts, Kenyon had been influenced in this respect
most of all by New Thought, one might expect his statements to be that Jesus was
separated from the Christ. In fact, references to ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ in this context are
interchangeable in Kenyon’s writings (e.g. Father, 127).
its exposition. This is understandable, given the background of JDS

teachers and the context and genre of JDS teaching. Nevertheless, it
weakens the teaching, for it renders it vulnerable to several criticisms
that might not have such force if obvious implications of the teaching
had been explicated in the first place.
3. Criticisms of the JDS position
Among critics of JDS doctrine, such as several of those reviewed in

chapter 1, voices are raised in concern about exegesis of key texts. In
other words, a biblical case is made for resisting the JDS account of this
alleged aspect of Christ’s death. To these criticisms the book now turns.
Not all critics of JDS teaching distance themselves entirely from the
articulation of Jesus’ separation from God set out above. Perriman is
perhaps the most accommodating. He accepts that Christ’s ‘cry of dere-
liction’, for instance, can be understood as JDS doctrine takes it, though
he is equally quick to observe that it does not have to be.41 Never-
theless, most critics raise significant objections. Some critics claim that
the separation simply did not occur. Their criticisms vary between the
charge that JDS teaching misunderstands Christ’s ‘cry of dereliction’
and the claim that such a separation would be impossible. Other crit-
icisms, accepting that some sort of separation occurred, complain that
the JDS view is exaggerated. The exaggeration is seen to relate to the
length of time that the separation lasted, and/or to the degree to which
it occurred. These will be presented in turn: the possibility of a separa-
tion in 3.1; and an exaggeration of it in 3.2.
3.1. Criticisms concerning the possibility of a separation

While some critics believe that a degree of separation occurred, others
deny it entirely. Brandon writes, “Even in Christ’s darkest hour, the
Father and Son relationship continued unbroken.”42 Similarly, Bowman
opines, “Although Jesus’ words here [Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34] may
seem to imply that he really was forsaken or abandoned by God, that is
in fact not the case.”43

42 Brandon, Health, 127.
43 Bowman, Controversy, 171; cf. 174.
158 chapter four
Both these authors agree that JDS doctrine has misunderstood

Christ’s ‘cry of dereliction’. For Brandon, the cry did not articulate a
rupture in relationship, but a lack of protection from the horrors of
crucifixion.44 Bowman appeals to other interpretations of the cry. He
makes use of the argument that one can feel deserted by God with-
out this actually being the case. His main concern, however, is that
the whole of Psalm 22, the beginning of which the cry quotes, should
be heard, including its latter sections of hope and trust. Thus, on the
basis that “the psalmist is not saying that God has really abandoned or
forsaken him”, Jesus too “was confident that God had not really aban-
doned him at all.”45 None of these understandings of the cry is original.
Whether they are accurate or helpful is a matter which requires further
discussion, to which section 4 will be devoted.
Another argument that Bowman employs in opposing the possibil-
ity of Christ’s abandonment by God is that such an event would be
impossible, however it were conceived. Both an intra-trinitarian schism
between Father and Son, and a dissolution of the divine and human in
Christ (which he sees as a temporary cessation of the divinity of Christ)
are inconceivable to his theology and Christology.46 Therefore, Christ
merely felt abandoned, without this being the case. Hanegraaff, who is
prepared to countenance some sort of very temporary ‘forsaken’-ness
(his inverted commas), agrees that a genuine division is, however, quite
impossible.47
Again, such concerns are far from original. However, they are widely
challenged. The possibility of a separation will therefore be explored at
some length in section 4.
3.2. Criticisms concerning exaggeration of the separation

As has already been stated, criticisms include complaints both that
the length of time for which this separation lasted is unwarrantably
stretched in the JDS presentation, and that the nature of the separation
experienced by Christ is exaggerated. With regard to the length of time
over which it occurred, appeal is made by critics to those verses which
indicate that Christ experienced God’s presence and blessing immedi-
44 Brandon, Health, 126–127.

45 Bowman, Controversy, 172–173, quoting 172 (italics original).
46 Bowman, Controversy, 173, 175.
47 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 161 (cf. 169, 174, 175).
ately after his physical death (e.g. Luke 23:43, 46). On this basis, it is
concluded that any separation that had taken place was now finished.48
While the issue of timing cannot claim to be the most important aspect
of the controversy surrounding JDS doctrine, it is nevertheless worthy
of discussion, particularly in view of the interest taken recently in ‘Holy
Saturday’ by theologians from both Roman Catholic and Protestant
quarters. This matter will thus form the substance of section 5.
Criticisms that the nature or extent of the separation has been exag-
gerated are not expressed with sufficient detail or clarity for a response
to be mounted. For instance, McConnell willingly admits that Christ
was ‘alienated’ from God (“because of man’s sin”), but is unwilling to
accept Copeland’s terminology, that he was ‘severed’ (which is “more”
than alienation).49 McConnell offers no clear indication, however, as
to the manner in which being severed is ‘more’ than being alien-
ated. While a guess could be offered, any subsequent discussion would
inevitably be about that guess rather than about McConnell’s actual
view. In similar vein, Hanegraaff accepts that Christ was mysteriously
and “momentarily ‘forsaken’ by the Father”, but this forsakenness is
less than division: “the Godhead cannot be divided, or else God, as
revealed by Scripture, would cease to exist—an impossibility.”50 As in
McConnell’s case, no discussion is offered about the difference between
being forsaken and being divided, and so no sustained response can
be offered. All that can be usefully observed is that at this point the
debaters seem to be unduly pedantic, ‘straining at gnats’ in order to
find some distance between their own views and those of JDS teaching.
It might be reasonably speculated that there is no significant semantic
distinction between being ‘alienated’ and ‘severed’, or between being
‘forsaken’ and ‘divided’, other than in the connoted harshness of the
various terms.

The criticisms of the JDS understanding of a separation between Jesus
and God on the cross and in the grave have raised three significant
48 McConnell, Promise, 128–129; Hanegraaff, Crisis, 162, 165–167. Neither of these
authors refers in these passages to separation as such, but they indicate their belief that
Christ’s redeeming suffering was over at the point of his physical death.
160 chapter four
questions. The first is about the ‘cry of dereliction’ itself. Clearly, its
possible meaning(s) need to be considered as part of the construction
of a view concerning this postulated separation. Secondly, the question
has been raised about whether such a separation was even possible,
and if so, how it can be conceived. Furthermore, the timing of the
alleged separation requires further thought. These questions will gain
the attention of the rest of the chapter.
4. The possibility of a separation
Section 3 indicated that, among other issues, a key consideration con-

cerning Christ’s possible separation from God is interpretation of his
‘cry of dereliction’, and of various other New Testament data. Section
4.1 will review past interpretations of the cry. 4.2 will offer an exegesis
of Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, where it is recorded. 4.3 will con-
sider wider New Testament perspectives relevant to the possibility of a
separation.
4.1. History of interpretation of the ‘cry of dereliction’ 51

Interpretation of the cry did not ‘get off to a good start’. The attendant
crowd’s understanding, that Jesus was calling for Elijah, is dismissed
immediately by Matthew’s and Mark’s narratives. He was calling God.
The centurion, on the other hand, echoed the evangelists’ assessment
(Matthew 27:54; cf. 2:15, etc.; Mark 15:39; cf. 1:1). In Mark, it might
have been the cry that led him to this view. This is not entirely clear,
for Jesus offered a later (inarticulate?) cry (Mark 15:37), and it may
have been this later cry that won the centurion’s approval. However,
if it was the ‘cry of dereliction’, this might suggest that he heard it as
an expression of impressive and noble trust. However, when Matthew
retained the cry, he crafted the centurion’s assessment of the sufferer in
such a way that what impressed the centurion was now not the noble
way in which Christ deported himself, but a number of extraneous
signs (Matthew 27:54). If Matthew is the earliest extant interpreter of
51 Ulrich Luz offers a historical survey of interpretation of the cry, tracing the effect,
as he sees it, of a diminution in belief that the incarnate Christ subsisted as two natures
in one person (Das Evangelium Nach Matthäus: Mt 26–28 [Düsseldorf: Benziger Verlag,
2002], 335–342).
Mark’s record of the cry, it seems he distanced it from an expression of

noble trust that was recognised by onlookers. The other two canonised
gospels simply omit the saying. This might suggest that their authors,
if aware of it, saw it as a statement of despair, and thus as somehow
undermining their presentation of Christ’s death, for certainly both
of them portray this as selfless (Luke 23:28; John 19:26–27), trusting
(Luke 23:43; John 19:28a), and noble (Luke 23:47; John 19:30). Even this
consideration, however, does not provide a certain answer, for Luke and
John may simply have been unaware of the tradition which included
this saying (this is, admittedly, far less likely for Luke than for John, for
the close verbal similarity of Luke 23:44 with Mark 15:33—concerning
the three hours of darkness—suggests redactional dependence at this
point).
The church in its earlier centuries focused little on the ‘cry of dere-
liction’ in its discussions about Christ’s death. Athanasius (c. 293–373)
was challenged by the Arians into discussing the cry, for to them it
and similar prayers were evidence that the Word was not eternal God.
In response, Athanasius, defending the impassible deity of the Word,
denied the possibility of an intra-trinitarian rupture, and regarded the
cry as an entirely human one, as opposed to one uttered by the Word.52
Ambrose (c. 340–397) accepted that Christ felt separated, but not that
he was.53 John Chrysostom (347–407) effectively ‘turned round’ the cry,
so that it became evidence that Christ was “no adversary of God” and
was “of one mind with Him that begat Him.”54
Augustine, in his exposition of Psalm 22, appealed to Romans 6:6 in
order to claim that the ‘cry of dereliction’ contained “not the words of
righteousness, but of my sins. For it is the old man nailed to the Cross
that speaks, ignorant even of the reason why God hath forsaken him.”55
Augustine thereby distanced the cry from the experience of Jesus him-
self. However, when expounding the creed, Augustine pursued a differ-
ent argument. Referring to the cry, he did on this occasion concede that
Christ’s experience was expressed, and that he was deserted, but only
in a limited manner: “He did as it were leave Him for present felicity,
not leave Him for eternal immortality.”56
52 Athanasius, Against the Arians III ch. XXIX:54–56 (NPNF II/IV, 423–424).
53 Ambrose, Faith II, VII:56 (NPNF II/X, 231).
54 John Chrysostom, Homily LXXXVIII (NPNF I/X, 521).
55 Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 22 (NPNF I/VIII, 58).
56 Augustine, On the Creed 10 (NPNF I/III, 373).
162 chapter four
Further slight but intriguing evidence for the early church’s under-
standing of the cry lies in its record in the so-called Gospel of Peter 5:19.
There, Jesus on the cross cried “My power, [my] power, you have for-
saken me.” It is hard to date this evidence. The Akhmîm codex in
which the words appear comes perhaps from the seventh to ninth cen-
turies. From the time of its publication in 1892, it was identified with
the second century Gospel of Peter. Foster questions this identification,
though his conclusions are challenged by Lührmann.57 Also, whether
this record is independent of the canonised gospels is a moot point.
Cameron is confident that it is, and that it reproduces early oral tra-
dition.58 Kazen takes the opposite view, regarding the Gospel of Peter as
a late redaction dependent on the synoptics.59 If it is a redaction, the
change from ‘God’ to ‘power’ presents the intriguing possibility that
here Jesus discovers that he no longer has miraculous power, and so
cannot rescue himself from the cross.60 Thus he cries in disappointment.
However, as Hurtado observes, it is more than possible that ‘Power’ is
simply a circumlocution for ‘God’.61
Moving to the church’s second millennium, Aquinas took the cry
to mean that God had not protected Jesus from the wider suffering
of the cross. It seems that Aquinas could not conceive of Jesus’ being
separated from God, for the “higher part” of his soul “enjoyed perfect
bliss all the while he was suffering.”62
By the time of the reformation, the approach to the cry had changed,
and it was now understood as an expression of real abandonment.
Luther, quoting Matthew 27:46, wrote in terms remarkably similar in
some respects to those used by Kenneth Copeland:
Christ fought with death and felt nothing in His heart but that He was
forsaken of God. And in fact He was forsaken by God. This does not
mean that the deity was separated from the humanity—for in this person
who is Christ, the Son of God and of Mary, deity and humanity are so
united that they can never be separated or divided—but that the deity
withdrew and hid so that it seemed, and anyone who saw it might say,
57 Paul Foster, “Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?” NTS
52 (2006): 1–28; cf. Dieter Lührmann, “Kann es Wirklich Keine Frühe Handshrift des
Petrusevangeliums Geben?” NovT XLVIII.4 (2006): 379–383.
58 Ron Cameron, The Other Gospels (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1982), 77.
59 Thomas Kazen, “Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians?” NTS 51:4 (2005): 569.
60 So R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 653, n. 47.
61 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 446.
62 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 3a. 46:8, trans. Thomas Gilby, gen. ed., (West-
minster: Blackfriars, 1958), vol. 54, 37.

“This is not God, but a mere man, and a troubled and desperate man at
that.” The humanity was left alone, the devil had free access to Christ,
and the deity withdrew its power and let the humanity fight alone.63
Luther clearly wanted to differentiate between separation and with-
drawal, preferring the latter to the former as a description of the occur-
rence on the cross. This must not, however, be regarded as a pro-
nounced ‘softening’ of the experience in Luther’s mind. It was still for-
sakenness, and was “sublime, spiritual suffering, which He felt in His
soul, a suffering that far surpasses all physical suffering.”64
Calvin’s portrayal was more nuanced: Christ “felt himself to be
in some measure estranged from” his Father, but was concurrently
“assured by faith that God was reconciled to him.” This feeling of
estrangement was not mistaken, for God instigated it as judgment of
the guilt Christ ‘took’ as he “endured the punishments due to us.”65
Christ’s experience of forsakenness was thus deep and real:
Certainly no abyss can be imagined more dreadful than to feel that you
are abandoned and forsaken of God, and not heard when you invoke
him, just as if he had conspired your destruction. To such a degree was
Christ dejected, that in the depth of his agony he was forced to exclaim,
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The view taken by
some, that he here expressed the opinion of others rather than his own
conviction, is most improbable; for it is evident that the expression was
wrung from the anguish of his inmost soul.66
In subsequent centuries, protestant Christianity continued occasionally
to refer to the ‘cry of dereliction’ as evidence of a separation on the
cross. The British pastor-theologian R.W. Dale was unequivocal that
this occurred.67 Other nineteenth century expositors took a different
view. Schleiermacher’s (1768–1834) preaching occasioned Barth’s later
ire by reasoning (with reference to Psalm 22:1) that, as Barth put it,
63 Luther, Psalm 8, LW 12, 126–127.

64 Luther, Psalm 8, LW 12, 124.
65 John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. III, trans. William
Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979 [1558]), 318–319; cf. Commentary on the
Book of Psalms (Ps. 22:1), trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979
[1557]), 361.
66 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Bk II, ch. XVI, trans. Henry Beveridge
(Vol. I, London: James Clarke & Co., Limited, 1962 [1536]), 444; cf. 446.
67 R.W. Dale, The Atonement (23rd edition London: Congregational Union of England
and Wales, 1904 [1875]), 60. The similar view of C.H. Spurgeon was mentioned on
page 117.
164 chapter four
“In adopting the words Jesus shows that . . . even at this moment he
could think just as clearly and cheerfully about his death as in his last
addresses to his disciples.” Knowing the whole psalm, Jesus indicated
consciousness of “joy in” God.68 No separation, clearly, was perceived
by Christ. This can be understood as consonant with Schleiermacher’s
portrayal of Jesus’ “consciousness of the singularity of His knowledge of
God and of His existence in God.”69
In contrast to both Dale and Schleiermacher, John McLeod Camp-
bell (1800–1872) denied any separation on the cross, while taking the
cry with great seriousness. The cry, firmly interpreted in the light of
the whole psalm, indicated not Christ’s abandonment by the Father,
but his suffering human enmity. McLeod Campbell’s comments are
elucidated by his wider programme to rescue Scottish federal Calvin-
ism from a dualistic contrasting between a wrathful God and a loving
Christ who endured God’s wrath. For McLeod Campbell, the wrath
Christ endured was primarily that of humanity. God the Father and
Christ the Son stood in complete unity in the work of redemption.70
Coming to the twentieth century, many see the cry as important
and even foundational to an understanding of the atonement, giv-
ing it significant weight in their articulations.71 Moltmann especially
grants it central place in his cruciform trinitarianism.72 It is noteworthy
68 Karl Barth, The Theology of Schleiermacher, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1982 [1923/4]), 84. For Barth, Schleiermacher’s rendition was one in which
“the word of dereliction loses all its offensiveness and changes into a statement of its
opposite” (84).
69 Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, trans. John
Oman (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994 [revised 1821]), 247;
cf. Michael Jinkins and Stephen Breck Reid, “John McLeod Campbell on Christ’s Cry
of Dereliction: A Case Study in Trinitarian Hermeneutics,” Evangelical Quarterly 70:2
(1998): 145.
70 John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement (London: MacMillan and Co.,
5th edition 1878), 224, 240–242; cf. Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology from John Knox
to John McLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996).
71 E.g. Barth, CD II/2, 365; III/2, 603; IV/1, 215, 239; Balthasar, Mysterium, espe-
cially 125: “Primacy must go to the cry of abandonment”; Lewis, Between Cross and Resur-
rection; Jürgen Moltmann, The Experiment Hope, trans. M. Douglas Meeks (London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1975), 79; Crucified God, 225–229; Leon Morris, The Cross of Jesus (Carlisle:
Paternoster Press, 1994 [1988]), especially 67–75; John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Leices-
ter: IVP, 1986), 78–82. Of these, Moltmann especially chooses this cry for its service in
his attempt to provide a Christian answer to human abandonment, which attempt is
Moltmann’s major soteriology.
72 Jürgen Moltmann, The Future of Creation, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1979 [1977]), 59: “Theology can receive its divine justification in Christian
terms only when it continually and fully actualizes and makes present the death-cry of
that many of these authors, and others, stand in line with JDS teach-
ers in interpreting the cry as consistent with the Pauline understand-
ing of Christ’s suffering expressed especially in Galatians 3:13 and
2 Corinthians 5:21.73 They believe that a genuine separation of some
sort occurred.
In conclusion to 4.1, interpretations of the ‘cry of dereliction’ are
noteworthy for their sheer variety. Of importance to discussion about
the alleged ‘heterodoxy’ of JDS teaching is the observation that views
vaguely resembling this aspect of JDS doctrine are to be found amongst
this variety. That perhaps the greatest resemblance is to be found in
the writing of such a prominent figure as Martin Luther tends at least
superficially to support the ‘orthodoxy’ of the JDS view.
4.2. Exegesis of Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34

The ‘cry of dereliction’ is recorded in only two canonised gospels:
Matthew and Mark (also Gospel of Philip 68:26). The intentions of the
evangelists in recording the cry will be considered in this subsection.
First, it is important to concede the brevity of the cry and the dangers
both of basing conclusions on speculation and of importing possibly
foreign theological concepts into the phrase.74 It has already been noted
that JDS teachers utilise 2 Corinthians 5:21 in assessing the cry. The
use of this text, Galatians 3:13 and others like them to ‘aid’, illegiti-
mately, interpretation of Matthew’s and Mark’s intentions occurs out-
side JDS teaching as well.75 The weakness of foreign importation is also
displayed, however, by those who argue that God could not really have
abandoned Jesus, for such a thing would be ‘impossible’.
Also, it is important to note that the cry is itself a quotation.76
Recognition that it comes from Psalm 22 creates two issues. One is the
need to concede that the wording is governed by the psalmist, not by
the forsaken Christ.” Cf. Crucified God, 153 and 225: “A radical theology of the cross”
must give an “answer to the question of the dying Christ.”
73 E.g. Barth, CD II/1, 398, III/2, 602, IV/1, 236; Balthasar, Mysterium, 49–50, 122,
201; Moltmann, Crucified God, 242; Morris, Cross, 77–78; Derek Tidball, The Message of the
Cross (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 146.
74 Larry W. Hurtado, Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1983), 268.
75 E.g. C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark (Cambridge: CUP, 1959), 458;
R. Alan Cole, Mark (TNTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961), 243; Morris, Cross of
Jesus, 78. Contrast France’s wise caution (Mark, 653).
76 Morris regards it as unprovable that Jesus was quoting (Cross of Jesus, 71). Never-
theless, to distance the cry from the psalm seems tendentious.

166 chapter four
Jesus. Since this is the case, it might be argued, the wording should not
be pressed too closely to indicate Jesus’, as opposed to the psalmist’s,
thinking. However, the fact that Jesus chose to quote this passage as
opposed to quoting any other or expressing himself in his own words
means that it was ‘owned’ by him. The wording can be regarded as a
genuine expression of his mind, as portrayed by Matthew and Mark.
The other issue is the extent to which the whole psalm can be regarded
as being in Jesus’ thought, rather than just the first clause. This is moot.
Belief that it was goes back at least as far as to McLeod Campbell,77
and continues to be represented.78 However, France disagrees strongly:
“it is illegitimate to interpret Jesus’ words as referring to the part of
the psalm that he did not echo.”79 Certainty on this point is elusive.
Suffice it to say that no firm conclusion should be arrived at that rests
primarily on another part of the psalm to the exclusion of its first verse,
for instance that Jesus cannot really have been abandoned by God on
the basis of Psalm 22:24.
The cry is grammatically framed as a question. It is reasonable to
start with the supposition, therefore, that the speaker is seeking infor-
mation because he is at the very least ‘puzzled’,80 or more probably,
given the strength of the word ‘forsaken’, bewildered and appalled.
However, verbal communication often exhibits significant disparity be-
tween its grammatical form and its semantic function. Despite its gram-
matical form, then, it may not be seeking to elicit information so much
as to operate as a declaration—of shock, of horror, of consternation—
and even as a complaint. Something profound and appalling seems to
have happened that has caused this violent emotional reaction in the
speaker.
77 McLeod Campbell, Nature of Atonement, 237.

78 E.g. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (London: Oliphants, 1972), 355; Sherman
E. Johnson, The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Adam & Charles Black, 2nd edition
1972 [1960]), 256; Dennis W. Jowers, “The Theology of the Cross as Theology of
the Trinity: A Critique of Jürgen Moltmann’s Staurocentric Trinitarianism,” Tyndale
Bulletin 52.2 (2001): 258–259, quoting Erich Fromm; (tentatively) D.E. Nineham, Saint
Mark (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963), 428–429.
79 R.T. France, Matthew (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 398 (italics original);
also W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr, Matthew Volume III (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1997), 625; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (London: MacMillan, 2nd
edition 1966 [1952]), 594.
80 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 722.
‘Puzzled’ is, however, perhaps an inaccurate understatement. In Cross of Jesus, Morris

writes of ‘perplexity’ (68). This seems more appropriate.
When discussion turns to what this happening may have been, the
immediate literary context seems to supply an obvious answer: Jesus
is being tortured, hanging on a cross. He means, “Why have you
abandoned me to this?” Insofar as Psalm 22 can be taken as prophet-
ically referring to Jesus, it seems to confirm this (Psalm 22:6–8, 14–18
find echoes in the crucifixion narratives). It is surely natural that this
appalling end to Jesus’ life should have wrung the cry from his lips.
He has served his God faithfully all his life, has always acted on God’s
behalf, has always prioritised obedience to God, and has fought off
strong temptation to do otherwise (Matthew 4:1–10 = Mark 1:13). The
covenant promises, interpreted by psalmist and prophet, declared that
he should expect long healthy life and many sons (Deuteronomy 28:1–
14; Psalm 1; 91; 121; 127; Isaiah 60; etc.). Now he meets a criminal’s end.
He has every right to cry out appalled. Thus he “utters the complaint
of the righteous sufferer.”81 It is possible that Christ’s cry came now
because of the cumulative effect of relentless cruelty that finally gave
him voice, with the taunting suggestion that God might indeed rescue
him being the ‘last straw’ (Matthew 27:43).
However, the evangelists seem not to intend this interpretation. They
present Jesus as a man who knew from an early stage that he would die
at the hands of the authorities, and would do so for a godly purpose
(Matthew 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:28; 26:28 = Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:45; 14:24).
By the time he reached the cross, he had already been through a mas-
sive crisis of resolve, a crisis which he had won (Matthew 26:36–44
= Mark 14:32–40). Furthermore, once he hung there, he had already
experienced prolonged psychological and physical torture (Matthew
26:67–68; 27:26–31, 35; Mark 15:15, 17–20, 24). Throughout these
abuses, according to Matthew’s and Mark’s silence, Jesus uttered not
a word of complaint to God or people, and attempted no resistance
or retaliation. It is thus more possible that some new appalling tragedy
led to these words. If the latter is so, a natural place to seek an answer
concerning what the tragedy may have been is in the strongest word
in the cry: γκατ+λιπες (‘forsaken’, ‘abandoned’ or ‘deserted’). Although
Matthew and Mark do not emphasise Christ’s lifelong communion with
his heavenly Father to the extent that Luke and John do, nevertheless
the impression gained is that Jesus had always known fellowship with
God. Certainly at pivotal moments in his life he received overt paternal
81 Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 683.
168 chapter four
reassurance and sustenance (Matthew 3:17; 17:5 = Mark 1:11; 9:7). Was
this fellowship and assurance missing now, as Jesus hung on the cross?
Was heaven silent, and God ‘distant’? The evidence is meagre, specu-
lation must be tentative, and certainty is impossible. But perhaps Jesus’
cry testified to a genuine sense of desertion by his heavenly Father.82
Admittedly, if the whole psalm is being alluded to, then Psalm 22:24
points away from a relational abandonment of Christ by God.83 How-
ever, as stated earlier (page 166), it cannot be assumed that the evan-
gelists meant their readers to conclude that Christ was alluding to the
whole psalm.
Whether Jesus was abandoned ‘inwardly’, or the abandonment to
which he testified only referred to his appalling outward circum-
stances,84 the rest of the cry helps to indicate Jesus’ response to the hor-
ror he was experiencing. The wording suggests continuing faith in God,
and a degree of continuing fellowship with God. Although Jesus was
experiencing some form of abandonment, be it to his circumstances or
to an inner God-forsaken silence, the very fact that he asked the ques-
tion is testimony to his prevailing dependence on God and expectation
that God could be turned to in the midst of this torment. Furthermore,
Christ’s use of ‘my’, governed admittedly by the psalm, speaks of his
personal relationship with this God. His question was thus essentially
paradoxical: “You are the God who is not available; yet you are the
God who can be both related to and appealed to.” This paradox is
especially stark if the sense of abandonment was an inner one.
82 Many commentators see little or no ‘perhaps’: the cry is of (at least a feeling of)
dereliction. So Ernest Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983),
73 (“abandoned”); James A. Brooks, Mark (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1991),
261 (“abandoned by God”); Cole, Mark, 243 (“unclouded communion . . . broken”);
Cranfield, Mark, 458 (“not merely a felt, but a real, abandonment”); Floyd V. Filson, A
Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960),
297 (“feels left alone”); France, Gospel of Mark, 653 (“feels abandoned”); France, Matthew,
398 (“real sense of alienation”); D.A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28 (Dallas: Word, Inc., 1995),
844 (“breach with his Father”); Morris, Cross of Jesus, 71 (“a real abandonment”); Morris,
Matthew, 722 (“communion . . . mysteriously broken”); Stott, Cross of Christ, 81 (“actual
and dreadful separation”); Tidball, Message of the Cross, 145 (“his Father had deserted
him”).
83 Other ‘messianic’ psalms might be employed as well, e.g. Psalm 16:10 LXX (,κ
γκαταλεψεις τ/ν ψυ12ν μυ). However, Kenyon used Psalm 88 to argue that Christ in
his ‘spiritual death’ was in despair (Father, 127). Here the psalmist was like those κ τ3ς
1ειρ$ς συ 4πσησαν (Psalm 88:5, LXX).
84 So Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 3a. 47:3 (vol. 54, 63); Brandon, Health, 126–127;
E.P. Gould, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896), 294.
4.3. A ‘canonical’ view

It is clear from exegesis of Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 that these
verses do not demand that a separation occurred. Matthew and Mark
may simply not have intended such an idea. However, it is equally
clear that the wording does not rule out the possibility. It has already
emerged that, for JDS doctrine, 2 Corinthians 5:21 (and very occasion-
ally Galatians 3:13) is ‘pressed into service’ at this point. As stated on
page 165, it is not valid to use 2 Corinthians 5:21 or any Pauline text as
an aid in seeking Matthew’s and Mark’s intentions. However, if exegesis
leaves an open question as to whether some inner abandonment was
felt by the Matthean/Markan Jesus, it may be reasonable, at a ‘canoni-
cal’ level of biblical reflection, to posit that Jesus experienced something
to which both the cry and Paul’s reflections attest, and to an under-
standing of which each might contribute in a different way.
However, before discussion turns to the Pauline testimony, it must
return to the silence of Luke and John concerning the ‘cry of derelic-
tion’. It has already been stated that, while John may not have known of
this tradition, Luke’s apparent redactional dependence on Mark at this
point makes his ignorance unlikely. Furthermore, John 16:32 explicitly
denies the absence of God from Christ. Of course, an artificial har-
mony between the biblical voices need not be sought, still less engi-
neered. Nevertheless, the point can simply be made that an argument
from Luke’s and John’s silence regarding the cry is precisely that, with
all the potential pitfalls attendant upon arguments from silence, and
John 16:32 may be a generic statement about God’s presence with
Christ throughout his ministry, rather than a diagnosis of the state of
affairs during the crucifixion itself.
Discussion can now turn to Paul. 2 Corinthians 5:21 will receive fuller
attention in chapter 5 (pages 202–205). At this stage of the discussion,
it is sufficient to observe that Paul intended to indicate by way of his
terse metaphor that the crucified Jesus was being treated as if he had
sinned, at least by the people who crucified him. To believe that God
treated Jesus as if he had sinned, and as a result ceased reassuring per-
sonal fellowship with him, is not the only way of understanding these
texts. It is, however, one with a long held and widespread Christian
tradition.
Those who hold it challenge the counter-argument that a separa-
tion would be impossible. Essentially, their point is that the counter-
argument invalidly presumes a priori decisions about what it is pos-
170 chapter four
sible or impossible for God to do.85 For instance, to Hanegraaff who

declares, “the Godhead cannot be divided, or else God. . . would cease
to exist—an impossibility”,86 Lewis ‘replies’ with reference to Barth and
Eberhard Jüngel (1934–): “In that self-forsakenness by which the Father
abandons and delivers up the Son, Godness itself is not abandoned,
given away to the point of cessation, but maintained, revealed, per-
fected.”87 Clearly, it is right to challenge an unimaginative tradition-
bound denial of the possibility of certain divine actions or experiences
if the Bible records that such actions and experiences occurred. Even
where the Bible leaves such questions open, premature conclusiveness
on the basis of theological assumptions is unwise.
However, these and similar authors offer their own theological im-
portation at this point: a separation was vital to the dynamics of sal-
vation. Reference is often made to Christ’s suffering separation as a
substitution, or representation, in which Christ’s experience of aban-
donment mirrored in some way that deserved by humanity, and was
undergone to rescue humanity from such abandonment.88 Those who
hold such a view thus agree with Calvin’s famous comment that “Noth-
ing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death.”89 In
fact, in this aspect, at least, they agree, for all their vast difference in
context, with Copeland, who scandalised McConnell by pronouncing
85 Barth, CD IV/1, 186; Moltmann, Crucified God, 214–216, cf. Experiment Hope, 73–75,
82; cf. Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection, 166, 168.

87 Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection, 194.
88 E.g. Barth, CD II/1, 398–399; IV/1, 230; “The Humanity of God,” [1956], trans.
Clifford Green, ed., Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1991
[1989]), 62; Hans Urs von Balthasar, Elucidations, trans. John Riches (London: SPCK,
1975 [1971]), 51; Mysterium, 12, 168–170, 181; Moltmann, Experiment Hope, 79–80 (cf. Future
of Creation, 62; Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection, 45 n. 4, 90–91); Morris, Cross of
Jesus, ch. 5. While, for Barth, the separation expressed in the ‘cry of dereliction’ was
sometimes identified with the hell of rejection Christ experienced as he bore human
sin (e.g. CD II/2, 365), at other times the cry was associated with a ‘slighter’ sepa-
ration that was not in itself adequate to achieve atonement, for it was the separa-
tion experienced by individuals depicted in the Old Testament as they sank down
in physical death into sheol (CD III/2, 589–592). This ‘nothingness’ was “comfort-
less but tolerable” (603). Christ’s experience went ‘beyond’ this. God actively inflicted
Christ with his just wrath: “Here the alienation from God becomes an annihilatingly
painful existence in opposition to Him” (603). In rather similar fashion, Balthasar
characterises the separation as the presence of God’s oppressive punishment (Glory VII,
209).
89 Calvin, Institutes, Bk II, ch. XVI. (vol. I, 443).
to him in personal correspondence about Jesus’ death that “when His

blood poured out it did not atone.”90
It is not the purpose of this work to evaluate theories of the atone-
ment. It is sufficient at this point to observe that JDS teaching is not
alone in constructing a view of Christ’s death in which the ‘cry of dere-
liction’ and 2 Corinthians 5:21 are both attended to, and in which gen-
uine abandonment is seen.

In conclusion to this section, JDS teaching emerges as consonant with
a significant proportion of post-Reformation Christianity, both in its
method of interpreting the ‘cry of dereliction’, its use of 2 Corinthians
5:21, and the conclusion thus reached, that Christ was separated from
God. Insofar as JDS teaching offers an admittedly unsophisticated
version of this belief, it can on this point be regarded as ‘orthodox’,
rather than being the ‘heresy’ portrayed by some of its critics.
One obvious weakness in the method is that it is highly speculative.
Much theological ‘weight’ is being placed on a very few texts, which
themselves are brief and relatively opaque. Secondly, these texts need to
be brought together from disparate parts of the New Testament canon
to form a conclusion that no text on its own demands, nor that the texts
together demand. Thirdly, wider issues of alleged theological necessity
are called into the equation. While conceding all these weaknesses,
the belief that a separation occurred is not disprovable. Therefore, this
chapter will continue on the justifiable basis that a separation might have
happened. With this possibility in mind, JDS teaching’s claim that it
did occur can obviously be criticised for being unduly certain about
that which is uncertain, and making implausibly ‘plain’ that which
is shrouded in mystery.91 However, evaluation of this aspect of JDS
teaching cannot end at that juncture. The criticisms reviewed in 3.2
included the issue of timing: did this postulated separation last until
resurrection morning? This will be considered in section 5. Further
evaluation is also needed concerning what was allegedly involved in
the separation, and will be considered in section 6.
90 Copeland, correspondence to McConnell, 1979, quoted in McConnell, Promise,
120. Italics removed.

91 Brian Onken, “The Atonement of Christ and the ‘Faith’ Message,” http://www
.equip.org (DP060.pdf), criticises the speculativeness of JDS teaching.

172 chapter four
5. The timing of a possible separation
As stated in 2.4, JDS teachers believe that Jesus was separated from
God the whole time that his body lay in the grave, as well as for the
hours on the cross. For this, as indicated in 3.2, they have been criticised
by those who observe that, according to Luke 23:43, 46, Jesus was
confident that his fellowship with God after his physical death would
be intact. This section will evaluate these reconstructions of events.
However, it is difficult to defend the claim that the precise length of
time for which Jesus was possibly separated from God—a number of
hours or a number of days—is as important as other aspects of the
discussion that have been raised in this chapter. So this section will be
brief, and the detail limited.
As stated earlier, a key verse supporting JDS understanding is Acts
2:24. For Kenyon, an important matter concerning this verse was that
‘pain’ or ‘pang’ is more usefully understood as ‘birth-pang’. To Kenyon,
this indicated that what is in view is Jesus’ ‘spiritual (re)birth’ from
‘spiritual death’, including separation from God, to spiritual life.92 For
Copeland, who also recognises the possibility that ‘pain’ can be ren-
dered as ‘birth pang’, the logic is that, as this death is consciously expe-
rienced as pain, it cannot refer to physical death: “Jesus had already
been delivered from the pain of physical death as soon as He left His
body, three days before His resurrection.” Thus the death in view is the
torment of ‘spiritual death’, including separation from God.93
Acts 2:24 does not offer the support that Kenyon and Copeland find
there. Whether 5νδας is understood as ‘pains’, ‘birth-pangs’, or even
‘cords’ (from the LXX translation of the Hebrew in Psalms 18:4, 5;
116:3), and λσας as ‘loosed’ or ‘destroyed’, there is no need to see
here any death distinguishable from Christ’s physical death. It was
clearly Christ’s physical resurrection to which the apostolic preaching
was attesting (e.g. Acts 2:32). The references to hades in Acts 2:27,94 31
also do not indicate separation from God. Luke first quoted and then
paraphrased Psalm 16 (Acts 2:27, 31). These excerpts have been taken to
mean that Jesus was in hell, which is mistakenly identified with hades,
but was not left there forever (so KJV and JDS teaching). However,

93 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 5; cf. Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 3.
94 Cf. Hagin’s use of this verse: Name, 32–33.
Luke meant that Jesus was not in hades in the first place, as is indicated
by his use of ε6ς rather than ν.95
While they find support for their view especially in Acts 2:24, Kenyon
and Copeland, who discuss these matters more fully than Hagin, recog-
nise that other texts might suggest different conclusions to some inter-
preters. Thus they must offer alternative explanations for these texts,
explanations that are sometimes more impressive for their ingenuity
than for their plausibility.
Unsurprisingly, they believe that all the sayings on the cross recorded
in the gospels are historical. In this respect, their understanding is
in common with their evangelical critics. For the critics, the sayings
recorded in Luke and John indicate clearly that whatever spiritual
sufferings Jesus might have gone through on the cross were over before
he physically died. He was thus able confidently to place his spirit in
God’s hands (Luke 23:46), knowing that he had completed his atoning
work (John 19:30), and that he would later that same day be in paradise
(Luke 23:43). That Christ was correct in his assessment that atonement
was achieved was gloriously confirmed by the miraculous tearing of the
temple curtain, letting forgiven humanity into the holy of holies without
the shedding of animal blood (e.g. Luke 23:45).96
The sayings alluded to above, along with their confirmation, re-
quire a different interpretation in the JDS schema. “It is finished”
(John 19:30) is taken to mean not that Christ had finished his atoning
work, but that he had finished his earthly work, and in so doing he
had fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant, placing him in a position now
to perform his atoning work.97 Luke 23:43 is taken to read, “I tell you
today: you will be with me in paradise.”98 While the Greek can stand
such a translation, it is difficult to see why Luke’s Jesus would wish
to emphasise the timing of his statement, rather than the timing of its
fulfilment.99 “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46)
95 The argument that the precise wording is governed by the LXX, not by Luke,
falls when it is observed that Luke both quoted and paraphrased the passage, and when
Luke’s redactional freedom in quoting the LXX elsewhere is noted (e.g. cf. Acts 2:17–21
with LXX Joel 3:1–5).
96 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 162, 166; Brandon, Health, 124; McConnell, Promise, 128–129;
Bowman, Controversy, 167.

97 Kenyon, What Happened, 47, 50; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 3.
98 Kenyon, What Happened, 60; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 3; Jesus In Hell, 2–3.
99 Discussion of strict chronology may be out of place here, anyway. The ‘today’
in view may be eschatological rather than chronological. See, e.g., John Nolland,
Luke 18:35–24:53 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 1152.
174 chapter four
is ignored. Finally, the tearing of the curtain is not understood in terms

of letting humanity in, but in terms of letting God out: God has now
deserted Old Covenant Judaism, with its animal sacrifices and physical
temple, in favour of his New Covenant people, brought, through the
sacrifice of his Son, into the spiritual temple of the church.100
It is clear that some exegetical straining is required in order to
reach the understanding set out in the preceding paragraph. It is more
straightforward to conclude that for Luke and John at least, Christ’s
physical death marked a victorious moment of completion, and an
end to Christ’s sufferings. If Luke and John knew of and accepted the
tradition that Christ was separated from God, they surely presented it
as completed now.
However, this aspect of JDS teaching receives indirect support from
Barth and Moltmann, for whom the idea that Jesus the Son remained
separate from God the Father whilst dead is implicit in their under-
standing of death (in turn informed by their monistic anthropology),
which itself represents and incorporates abandonment by God. Pre-
cisely in his death he remained godforsaken, in appearance and in real-
ity. Only his resurrection vindicated him. Balthasar was much more
explicit in his tracing of Christ’s godforsakenness beyond the cross and
into the tomb. Thus, although their premises are markedly different
from those of JDS teaching, their conclusion on this point is the same:
Christ the Son is separate from God the Father for the whole time he is
dead.
Balthasar in particular identified Christ’s death during the triduum
mortis with the Sheol of the Old Testament.101 There is, however, no
direct biblical evidence to support this assertion. It seems just as reason-
able to suggest that Christ’s experience between his death and resurrec-
tion may prefigure, in his role as the “firstborn among many brothers”
(Romans 8:29), the intermediate state that his followers would in the
future experience between their deaths and resurrections, a state that
is with God rather than apart from him (e.g. Philippians 1:23). Thus
100 Kenyon, What Happened, 42, ch. 8. This is the most plausible of the exegeses
presented in this paragraph. The tearing of the temple curtain is open to a large
number of symbolic interpretations. See discussion of, e.g., the Lukan account in
Nolland, Luke, 1157; Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1996), 1860–1861.
101 Balthasar, Mysterium, ch. 4. Both Barth and Balthasar agreed that sheol became
or was replaced by hell through the Christ event (Barth, CD III/2, 602; Balthasar,
Mysterium, 172).
Christ, in the passivity of death, was not continuing to suffer godfor-

sakenness, but was accepted. This seems compatible with Luke 23:43,
46. To Barth, Luke 23:46 indicated that Jesus commended his spirit—
himself—to God’s “decree and disposing”, which in this case was “to
death.”102 Balthasar glossed over the implications of these verses.103
Moltmann effectively denies their historicity.104 None of these authors
seems to allow the texts’ combined force to make the reasonable sug-
gestion that at this point Christ’s postulated separation from God was
over.
In conclusion to this section, if Christ was separated from God, this
lasted only while he hung on the cross—perhaps for the three hours of
darkness referred to in the synoptics.
6. The nature of a possible separation
Quite apart from discussion about whether a separation between Jesus

and God was even possible, and how long it might have lasted, fur-
ther examination is in order concerning the nature of the separation
that Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland conceive. In particular, its spatial
imagery (6.1), apparent contradictory nature (6.2), and seemingly pro-
found imbalance (6.3) deserve consideration.
6.1. A spatial separation?

References in JDS teaching to spatial separation, while possibly meant
metaphorically, at least appear to be intended ‘literally’ (see pages
149–150). As such, they appear inappropriately crude. Certainly, JDS
teaching at this point exhibits commonalities with the Christianity of
the first millennium, and its teaching about Christ’s ‘descent’ into hell
102 Barth, CD IV/1, 306; cf. III/2, 364.

103 Balthasar, Mysterium, 109, 126. Balthasar did, however, accept the force of John
19:30 (Mysterium, 150). Thus the work of redemption was essentially completed on the
cross. Christ’s time in Sheol was only an “efficacious outworking in the world beyond
of what was accomplished in the temporality of history” (151), a “solidarity in whose
absence the condition of standing for sinful man before God would not be complete”
(161). Barth too noted John 19:30 as an indication that Christ’s sacrifice was perfect (CD
IV/1, 281).
104 Moltmann, Crucified God, 147. That Luke omitted the ‘cry of dereliction’ from his
account does not thereby entail that his record of Christ’s sayings on the cross was
invented, by him or by his intermediate sources.
176 chapter four
(see pages 226–239). However, earlier Christianity had the excuse that
it inhabited a world that was generally thought to be flat, with a hell
beneath it to be found if one dug deep enough, and a heaven in or
beyond the sky. Expressions of North American Christianity in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries have no such context, and therefore
no such excuse.
Furthermore, JDS teachers seem to have given no thought to the
implications that their references to a spatial separation have for their
idea of the omnipresence of God. Also, these ideas form part of an
implausible dualism (see pages 188–189) in which the universe seems
divided into God’s ‘territory’ and that of Satan, and in which Christ in
his ‘spiritual death’ travelled from one territory to the other.
If a separation is to be articulated, it is surely more cogently ex-
pressed in terms which either maintain a clear relational view of the
separation (often expressed by preference for the term ‘abandonment’
over ‘separation’), or which are overtly metaphorical in their references
to the spatial. The work of Moltmann is a useful example of the former,
and Barth’s references to the ‘far country’ a well-known example of the
latter.105
6.2. A contradictory understanding?

It emerged in 2.3 that JDS teaching offers an unsophisticated, vacil-
lating account of precisely who was separated from whom in Christ’s
‘spiritual death’. Of particular concern is the contradiction evident in
Kenyon’s and Copeland’s teaching that while on the one hand the
being separated from God was ‘the eternal Son’, ‘part’ of God and his
‘very inside’, on the other hand the human being was separated from
the divine, so that for Copeland the humanity of the victorious Christ in
hell becomes of utmost importance as an example for victorious Chris-
tian living. That there is seeming contradiction in this account is not
in itself problematic, for Christianity lives with paradox from beginning
to end, and especially in any incarnational view of Christ’s death.106
What is of concern is that the relationship between the ideas remains
entirely unexplored. This is understandable in terms of JDS teachers’
105 Moltmann writes repeatedly of Christ’s ‘godforsakenness’. For Barth’s references
to the ‘far country’ see, e.g., CD IV/I, 157, 177, 192, 280, 283.
106 For discussion of paradox in incarnational theology, see D.M. Baillie, God Was In
Christ (London: Faber, 1961 [1956]), ch. V.

backgrounds, audiences, and intentions, but it renders JDS teaching

vulnerable to criticism of even a moderately sophisticated theological
hue.
A survey of expositions of a separation on the cross reveals the
considerable difficulties that occur when an attempt is made to ‘iron
out’ the seeming contradiction by firmly locating the separation either
between the divine and the human on the one hand or between the
first and second persons of the Godhead on the other. Examples of
the former abound. In the first Christian millennium, the concern
was to preserve the immutability and impassibility of God; in the
second, a common tendency has been to highlight the wrath of God
expressed against a Christ who was carrying the world’s sin. Examples
of the latter occur in more recent theology, especially in the work of
Moltmann.
For those early church commentators who recognised a separation,
it definitely occurred between the human, dying Christ and the non-
suffering, non-changing God. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428),
while admitting that God was crucified in a sense,107 yet wrote, “The
Godhead was separated from the one who was suffering in the trial
of death, because it was impossible for him to taste the trial of death
if [the Godhead] were not cautiously remote from him.”108 Nestorius
(c. 386 – c. 451), whose Antiochene Christology was controversially
and infamously pronounced, took a similar view.109 Alexandrian ‘Word-
flesh’ Christology might have been expected to maintain a greater unity
in the person of the crucified Christ. Yet this was not the case. Nesto-
rius’ antagonist Cyril (c. 378 – c. 444) placed all of Christ’s suffering in
his ‘flesh’, only conceding that this was ‘appropriated’ by the deity “for
the sake of our salvation.”110 Thus, according to Moltmann, when Cyril
discussed the ‘cry of dereliction’, he could not see any intra-trinitarian
dimension to it.111
107 Theodore of Mopsuestia, On the Incarnation XII:11, trans. Richard A. Norris, Jr.,
The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 122.

108 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homilies 8:9, trans. A. Mingana (quoted in
Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection, 160, n. 53).

109 Nestorius, First Sermon Against the Theotokos, trans. Norris, Controversy, 128–129; cf.
Second Letter to Cyril, trans. Norris, Controversy, 135–140, e.g. “ ‘This is,’ not my deity, but
‘my body which is broken for you’ ” (138).
110 Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to John of Antioch, trans. Norris, Controversy, 140–145 (144).
111 Moltmann, Crucified God, 229.
178 chapter four
Moltmann offers strong arguments against this early position that

understood the rupture solely as a divine-human one in order to re-
move God from suffering. He wisely observes that the very premise of
this position—the impassibility of God—is false. It is entirely true to say
that God cannot suffer because of some “deficiency in his being.” This
does not prevent him, however, from suffering out of the plenitude of
his character, and, in particular, his love.112
Calvin’s work is a clear example of the later separation between
divine and human as an expression of divine wrath against the sin
Christ carried. Thus he wrote that while Christ felt abandoned, he
“bore the weight of the divine anger.” He stood “at the bar of God
as a criminal in our stead.” Throughout the crucifixion, “the divine
power of the Spirit veiled itself for a moment, that it might give place
to the infirmity of the flesh.”113 This depiction is open to the criticism
that articulations of a separation between God and Christ all too easily
suggest the idea that the purpose and action of Father and Son on the
cross were in some way at odds with each other (see further, pages 181–
182).
Moltmann’s attempts to relocate the separation within the Trin-
ity are not dissimilar to the view of Balthasar, who independently
114
of Moltmann also highlighted the intra-trinitarian aspect of the sep-

aration, though without denying a divine-human aspect to it.115 Of
the two positions, the former has received more criticism. Criticism
common to both is the charge that they involve a trinitarianism that
tends towards tritheism. Jowers makes the criticism of Moltmann, offer-
ing a considerable bibliography of similar criticisms.116 Lauber offers
the criticism, cautiously, of Balthasar.117 Wider criticism of Moltmann
includes some which merely rehearses the traditional refusal of divine
112 Moltmann, Crucified God, 230; cf. Baillie, God Was In Christ, 198–199.
113 Calvin, Institutes, Bk II, ch. XVI (vol. I, 444, 446).
114 E.g. Moltmann, Crucified God, 207. However, Moltmann may not be entirely deny-
ing a divine-human aspect to the schism, as his use of the word ‘simply’ demonstrates:
“In the cross of Christ, a rupture tears, as it were, through God himself. It does not
simply tear through Christ, as the doctrine of the two natures states” (Experiment Hope,
80). Lewis, notwithstanding, takes Moltmann to deny a divine-human rupture (Between
Cross and Resurrection, 225).
115 Balthasar, Mysterium, 52, 79, 81, 109.
116 Jowers, “Theology,” 26 and n. 87. Richard Bauckham also refers to these crit-
icisms, but does not accept them (The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann [Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1995], 25).
117 David Lauber, Barth on the Descent into Hell (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 60–61.
passibility that Moltmann, and others before him such as Barth, have
successfully countered.118 More incisive criticism includes that which is
concerned by Moltmann’s absolute identifying of the immanent trin-
ity with the economic one.119 As Balthasar himself wrote, “the process
of establishing and experiencing the world” must remain for God “a
perfectly free decision.”120 Balthasar overcame the problem, and pre-
served God’s immutability, like Barth before him, by positing an eternal
kenosis which was then fully expressed in the acts of incarnation and
atonement.121 In it, the primal kenosis is that of the Father, who from
eternity has been giving away himself and his divinity into his Son (and
the Spirit).122 This is expressed in the atonement, as the Father gives
away, or abandons, the Son into death: Balthasar wrote that the primal
kenosis implied “such an incomprehensible and unique ‘separation’ of
God from himself that it includes and grounds every other separation—
be it never so dark and bitter.”123
Beyond these criticisms of Moltmann and Balthasar, it must be ob-
served that a suggestion which posits a separation only between the
divine persons would place this suffering outside the realm of human
representation, and render the apparent human suffering of Christ,
beyond the physical tortures, docetic (Jesus in his humanity only seemed
to go through the spiritual suffering of abandonment; the suffering
actually occurred only in the trinity).
In conclusion to this subsection about the apparently contradictory
account of the separation offered in JDS teaching, in which it is some-
times the human Christ who is separated from undifferentiated God,
and sometimes the divine Son who is separated from the Father, it
becomes clear that attempted simplifications in which one aspect of
separation is emphasised and the other denied or at least minimised do
not overcome the difficulties encountered, but merely compound them.
It is thus tempting to agree with those who assert that a separation
of any form on the cross was impossible, and therefore simply did
118 E.g. Jowers, “Theology.”

119 E.g. Moltmann, Future of Creation, 76; Crucified God, 240.
120 Balthasar, Mysterium, 35; cf. Lauber, Barth, 142. Lewis, however, offers a defence of
Moltmann’s exposition of the economic and immanent trinity, claiming that Moltmann
still retains “their notional distinction” (Between Cross and Resurrection, 228).
121 Balthasar, Mysterium, 35, 79–82.
122 Balthasar, Mysterium, viii, 27–36.
123 Balthasar, quoted by Aidan Nichols, No Bloodless Myth: A Guide Through Balthasar’s
Dramatics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 165, italics in quotation.

180 chapter four
not occur. However, to ‘solve the mystery’ in this way is not the only
possible or plausible way to proceed. If Christ was God incarnate, then
his death alone is deeply problematic to human logic, and its ‘inner
workings’ must be seen as shrouded in mystery.124 To accept that a
separation, if it occurred, was also deeply mysterious does not demand
that it should be rejected. Another possible way forward is to maintain
the idea of a separation, but suggest a paradoxical combination of
intra-trinitarian and divine-human aspects.
Perhaps Barth offered the most sensitive and sustained balance be-
tween these aspects of the separation.125 Sometimes the humanity of the
separated one was emphasised (while not denying the divinity):
It was to fulfil this judgment on sin that the Son of God as man took
our place as sinners. He fulfils it—as man in our place—by completing
our work in the omnipotence of the divine Son, by treading the way of
sinners to its bitter end in death, in destruction, in the limitless anguish
of separation from God.126
Sometimes the divinity was emphasised:
We may think of the darkness which we are told later came down at the
hour of Jesus’ death (Mk. 15:33), the rending of the veil of the temple
(Mk. 15:37), the earthquake which shook the rocks and opened the graves
(Mt. 27:51), as though—in anticipation of its own end—the cosmos had
to register the strangeness of this event: the transformation of the accuser
into the accused and the judge into the judged, the naming and handling
of the Holy God as one who is godless.127
In conclusion, given the obvious difficulties created by placing a sepa-
ration only between the divine and human or only between the persons
of the Trinity, it seems wise to follow Barth, and effectively agree with
Kenyon and Copeland, by placing a posited separation both between
the divine and the human and within the Trinity. The apparent diffi-
culty with such a suggestion—that it combines two essentially contra-
124 Charles Wesley was right: “ ’Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!” (David & Jill
Wright, 30 Hymns of the Wesleys [Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1985], 14).
125 Barth is read in bewilderingly different ways by his expositors. For Lauber, Barth
“refrain[s] from attributing suffering directly to God, in contrast to Moltmann” (Barth,

142–143). For Lewis, Barth “learned dramatically to rethink the very doctrine of God in
the light of Jesus’ death and burial. Here the already tottering edifice of immutability
collapsed, terminally shaken by the revealed actuality of God’s Christomorphic pas-
sion” (Between Cross and Resurrection, 197). Lewis’ exegesis seems more accurate (see, e.g.,
Barth, CD IV/1, 245).
126 Barth, CD IV/1, 253.
127 Barth, CD IV/1, 239.
dictory notions—is lessened when inspected in the light of the incar-

nation. The separation of the Father from the Son is the separation of
the divine from the human precisely because the Son and not the Father
has become a human (while not ceasing to be God).128 God the Father
(the fount of the Godhead) is separated from God the Human (the
Son), whose divinity, though real, is kenotic (in Balthasar’s sense). The
potential counter-argument that the human Jesus was not really, then,
abandoned by God, for he was still ‘with’ God the Son (in his abandon-
ment by God the Father) falls, for it mistakes the two natures of Christ
as two persons, who can succour each other, and it fails to recognise the
utter abandonment by the Father that the Son was ‘also’ suffering.
6.3. An unbalanced presentation?

Virtually no consideration is given in JDS doctrine to ways in which,
in this postulated separation, Christ and God were, paradoxically, su-
premely united. Interest in 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example, is not ‘bal-
anced’ by interest in 2 Corinthians 5:19. That the cross was voluntarily
accepted by Christ (see page 153) is the nearest these teachers come
to recognising that, in the midst of the separation, a deep divine unity
was being expressed. Even this is given little prominence by Kenyon
especially, who wrote extensively of what God did to Jesus in the cru-
cifixion, and remarkably little of what Jesus himself did. While Hagin
and Copeland are somewhat more balanced on this point, ascribing
salvific activity to Christ, they do not draw out any implications from
this for the relationship between Father and Son, or God and Jesus, in
the crucifixion.
The New Testament sees otherwise. While the cross was in various
ways portrayed as the action of God (John 3:16; Acts 2:23; Romans 3:25;
2 Corinthians 5:21, etc.), it was also seen as the action of Christ (Mark
10:45; John 1:29; 10:17; Galatians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:24, etc.). In fact, in
many ways it was seen as the united action of the two. From begin-
ning to end, Christ set out to do the will of his Father. The cross was
no exception. This is perhaps most explicit in John (5:36; 10:37–38; 17:4,
and note especially 10:18), but it was believed by Paul (e.g. Romans 5:8;
128 Essentially this explanation is offered by Bruce L. McCormack, with copious ref-
erences to Barth (“The Ontological Presuppositions of Barth’s Doctrine of the Atone-

ment,” in The Glory of the Atonement, Charles E. Hill & Frank A. James III [Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004], 364).
182 chapter four
Galatians 1:4; Philippians 2:8) and in Hebrews (9:14). In the synoptics,

the unity of will that led to the cross was highlighted by the Geth-
semane prayer (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). This prayer
could be seen as a division of will, and suggest some hesitancy in Christ
beforehand and thereafter, as well as at the time. However, there are in
effect three wills evident in the prayer. There is the will of the Father,
the will Jesus expressed as ‘his’ but rejected, and that third will that
Christ expressed in forming his prayer: his will to do, and thus abso-
lutely conform to, the Father’s will. The outcome of the prayer can be
regarded as governing Christ’s attitude to all that followed, however
appalling.
If the ‘cry of dereliction’ allows a belief that on the cross Christ the
Son was separated from God the Father, then the biblical testimonies
to the unity of the Father and the Son in approaching the cross allow
just as firmly, if they do not in fact demand, the belief that Jesus
and his Father were as close as they had ever been. In extremis, God
and Christ remained utterly at one in their determination to accept
the deadly consequences of human sinfulness. If Christ was in some
sense separated from God on the cross, he was at that moment united
with God in his resolve to endure the agony of it. It might even be
appropriate to claim that at this point, Christ was most united with God,
if what is meant is that now Christ’s resolve to conform to his Father’s
will and purpose was tested to the uttermost, and therefore now most
profoundly expressed, through surviving the test. This can only be
expressed in paradox. Mysteriously, it is actually in this separation
that the two separated partners are most radically united, for they are
united in their love for the humanity which this separation seeks to
save, they are united in their determination to accept the pain that
the salvation demands, and they are united in their readiness to be
separated.
In keeping with this biblical depiction, some of those who believe in
a separation offer a much more impressive exposition of it than the JDS
version, in that they retain a focus on the nearness of Christ and God
in the midst of separation. This insight is retained by biblical commen-
tators,129 evangelical expositors,130 and systematic theologians.131
129 E.g. Cranfield, Mark, 459.

130 E.g. Stott, Cross of Christ, 82.
131 Barth, CD IV/2, 252; Balthasar, Elucidations, 51.
7.1. Summary
In brief, JDS teachers believe that one defining aspect of Jesus’ ‘spiritual
death’ was his separation from God. They believe that this separation,
which lasted until immediately before Christ’s physical resurrection,
was relational but also apparently spatial, and occurred because God
was justly rejecting the sin that Christ on the cross had become. It
could be expressed in terms of a separation both between God and
the human Jesus, and between the divine Father and Son. The belief
rests upon their understanding of the ‘cry of dereliction’ and certain
other texts brought alongside it, especially 2 Corinthians 5:21. Kenyon’s
adoption of this belief was not from New Thought or Christian Science.
Rather, the same view was found, though rarely, in Faith Cure. For this
view, JDS teaching has been criticised. According to the various critics,
such a separation is either flatly impossible, or if possible is exaggerated
in the JDS depiction, in terms of timing or extent.
Despite these criticisms, a survey of interpretation of the ‘cry of
dereliction’ throughout Christian history reveals that, while there has
been a great variety of ideas, belief in a separation has not been
absent, and when it has occurred, it has formed an important part
of articulations of the atonement. Exegesis of the canonised passages
where the cry is recorded indicates that the interpretation which sees
some sort of separation occurring is not necessary, but neither is it
ruled out. A broader view of the New Testament does not alter this
verdict. The JDS version of events is therefore not necessarily untrue to
the New Testament, though it presents as plain and clear and which is
rarely attested and whose attestation is, anyway, ambiguous.
Proceeding on the basis that this postulated separation might have
occurred, various further observations can be presented about the JDS
understanding of it. First, in regard to timing, there is more reason
offered in the New Testament to regard a separation as having ceased
by the time Christ physically died, than to trace it through to the
time of his resurrection. In mitigation, it must be observed that JDS
teachers are far from alone in adhering to the latter view. Secondly,
concerning the idea of a spatial separation, JDS teaching, if it is to
be taken ‘literally’ at this point, is not justified. Thirdly, JDS teaching
makes no effort to face the obvious dilemma that postulation of a
separation creates within the context of trinitarian and incarnational
184 chapter four
belief: who was separated from whom? Again in mitigation, it may

be that JDS teachers have ‘chanced upon’ an acceptable account,
in which a separation between the divine and the human is held in
paradoxical tension with a separation between two divine persons.
Fourthly, and most importantly, there is a lack of recognition that, in
this possible separation, Christ and the Father were also, paradoxically,
most intimately united. This recognition is fundamental to atonement
doctrine, and indeed to trinitarianism. It exhibits in the economy the
eternal, utterly united, love for humanity of two persons of the one God.
7.2. Implications
The one most important criticism of the JDS rendition of Christ’s pos-
sible separation from God, then, is not that the Bible denies such a sep-
aration, or that JDS teachers ‘got the timing wrong’, or that they are
crassly spatial in their imagery, or that they are unclear or inconsistent
about who was separated from whom, but that this teaching, while sid-
ing with many other Christians in claiming that a separation occurred,
joins unknowingly with some of these others in failing to hold in close
proximity an appalling separation and an extraordinary unity, whether
this is expressed as existing between Father and Son or between God
and Jesus. This failure has important implications for trinitarianism,
incarnation, and atonement. As already stated (see chapter 2, section
2), it is not possible within the confines of this work to consider in
detail JDS teaching’s trinitarianism, incarnationalism, or account of the
atonement, still less to offer relevant theories in their place. Neverthe-
less, some observations are pertinent.
As far as the Trinity is concerned, if Moltmann and Balthasar can
be accused of tritheism, when they express both a separation between
and a unity of Father and Son, how much more can this accusation
be directed at a depiction of separation that includes no such coun-
terweight. If Jesus remains the divine Son while simply separated from
God the Father, this seems deeply problematic for an articulation of
the everlasting unity of God. It is possible that Balthasar’s account
of an eternal kenosis might ‘come to the rescue’ at this point, but it
must immediately be conceded that Balthasar’s idea is speculative. Of
course, it cannot be claimed that simply ‘balancing’ separation, para-
doxically, with unity overcomes these perplexing trinitarian questions.
It does, however, at least offer a possible way towards articulating the
maintenance of divine unity in the midst of separation.
Turning now to the matter of incarnation, the JDS portrayal is

perhaps a consequence, and certainly a confirmation of, the somewhat
Apollinarian and/or adoptionistic Christology, coupled with a marked
functional kenoticism, expressed within JDS teaching (see pages 29–31).
These attributes of JDS incarnationalism, though difficult to reconcile,
combine to form a Christology in which the divine and the human
in Christ are less firmly coinherent than in traditional forms of the
hypostatic union. If God can inhabit a human body, or choose to ‘come
into’ a human, then God can also all too easily depart from this body or
person. Fully incarnational Christology at this point seems somewhat
compromised. This compromise is relieved if the complete unity of God
and Christ on the cross is emphasised. It must be conceded, again, that
positing the unity of God and Christ on the cross as a counterweight,
rather than an alternative, to a postulated separation does not in one
stroke remove the difficulty for incarnational Christology. However, it
must be repeated that some difficulty already exists for incarnation in
declaring that Christ was born, grew, hungered, thirsted, tired, suffered,
and died (how can God do these things, such as die?).132 To suggest that
Christ was separated from God is in effect part of the same awkward
question.
With respect to the atonement, a failure to hold a separation in para-
doxical combination with unity drifts all too easily into the impression
of a divided atoning purpose or action between the persons of the God-
head. Vincent Taylor was right to criticise any “division within the
Godhead” in which “the compassionate Son is set over against the just
and holy Father.”133 In the JDS presentation, the misconstrual would be
more likely to be that a loving God is sacrificing a passive Jesus. Such
a division of purpose or action is not explicit among JDS teachers, but
their writing could be understood this way by someone predisposed to
do so.
132 References in Christian theology to the ‘death of God’ have been consistently,
and perhaps necessarily, paradoxical, from Tertullian’s (145-?220) statement that “God
has died, and yet is alive for ever and ever” (Against Marcion II.XVI) to Jüngel’s writing
“Vom Tod des lebendingen Gottes” (Zeitscrift für Theologie und Kirche 65 [1968], 93–116).
Both references from Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection, 240, nn. 124, 126.
133 Vincent Taylor, The Cross of Christ (London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd, 1956), 91.
Taylor continued, “The true presupposition of the doctrine of the Atonement is the
fact that God is love and that in the work of reconciliation Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
are at one.” McLeod Campbell’s arguments against Scottish Calvinism on this point,
and for divine unity in the atonement, have already been noted (page 164).
186 chapter four
One final observation is necessary at this point: JDS teaching is by

no means unique in articulating a separation on the cross that is not
held in paradoxical tension with an expression of complete divine unity,
and is therefore not alone in being vulnerable to the criticisms voiced in
this section. Given the extent within Christianity to which these views
are held, this aspect of JDS teaching, at least, cannot be labelled as
‘heretical’. Rather, it is a relatively unsophisticated version of a nexus of
beliefs widely held for many generations within fully ‘orthodox’ circles.

JDS teaching’s claim that the crucified Jesus was separated from God
cannot be regarded as contradicting the witness of either the Christian
scriptures or the later church, at least as represented by some of their
voices. As such, it cannot be validly denounced as ‘heretical’. In partic-
ular, among Kenyon’s contemporary sources, this view was held by the
prominent ‘orthodox’ proponent of Faith Cure, A.J. Gordon.
In turn, any criticisms of this aspect of JDS doctrine must be directed
not only at it, but also at other expressions of the same idea. Of these
criticisms, the one that carries greatest force is the observation that JDS
teaching fails, in its postulation of a separation between God and the
crucified Christ, to highlight a simultaneous, and vitally important,
unity between the two. This failure compromises the trinitarianism,
incarnationalism and atonement theology of JDS doctrine, as it does
of any presentation of Christ’s death that similarly fails to marry a
separation or abandonment with a concomitant intimate unity.
chapter five
JESUS’ ‘SPIRITUAL DEATH’ AS PARTAKING

OF A SINFUL, SATANIC NATURE1
1. Introduction
JDS doctrine involves, with minor variations between the teachers,

three central concepts. These are that in his ‘spiritual death’, Jesus was
separated from God, partook of a sinful, satanic nature, and became
Satan’s prey. The first of these concepts was the focus of chapter 4. The
third will occupy the attention of chapter 6. This chapter deals with the
second: Jesus partook of Satan’s sinful nature.
Sections 2 and 3 indicate the main features of the idea as taught
by Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland, and demonstrate some divergence
between the three. Section 4 examines the responses made by a number
of the critics introduced in chapter 1, and section 5 focuses on the
sources, including biblical ones, used by JDS teachers in forming their
ideas. Section 6 discusses the extent to which JDS teaching in this
respect departs from or adheres to traditional formulations concerning
Christ’s experiences on the cross. Finally, conclusions to the chapter will
be offered in section 7.
One of the difficulties facing the discussion presented in this chapter
is that the authors under review do not at any point define ‘nature’. Nor
do they explicitly state whether exhibiting a ‘satanic nature’ involves
merely ‘sinfulness’, a bondage to sinful tendencies, or whether in fact
it means a more explicitly personal relationship with Satan. Hints are
available in their writings, and are interacted with in this discussion,
but the lack of overt definition does hinder the process.2 It will emerge
in early sections of this chapter that on this particular aspect of JDS
1 Chapter 5 contains an amended version of material previously published as: “The
Nature of the Crucified Christ in Word-Faith Teaching,” Evangelical Review of Theology

31:2 (2007): 169–184. It is reused here with permission.
2 Bowman makes the same observation (Controversy, 225).
188 chapter five
teaching, Kenyon was the creative and detailed thinker. Hagin and
Copeland are content to reproduce, with their own slight variations,
Kenyon’s views in much simpler and briefer fashion.
2. Satan
2.1. God-Satan dualism

The stark dualism between God and Satan that operates in JDS teach-
ing has already been noted briefly. Unsurprisingly, critics of JDS the-
ology express concern about this portrayal of Satan. McConnell char-
acterises the Word-faith view of the atonement as ‘satanward’ rather
than ‘godward’.3 Hanegraaff devotes a whole chapter to what he calls
the Word-faith movement’s ‘deification of Satan’.4 In fact, according to
Hanegraaff, although “Faith teachers are not as blatantly dualistic as
Zoroastrians and ancient Gnostics”,
Faith mythology features an implicit form of dualism: two forces fighting
it out for control of the universe, and you never know who is finally going
to win. If God had not caught Satan on a technicality, Jesus would have
been doomed, humans would have been eternally lost, and Satan would
have won the universe!5
Smail, Walker and Wright agree: Word-faith teaching displays meta-

physical dualism in practice if not in theory.6
Despite Hanegraaff’s reference to Gnosticism, the form of dualism
evinced by JDS teaching is not that in which spirit is good and matter
is evil (though spirit is more important than matter; see pages 132–137).
That such is the case is evidenced by the great concern of Word-faith
teachers that Christians should receive physical healing.7 This dualism,
while bearing vague resemblance to Zoroastrianism, is actually similar
to the one found in the early church, in which God and Satan are at
enmity with one another, and Satan can, temporarily, exercise certain
powers in the human world. Some dualism of this sort is found in
the New Testament, for instance in the synoptic accounts of Christ’s

4 Hanegraaff, Crisis, ch. 11.
5 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 129–130.
7 E.g. Kenyon, Jesus the Healer; Hagin, Redeemed; Copeland, “Power.”
partaking of a sinful, satanic nature 189
temptations. The dualism in Word-faith teaching is, admittedly, stark,

and the number of references to Satan in JDS doctrine vast, but, as in
much of the early church, the dualism is not absolute. Satan is created
by God,8 and God has revealed that the victory is assuredly his.9
One way, however, in which the dualism of JDS doctrine clearly
surpasses that of the New Testament is that in the former Satan is the
lord of hell (contrast Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10). A noteworthy
example of this is Kenyon’s belief that Luke 12:5 (“Fear the one who,
after killing, has authority to throw into hell”) is a call to fear not
God but Satan.10 Thus, when Jesus ‘goes’ to hell, he is entering Satan’s
territory and is at Satan’s mercy (or lack of it). This aspect of the
dualism has an impact on the discussion not only in this chapter but
also in the next.
2.2. Satan’s sinful nature

Turning now to Satan’s ‘nature’, Kenyon used the latter word in the
context under consideration in synonymity with ‘substance’, ‘being’,
and ‘character’.11 He seemed thereby to mean ‘all that an entity in-
wardly and innately is’. In assuming this sense, he leant on Eph-
esians 2:3 (“we were by nature children of wrath”).12 However, in the
immediate contexts of divine and satanic natures, he also wrote in an
almost personifying way, for instance that, “Spiritual death is in reality
a Nature,” adding in apparent synonymity that, “Spiritual Death is as
much a substance, a force, a fact, as life.”13 Here, he seemed to envisage
‘nature’, if divine or satanic, as a substantial force having an impact on,
presumably, the entity ‘partaking’ of it.
Kenyon noted that Satan’s nature changed when he rebelled against
God. Since then, his “nature is the very opposite of God’s”, “the
8 Kenyon, Father, 57 (angel); Hagin, Origin, 7 (creature); Copeland, “Gates,” 6 (an-

gel). In the early church, Origen’s dualism, in which “the creation had to be regarded
as concomitant with the being of God and as eternally coexisting with him” (Thomas
F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988], 85) was effectively
countered by Athanasius. See Torrance’s discussion in Trinitarian Faith, 84–86.
9 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 69–70; Hagin, Zoe, 45; Copeland, “Gates,” 6. JDS teaching
places the victory solely in past atonement, without reference to an eschatological

consummation of that victory.
11 Kenyon, Father, 47, 57, 64.
12 Kenyon, Bible, 33, Father, 53.
13 Kenyon, Bible, 28, 30; cf. 37; Father, 50.
190 chapter five
very fountain of all that is evil, wicked, and corrupt in the human,”
“malignant . . . evil, unjust, and destructive.”14 The best way to per-
ceive the satanic nature was through Satan’s names, as Kenyon under-
stood them from the Bible. These included ‘accuser’, ‘defamer’, ‘slan-
derer’, ‘corrupter’, ‘tempter’, ‘seducer’, ‘murderer’, and ‘liar’.15 “Out of
Satan’s nature comes [sic] hatred, murder, lust, and every unclean and
evil force in the world.”16 It is difficult to perceive any distinction in
Kenyon’s writing between the meanings of the terms ‘satanic nature’
and ‘sin nature’.
Hagin understood Satan’s nature similarly. ‘Nature’ he used in ap-
parent synonymity with ‘characteristics’, and stated that, “The nature
of the devil is hatred and lies.”17 Copeland, in rather circular fashion,
simply defines Satan’s nature as spiritual death, stating elsewhere that
Satan’s nature is ‘sin’.18
3. Partaking of a sinful, satanic nature
3.1. Kenyon’s view

A key term for Kenyon was ‘partaking’ of the satanic nature.19 His
adoption of the term may well have sprung, by way of contrast, from
the statement in 2 Peter 1:4 that redeemed humans might be “partak-
ers of the divine nature” (KJV, et al). For Kenyon, Satan’s nature, like
God’s, is communicable to humanity. In fact, humans are so dependent
on a ‘higher’ spiritual force that they cannot exist without participating
in either God’s or Satan’s nature.20 This is a mutually exclusive choice,
and not a mere claim that an individual could reflect certain aspects
of the image of God while also exhibiting certain behavioural traits
of Satan: “It would have been an unthinkable crime for the Nature
of God and the nature of Satan to have been united in one individ-
14 Kenyon, Father, 47 (2), 57.

16 Kenyon, Father, 47; cf. 50; 64–68.
17 Hagin, Name, 31; cf. Birth, 10.
18 Copeland, Covenant, 9–10; What Happened, side 2.
19 Kenyon used the phrase frequently with reference to humanity’s fall (e.g. Father,
37, 41, 42, 47, 48, 51; Bible, 30, 33), but also applied it to Christ (e.g. Father, 137).
ual.”21 Adam, created to participate in God’s nature, began instead to

participate in Satan’s when he fell into sin. Whether participation in
the divine nature and participation in the satanic nature were equiv-
alent in their degree and effect is less than clear. Participation in the
divine nature was not so great that Adam was divine rather than human
before the fall: “He did not have God’s nature. He had perfect human
nature. He had perfect human life.” It might thus charitably, and seem-
ingly reasonably, be assumed that Adam did not become satanic rather
than human after the fall. Nevertheless, the words quoted immediately
above are surrounded by the following:
Satan breathed into Adam his own nature. Adam was actually born
again in the Garden. . . Into his spirit, Satan now poured his own nature.
Man instantly became a liar, a cringing, cowardly being. That nature has
been reproduced in the human race down through the ages.22
The profound and intrinsic character of the participation in Satan’s

nature that these words reveal is confirmed elsewhere: “Man commits
Sin, because his Nature produces that kind of conduct.”23 Kenyon may
simply have meant here ‘fallen nature’ by “Nature”, but given the tenor
of his writing, it is also possible that he meant to indicate that fallen
humanity was such a full participator in Satan’s nature that this satanic
nature was now humanity’s own.24
Turning now from Adam to Jesus, “as Moses lifted up the Serpent
in the wilderness Jesus was also lifted up a serpent; that is, He was a
partaker of Satanic Nature, the old Serpent.”25 Whether, for Kenyon,
Christ’s partaking in Satan’s nature meant quite the same as Adam’s
partaking in it is a matter to be explored (see below, here and in section
4). His view of substitution, in which Christ underwent what humanity
suffered when it fell, in order that humanity might thus be redeemed,
might suggest that it was the same. On the other hand, Kenyon’s
descriptions of Christ do not overtly state or even imply that Christ,
while ‘spiritually dead’, was at enmity with God, a liar or a coward,
unlike Adam.
In order to consider what Kenyon meant by ‘partaking’ when specif-
ically applied to Christ, it is helpful to note some of his other relevant

24 This is the understanding offered by McConnell (Promise, 118).
192 chapter five
language. He wrote, for instance, that Jesus’ “spirit absolutely became

impregnated with the sin nature of the world.”26 This continues to sug-
gest large synonymity between ‘Satanic nature’ and ‘sin nature’ (see
page 190), but his use of the word ‘impregnated’ also suggests that
Kenyon’s use of ‘partake’ was not a reference merely to an extrinsic
‘fellowship with’, but rather suggests an intrinsic alteration in, or at
least adulteration of, the nature of Christ. A similar conclusion is sug-
gested by the words ‘one’ ‘united’ and ‘all’ in: “He became one with
Satan when He became sin”; “Jesus knew He was going to be lifted up,
united with the Adversary”; “The sin-nature itself was laid upon Him,
until He became all that spiritual death had made man.”27 It is thus
reasonable to conclude that when Kenyon used the language of identi-
fication, he did not only mean that Christ was ‘counted’ as one of the
fallen human race, but that He became, intrinsically, what humans had
become, without committing actual sin.
While the weight of the evidence points, then, to an intrinsic ‘par-
taking’ of the Satanic nature in Christ while He suffered, occasionally
Kenyon used more externally orientated language: “Here we see God
taking our sin nature, hideous spiritual death, and making it to strike,
as the Prophet says, upon His soul.”28 Lie speculates that Kenyon may
have meant to indicate no more by writing of a ‘partaking’ in Satan’s
nature than a recognition that both Christ and Satan must experi-
ence hell: “Does union with the enemy refer to the fact that both
the devil and Jesus himself will have to suffer in the pit of hell, albeit
the adversary sometime in the future?”29 This speculation, however,
does not cohere with Kenyon’s overall portrayal. Whatever precisely
Kenyon meant, he was indicating something more intrinsic than simply
an experience common to the two.
The lack of clarity concerning how intrinsic Christ’s participation
in Satan’s nature was means that a second uncertainty has emerged:
not only is it unclear whether Adam partook in Satan’s nature to such
an extent that this nature was his own, but also whether Jesus partook
in Satan’s nature to the same extent that Adam did. No firm answers
to these questions are offered. On the one hand, Kenyon insisted that
Christ was a full substitute for fallen humanity. On the other hand,

27 Kenyon, Identification, 21; What Happened, 44–45; Bible, 165.
Christ’s partaking of the satanic nature did not involve the enmity with
God that it did for Adam.
3.2. Hagin’s and Copeland’s views

When one turns from Kenyon’s writing to the more recent output of
Hagin and Copeland, it quickly becomes clear that they do not refer
to this aspect of spiritual death with anything like the frequency that
Kenyon did.
Hagin believed precisely the same things that Kenyon did regarding
fallen Adam’s partaking of the satanic nature.30 In contrast to Kenyon,
however, Hagin stopped short of overtly using the phrase ‘partaking of
Satan’s nature’ when referring to Christ on the cross. This seems to
have been a deliberate choice, and initially suggests divergence from
Kenyon’s ideas. In fact Hagin, when asked his precise view by Hane-
graaff, replied, “I don’t believe that Jesus took on Satan’s nature.”31
However, both Hanegraaff and Bowman are cautious about accept-
ing Hagin’s disavowal. Hanegraaff writes, “It becomes very confus-
ing indeed when someone denies the very thing he affirms”.32 This is
slightly misleading, for Hagin did not affirm in so many words that
Christ took on Satan’s nature. Bowman is more nuanced:
We ought, of course, to take Hagin at his word that he finds such a way
of expressing his teaching somehow unacceptable. On the other hand,
we should not assume too quickly that Hagin disagrees with the idea
expressed by saying that Jesus took on Satan’s nature.33
Bowman’s accurate thinking is confirmed by Hagin’s explicit state-

ments that Christ’s suffering involved His taking “upon Himself our
sin nature, the nature of spiritual death” and “He took our spiritual
30 Hagin, New Birth, 10. It is conceivable that Hagin’s attitude altered, though mini-
mally, between the publication of the first edition of Redeemed in 1966 and the publica-
tion of the second edition in 1983. The first edition has, in bold type, “Spiritual death
means separation from God” (28). This is ‘mirrored’, effectively as a subheading, by
the statement, also in bold, “Spiritual death means having Satan’s nature” (29). In the
1983 edition, though the former statement is retained (now in italics; 59), the latter is
removed. However, the removal of this quasi-subheading is not reflecting by any exten-
sive alteration of the text. A fallen human still “is spiritually a child of the devil, and he
partakes of his father’s nature” (60–61 of 2nd edition; 29 of 1st edition).
31 Hagin, correspondence with Hanegraaff, quoted in Bowman, Controversy, 161, and,
more briefly, in Hanegraaff, Crisis, 156.

33 Bowman, Controversy, 167–168, italics original.
194 chapter five
death . . . our outlawed nature”.34 These show that his concepts did not
differ substantially from those of Kenyon, for he had made it abun-
dantly clear that ‘our’ sinful, outlawed nature was that of Satan.35 At no
point did he seek to distinguish semantically between ‘satanic nature’, ‘sin
nature’ as applied to fallen humanity, and ‘sin nature’ as applied to the
‘spiritually dead’ Christ.
For Copeland, fallen human participation in Satan’s nature, and
the identity of this concept with ‘spiritual death’, emerges in such
statements as
When Adam committed high treason against God and bowed his knee
to Satan, spiritual death—the nature of Satan—was lodged in his heart.
Actually, Adam was the first person ever to be born again. He was born
from life unto death, from spiritual life unto spiritual death. . . God said
that Adam would die the very day he ate the forbidden fruit, yet he lived
several hundred years longer. God was not referring to physical death;
He meant that Adam would die spiritually—that he would take on the
nature of Satan which is spiritual death.36
He further describes this ‘lodging in the heart’ and ‘taking on’ of

Satan’s nature as a “union between Satan and mankind.”37
Copeland repeats Kenyon’s and Hagin’s references to ‘sin nature’, but

does not repeat Hagin’s reticence in ascribing participation in Satan’s
nature to the ‘spiritually dead’ Christ. When Jesus suffered humanity’s
‘spiritual death’, Copeland writes, “He was made to be our sinfulness
so that we could be made His righteousness”, “When Jesus went to the
cross, He not only bore the penalty for our sinful conduct, He bore
sin itself. He took on Himself the sin nature and every manifestation
of death and destruction it carries with it”, “Man is a partaker of
satanic nature due to the fall; Jesus bore that nature” and, expounding
John 3:14, “the serpent denote[s] union and harmony with the nature
of the Adversary.”38 His preaching also explicitly links the sin nature to
Satan: Christ “accepted the sin nature of Satan in His own spirit.”39
34 Hagin, Redeemed, 2nd edition 64; Present-Day Ministry, 6.

35 Hagin, New Birth, 10; Redeemed, 2nd edition 60–61; Name, 31.
36 Copeland, Covenant, 9–10.
37 Copeland, Covenant, 11; cf. “Great Exchange,” 5.
38 Copeland, Force of Righteousness, 24; “Worthy,” 5; Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 3 (twice).

Section 3 has analysed that aspect of JDS teaching which proposes that
in his ‘spiritual death’ Jesus partook of a sinful, satanic nature. It has
been shown that Kenyon taught this most fully and unambiguously,
though even his exposition created two significant uncertainties: did
Adam partake in Satan’s nature to the extent that this nature was
intrinsically his, and did Jesus partake of this nature to the same extent
as Adam? These uncertainties create further ones: how intrinsic to his
being was Christ’s participation in this alleged satanic nature, and what
effect on his being did this have?
Hagin, it has been seen, explicitly denied teaching that Christ par-
took of Satan’s nature. He did teach that Christ took an outlawed sin
nature, and in practice made no distinction between it and the satanic
nature that Adam had allegedly inherited at his fall. Copeland repre-
sents a return to Kenyon’s more outspoken language. In both writing
and preaching, Copeland explicitly relates Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ to
the nature of the devil. Neither Hagin nor Copeland, in the varied
ways that each approaches this subject, dispels the uncertainties created
by Kenyon.
4. The responses of the critics
A number of characterisations and criticisms are offered by the critics

introduced in chapter 1. This aspect of JDS teaching is characterised
by some as presenting Christ as “demonic”, or “a demoniac”.40 While
discussion about any possible differences between the concepts ‘satanic’
and ‘demonic’ lies beyond the limits of this work, it is nevertheless
necessary to point out that the term Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland
always use is ‘satanic’, not ‘demonic’. The change in term thus presents
at least the possibility of misrepresenting the concept.
The Christ of JDS teaching is also characterised as a ‘new satanic
creation’. McConnell introduces this term, and is followed by Perri-
man.41 McConnell cites both Kenyon and Hagin in his relevant end-
note. However, the two passages McConnell refers to are about Adam,
40 Brandon, Health, 126; McConnell, Promise, 120; Hanegraaff, Crisis, 155, 160; Smail,
Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 69.

41 McConnell, Promise, 118, 120; Perriman, Faith, 24–25.
196 chapter five
not Christ. The extent to which Christ’s experience exactly mirrors

Adam’s in JDS teaching is a moot point (see section 3).
Turning now to the criticisms, some are banal and require no com-
ment. Hanegraaff worries about whether Satan must have become the
recipient of Christ’s prayers when the latter cried ‘Father’ from the cross
(Luke 23:34).42 Dal Bello opines that Christ himself would by JDS reck-
oning have needed a saviour.43 Others are more thoughtful and require
consideration.
Of these, one criticism comments that to state that Christ partook
of the satanic nature is necessarily to imply that Christ committed
actual sin. Thus according to McConnell and dal Bello, the Christ of
JDS teaching, while on the cross, was “sinful”, for Brandon, he was a
“sinner”, for Perriman he was “inherently sinful”, and for McCann, he
was “obedient to Satan.”44 Bowman is a lone voice in this respect. He
recognises that JDS teachers “mean that Jesus took on a sinful nature,
the nature of Satan, so that somehow Jesus himself, without committing
any sin (as we may gratefully acknowledge the Word-Faith teachers
to recognize), comes to have the character of sin.”45 That Bowman’s
greater caution is justified will emerge in the next few paragraphs.
The critics’ rejoinder is consistently to point out that Old Testament
sacrifices of which Christ’s is seen to be an echo involved blemish-
free animals, and that the New Testament in turn presents Christ as
a ‘lamb without blemish or spot’.46 This argument seems to ignore the
state of sacrificial animals—and Christ—during the process of killing.
However physically blemish-free they were beforehand, they certainly
were marred as the knife, nails or spear entered the body.
The rejoinder also fails to acknowledge the recognition of JDS teach-
ing that Christ was indeed sinless.47 Dal Bello criticises Copeland for

43 dal Bello, “Atonement Where? Part 2.”
44 McConnell, Promise, 127; dal Bello, “Atonement Where? Part 2;” Brandon, Health,
126; Perriman, Faith, 110; Vincent McCann, “An Evaluation of the Key Doctrines in the
Health and Wealth Faith Movement,” (1998), http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/
faithmov.htm.
46 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 158; Brandon, Health, 126; McConnell, Promise, 127; Perriman,
Faith, 110; Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 69. References are
made to Leviticus 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 6:25–29; Deuteronomy 15:21; 1 Corinthians 2:8;
Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19; 3:18.
47 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 123–124; Hagin, Present-Day Ministry, ch. 1 (implied in his
logic); Copeland, “Power,” 5.

being contradictory when the latter states that Christ was spotless when
he went to the cross, but accepted Satan’s sin-nature when he hung
there.48 It is not self-evident that this understanding is contradictory.
Christ’s being could have undergone some sort of change. Neverthe-
less, Kenyon had taught not only that Christ was sinless during his
earthly ministry, but also that he was sinless while separated from God
and taken to hell by Satan.49 It may be that Copeland’s teaching here
contradicts not his own, but Kenyon’s. However, it remains less than
certain that Copeland, any more than Kenyon, conceived of Christ as
one who committed actual sin when he partook of the satanic nature.
A second important criticism is that for Christ to have partaken of
the satanic nature, he must either thereby have ceased to be divine,50
or have exhibited a blend of divine and satanic natures.51 The latter
criticism presents an idea that Kenyon had in fact earlier rejected, at
least with reference to Adam,52 and which seems foreign to Hagin’s
and Copeland’s presentations, with their focus on Jesus’ separation
from God. The former criticism requires fuller response, and it is at
this point that a particular weakness in JDS teaching emerges, for
Christ’s participation with sin and Satan, while separate from God the
Father, is presented in such intrinsic terms that the crucified Christ does
indeed seem to be presented in ways which do not support his divinity.
As noted above, Kenyon firmly excluded the idea that Adam could
partake of the divine nature and the satanic nature simultaneously.
What of Christ? Did his participation in the satanic nature compromise
the divine nature that was intrinsic to his incarnate person? Question
48 Dal Bello, “Atonement Where? Part 2.”

49 Kenyon, Father, 119, 130, 136. As Lie accurately observes (Lie, “Theology,” 100,
italics original):
Kenyon emphasises suffering as the essential nature of Jesus’ three days and nights
in hell, and does not say that Jesus’ alleged spiritual death caused any demonic
hatred to flow from the spirit of Jesus. He also does not suggest that Jesus
mentally agreed to or identified with the activities of the adversary. In this sense
Kenyon gives no evidence of any transformation of the spiritual nature of Jesus.
50 Perriman, Faith, 22 (“transformation from a divine to a satanic creature”); Bow-
man, Controversy, 161 (“implication”: “rarely if ever stated explicitly”); Hanegraaff, Crisis,
155 (“transformation from a divine being into a demoniac”); Hanegraaff and de Castro,
“What’s Wrong? Part Two,” (“Copeland tacitly admits that Jesus completely lost His
deity”).
51 Dal Bello, “Atonement Where? Part 2.”
198 chapter five
marks are thus raised not only about JDS teaching’s understanding of
the cross, but also about its incarnational Christology.
While it might charitably be assumed that Christ’s divine nature, as
understood by JDS doctrine, was entirely intrinsic to his person, there
is a suspicion that Christ partook of the divine nature in somewhat
more extrinsic ways, commensurate only with both Adam’s pre-fall
partaking of the divine nature, and Christ’s own accursed partaking
of the satanic nature. Thus, the uniqueness of the incarnation, and
in turn of Christ’s person, is not clearly maintained in this portrayal.
This Christology thus seems to exhibit adoptionistic tendencies. If this
suspicion is true, it serves to explain the ready freedom with which
these authors regard Christians as “as much an Incarnation as was
Jesus of Nazareth.”53 It must, however, be noted that these tendencies
are not carried through to their logical conclusions. Kenyon effectively
denied adoptionism,54 and when other aspects of Christ’s incarnate
life are portrayed, Kenyon et al reveal a Christology that is firmly
‘from above’: “God was manifest in the flesh. God lived as a man
among us and we know His nature.”55 If anything, JDS Christology
resembles Apollinarianism more than it does adoptionism (see page
29) Furthermore, Kenyon did not write that Christ ‘partook’ of the
divine nature during his incarnate life. This terminological distinction
might, in the final analysis, reveal an unconscious distinction between
the extents to which Christ was divine in his life and satanic in his
death, and thus an underlying acknowledgement that Christ continued
to be divine in himself while nevertheless partaking in some unexplained
way in the satanic nature.
A third criticism is the stark one, stated by Bowman and by Smail,
Walker and Wright, and implied by others, that JDS teaching at this
point is simply without biblical support.56 This requires considerable
further discussion, and 5.2 to 5.4 will be devoted to this.
In conclusion to section 4, JDS teaching’s critics raise three signif-
icant objections to the belief that Christ partook of a sinful satanic
nature. The first is the weakest. This is that Christ must thereby have
sinned. This represents an inaccurate reading of JDS teaching. The
53 Kenyon, Father, 100; cf. Hagin, Zoe, 42. See pages 30; 37.
55 Kenyon, Bible, 158; cf. Hagin, Zoe, 39; Copeland, “Taking An Offense,” 5.
56 Bowman, Controversy, 168–169; Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowl-
edge,” 69.
critics’ response also presents an overly superficial reading of the Bible

concerning the process of biblical sacrifice. The second is much more
robust. It is that Christ must thereby have ceased to be divine. The
uncertainties that emerged in section 3 concerning precisely how
Christ’s partaking of a sinful satanic nature is to be construed make it
impossible to offer a definitive assessment of Christ’s continuing divinity
while ‘spiritually dead’. The uncertainty that exists is matched by a sim-
ilar one concerning the participation of the human Christ in the divine
nature. Adoptionistic tendencies exist. The third is that there is no bib-
lical warrant for this thinking. This third criticism will be considered in
detail in the next section.
5. Kenyon’s, Hagin’s and Copeland’s sources
As with all their theology, these three authors regard the Bible as
teaching their views. It is with few exceptions the only source they
explicitly cite. However, Hagin’s and Copeland’s likely dependence on
Kenyon has already been discussed (pages 21–22; 46; 86). In turn,
McConnell claims that Kenyon was dependent on New Thought and
Christian Science for his ‘spiritualisation’ of Christ’s death.57 5.1 will
therefore consider the extent to which Kenyon, and through him Hagin
and Copeland, might have been influenced by sources that Christian
tradition would regard as ‘heterodox’, before 5.2 to 5.4 discuss those
biblical passages which stand out as central to their understanding.
5.1. Kenyon’s possible implicit sources

A cursory reading of McConnell’s work might give the impression that
Kenyon gained all his more controversial ideas about Christ’s death
from New Thought and Christian Science sources. However, it has
become apparent in earlier chapters that Kenyon was more indebted
to Higher Life and Faith Cure authors for his views on the atonement
as he was to New Thought or Christian Science. Concerning this
chapter’s focus, it can simply be noted that neither relevant Higher
Life and Faith Cure nor possible New Thought and Christian Science

200 chapter five
sources referred explicitly to Christ’s partaking of a sinful, satanic na-

ture. Even the author who wrote most overtly about Jesus ‘dying spir-
itually’, Henry C. Mabie (see pages 117–119), did not even hint that
Christ related closely to Satan in the process. He did write of Jesus’
“vicarious union with the guilty human race” and that Jesus “became
as it were sin itself ”,58 but although he referred to Satan in his works,
he did not correlate Satan with this guilt or sin. The greatest termi-
nological similarity is to be found in the writing of A.B. Simpson,
who claimed that the snakes referred to in Numbers 21 represented
Satan, and then employed the same logic as does Copeland (see page
206):
There was also in that brazen serpent the thought of Christ made sin for
us, Christ assuming the vile and dishonoured name of sinful man, and
counted by God, and treated by men, as if He were indeed a serpent and
a criminal. Thus for us has He taken the sting from Satan.59
Even here, however, the thought that Christ was “counted by God. . . as
if He were . . . a serpent”, while relating Christ in some tangential and
implicit way to Satan, falls short of stating overtly that Christ partook of
Satan’s nature. At most, small seeds lie here which may have flourished
into Kenyon’s full-flowered exposition.
In the absence of any reference among these sources to the cruci-
fied Christ’s partaking with, union with or impregnation by the satanic
nature, the only other point of note relevant to the discussion is that
New Thought and Christian Science were essentially monistic.60 The
New Thought and Christian Science authors introduced in chapter 2
(P.P. Quimby; Ralph Waldo Emerson; Mary Baker Eddy; Ralph Waldo
Trine) did not give Satan anything like the attention offered by Kenyon.
Quimby mentioned the devil very occasionally, regarding it/him as
identical with ignorance or error.61 Eddy, though she did refer to “the
personification of evil”, denied the existence of a personal devil.62 On
58 Mabie, Death, 39, 42.

59 Simpson, Gospel of Healing, 101; cf. 29.
60 Michael York, The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-Pagan Move-
ments (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1995), 167–168: “This
worldview of the mental-spiritual as the sole reality—one composed only of goodness
and light—is part of the Swedenborgian/New Thought and Eastern monistic heritages
of the New Age.”
61 Dresser, Quimby Manuscripts, ch. 14; Phineas Quimby, “Questions and Answers,”
(n.d.), http://www.ppquimby.com/sub/articles/questions_and_answers.htm.
62 Eddy, Science, 103 (cf. 357), 469; No and Yes, 19, 27–30.
the other hand, Higher Life and Faith Cure were far more dualis-
tic: some of their writers introduced in chapter 2 mentioned Satan,
the devil, demons, or ‘spiritual enemies’ with some frequency, though
admittedly they did so without the degree of attention offered by Ken-
yon.63
A terminological link does emerge, however, between Trine and
Kenyon over use of the word ‘partaker’. Trine frequently used this
term to refer to humanity’s relationship to ‘divinity’.64 It is conceivable
that his use influenced Kenyon. However, 2 Peter 1:4 is likely to be the
primary influence on Kenyon, and possibly on Trine as well.
5.2. Biblical source material—fallen humanity

Kenyon’s thinking on this subject began with humanity’s fall. Adam’s
partaking of the satanic nature, as a result of his disobedience, was
however stated with neither biblical material nor logical deduction to
support it.65 Kenyon seemed to believe that he had plentiful biblical
undergirding to his views:
It is very clear that when Spiritual Death entered the life of Adam,
his spirit underwent a complete change. Man was actually born again
when he sinned. He was born of Satan. He became a partaker of
satanic nature. He became a child of Satan. Read 1 John 3:12, John 5:24,
1 John 3:14–15, and Ephesians 2:1–5. Spiritual Death, this hideous mon-
ster, seized the sovereignty, the dominion, the lordship over creation.66
Nevertheless, the texts he listed, while referring to human sin, the
agency of ‘the prince of the power of the air’ in its genesis, ‘spiritual’
death, and even ‘nature’ do not indicate any human ‘partaking of
63 E.g. Gordon, Behold He Cometh, 99–100, 103, 118–120, 141–142, 152–154, 174; Ma-
bie, Death, 5, 41; Montgomery, Prayer, 18, 26, 66, 68, 92; Andrew Murray, The Holiest
of All (London: Oliphants Ltd., 1960 [1894]), 96; The Power of the Blood of Jesus and the
Blood of the Cross (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, Ltd., 1935, 1951 [n.d.]), 169;
A.B. Simpson, The Holy Spirit or Power from On High Volume II (New York: The Christian
Alliance Publishing Co., 1896), 176, 248, 269; Gospel of Healing, 28, 78, 86, 99, 101;
Holy Spirit Vol. I, 133; Standing, 49, 67, 78, 97; Hannah W. Smith, The Christian’s Secret of
a Happy Life (Westwood, N.J.: Fleming A. Revell Company, 1952 [n.d.]), 97, 122, 124;
Torrey, Fulness of Power, 40; Watson, Coals of Fire, 108; Our Own God, 143.
64 Trine, In Tune, xiv, 4, 29, 75; e.g. xiv: “All are partakers and individual expressions
of the One Life.”

65 Kenyon, Father, 35–38; Bible, 25–29.
66 Kenyon, Bible, 30, paragraph breaks removed.
202 chapter five
Satan’s nature’ in these phenomena. Likewise, Hagin offered no direct

scriptural evidence for his assertion that, “When Adam and Eve lis-
tened to the devil, the devil became their spiritual father and they had
the devil’s nature in their spirits.” He observed that Cain killed Abel,
but did not manage to ascertain that this event was evidence not only
of moral failure, but of participation in Satan’s nature.67
John 8:44 (μες κ τ' πατρ7ς τ' δια8$λυ στ!) indicated to Ken-
yon and Hagin that fallen humanity imbibed Satan’s nature, for “the
father . . . has given man his nature.”68 It is true that here Jesus is given
to say that his interlocutors exhibited some of Satan’s characteristics
(τ9ς πιυμας τ' πατρ7ς μν +λετε πιεν). Insufficient evidence is
provided in this brief passage, however, to conclude that the whole
of fallen humanity shares in Satan’s characteristics to the extent that
Kenyon and Hagin believed.
5.3. Biblical source material—2 Corinthians 5:21
τ7ν μ/ γν$ντα μαρταν π!ρ :μν μαρταν πησεν, ;να :μες γενμεα
δικαισνη ε' ν α,τ#
“him who knew no sin he made sin for us, that we might become the
righteousness of God in him.”
Turning from any postulated participation in a satanic nature by fallen
humanity to that alleged participation by Christ, Kenyon leant firmly
on 2 Corinthians 5:21. This verse is often quoted, referred to, or alluded
to by Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland,69 and most especially by Kenyon.
For him, it offered direct evidence that Jesus partook of the satanic
nature, or of “the sin-nature itself.”70 Similarly for Copeland, 2 Corin-
thians 5:21 offers evidence that Jesus “accepted the sin nature of Satan”,
“was made to be our sinfulness”, and “was so literally made sin in spirit
67 Hagin, New Birth, 10.

68 Kenyon, Father, 62; cf. 41, 63; What Happened, 60–61; Hagin, New Birth, 10; Man On
Three Dimensions, 29.
69 E.g. Kenyon, Bible, 47, 159, 165, 220; Blood Covenant, 38; Father, 137, 222; Jesus the
Healer, 9, 26, 36, 57, 63, 67; Presence, 54, 56; Two Kinds of Knowledge, 37; What Happened, 14,
20, 43, 63, 130, 158; Hagin, In Him, 17; Name, 31, 56; Present-Day Ministry, 6; Copeland,
Force of Righteousness, 5, 6, 24; Jesus Died Spiritually, 2; “Know the Glory,” 6; What
Happened, side 2; “Great Exchange,” 5; Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 1.
70 Kenyon, What Happened, 20 (cf. Bible, 220); Bible, 165.
that He had to be made righteous in spirit again.”71 Hagin was more

cautious in his vocabulary. 2 Corinthians 5:21 indicated to him that Jesus
took “our outlawed nature.”72
Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland do not offer any extended exegesis
of the text, but simply accept that it teaches that Christ participated
in, became, or took sin, that such sin can be regarded as a ‘nature’
and that for Kenyon and Copeland at least this nature characterises or
emanates from Satan. All three conclusions are controversial, and will
now be considered. With regard to the first, that Christ became sin,
commentators fall into two overall groups. While some believe that Paul
meant that Christ ‘became sin’ (which in turn is necessarily understood
in some metaphorical sense, for a person cannot become a behaviour
or moral quality), others declare that Paul meant that Christ became a
sin-offering.
The latter view appeals to the dual meanings of the Hebrew words
íÖà and úàhç (each being capable of translation as ‘sin’ and ‘sin-
offering’, depending on context)73 as a possible background to Paul’s
expression here, to Romans 8:3 (“as a sin offering”; RSV margin) and
to Isaiah 53:10.74 The former interpretation is not without difficulty:
‘sin’ must be understood metaphorically as some sort of personifica-
tion, quality, or state, but it is not clear what this is. Harris lists three
options: ‘sinner’, ‘sin-bearer’, and ‘sin’, preferring the last.75 Whichever
is the case, this interpretation, despite its difficulties, is preferable to
‘sin-offering’, in that it makes fuller use of the internal logic of substi-
tution, representation or exchange that Paul seemed to be employing.76
For the sake of the present discussion, it will tentatively be accepted,
for it is clearly the starting point for the JDS understanding of the
verse.
71 Copeland, What Happened, side 2; Force of Righteousness, 24; Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 1.
72 Hagin, Present-Day Ministry, 6.
73 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of
the Old Testament Volume 1 (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980), 79, 278.
74 E.g. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC. Dallas, TX: Word, 1986), 140, 157;
F.F. Bruce, I & II Corinthians (NCBC. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971), 210;
Linda L. Belleville, 2 Corinthians (INTC. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 159.
75 Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC. Milton Keynes:
Paternoster, 2005), 453.

76 See Dunn, Theology, 222–223; Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 454–455;
C.K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC. London: Adam & Charles
Black, 1973), 180; Margaret E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians Volume I (ICC.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 439–442.
204 chapter five
Accepting, then, that Paul might have meant that Christ became
‘sin’, rather than a ‘sin-offering’, this still does not allow the logical
leap of JDS teaching that Christ thereby partook in some ‘nature’.
An understanding of Paul’s metaphorical sense intended through the
terse phrase that Christ ‘was made sin’ emerges from the immediate
context. ‘Sin’ is clearly contrasted here with ‘righteousness’, and more
specifically the righteousness of God (5:21b)77 that ‘we’78 are enabled to
become through Christ’s being made sin. The cluster of ideas charac-
terising this righteousness can be clearly seen from the preceding sen-
tences.79 Those who have become the righteousness of God are those
who, being in Christ, live for him (5:15), in newness of life (5:17) and
in reconciled friendship with God (5:18), as their sins are no longer
counted against them (5:19). In short, they are treated as if they had not
in fact sinned.
The contrast that is implied between ‘our’ becoming righteousness
and Christ being made sin suggests, then, that the latter phrase is to
be understood as Christ’s being treated as if he had sinned. As Paul
referred to Christ’s death at 5:14–15, and linked this to 5:21 with ref-
erences to ‘for all’ (5:14, 15) and ‘for us’ (5:21), it is a safe conclusion
that Paul understood Christ to have been so treated in the circum-
stances of his death.80 Certainly, his death was portrayed in all four
gospel accounts as one in which he was treated by people as if he
had sinned—it was for alleged crimes that he was arrested, tried and
executed under the legal provisions of the time (whatever the extent to
which those rules were bent in the process). How familiar Paul was with
such accounts when he wrote 2 Corinthians is an open question. Even
in the chapter under investigation, he denied knowing Christ “accord-
ing to the flesh” (5:16). However, what he meant by this was not that
he chose to ignore Christ’s human history,81 a history to which he did
make brief reference elsewhere in his correspondence with this church
77 All references in this subsection are to 2 Corinthians unless otherwise stated.

78 ‘We’ in 5:21 might refer narrowly to Paul the author and those people who share
with him in the ambassadorial ministry of reconciliation (5:20), or more broadly (or
co-extensively?) to anyone who is in Christ (5:17).
79 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 158: “Phrases like ‘a new creation,’ ‘reconciliation,’ and
‘righteousness of God’ are all virtual synonyms.”

80 So Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 452; Martin, 2 Corinthians, 157; etc.
81 Bruce, Corinthians, 208: Paul was not “deprecating an interest in the Jesus of history
as something improper.”
(1 Corinthians 2:2; 7:10; 11:23–25; 15:3–7; 2 Corinthians 1:5; 4:10; 8:9;

13:4). He knew well that Christ suffered in his dying (4:8–10), and that
this death was by crucifixion—reserved as an execution of criminals
(13:4). So it is reasonable to suppose that Paul wished to indicate in 5:21
that Christ was treated in his dying as if he had sinned. Furthermore,
he indicated that this was ultimately an act of God (5:21a; cf. 5:19).
It may be going beyond the evidence here to declare that, for Paul,
Christ was treated by God as well as by humans as if he had sinned.82
Nevertheless, what happened was not beyond God’s ultimate director-
ship.
The conclusion of the previous paragraph, that ‘he made Christ sin’
means that, under God’s ultimate direction, Christ was treated in his
crucifixion as if he had sinned, may not be incompatible with the idea
that Christ partook in the process in a ‘nature’, but it by no means
requires such a conclusion. Given that Paul’s reasoning elsewhere about
Christ’s death reveals no participation in some alleged ‘nature’ of sin,
there is no reason to reach this conclusion in exegeting 5:21. It is not
even at all certain that an idea of a sin ‘nature’ is necessary in this
discussion or in exegeting Paul.
Similarly, the idea that Christ related in some way to Satan and/or
his nature in his crucifixion is not incompatible with Christ being
treated as if he had sinned, but neither is it necessitated by it. There
are three ‘players in the drama’ summed up in 5:21: God, Christ, and
‘us’. Satan is firmly ‘off-stage’. He makes a number of appearances in
2 Corinthians (2:11; 11:14; 12:7; cf. 4:4; 6:15), and is clearly portrayed
thereby as an enemy of Christ and his people. That he might therefore
have played some causative part in Christ’s death is not implausible.83
The difficulty for the JDS reading of 5:21 is that this verse simply
does not state that such was the case, still less that Satan in some way
transferred all or some of his characteristics to Christ in the process.
82 So Barrett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 180: Christ “came to stand in that
relation with God which normally is the result of sin, estranged from God and the
object of wrath.”
83 Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 2:8 will be discussed on page 241.
206 chapter five
5.4. Biblical source material—John 3:14
κα κα<ς Μωϋσ3ς ?ψωσεν τ7ν ιν ν τ@3 ρ2μ#ω, ?τως ψω3ναι δε
τ7ν υA7ν τ' 4νρπυ
“And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of
Man be lifted up. . .”
Kenyon’s and Copeland’s understandings of Christ’s partaking of the

satanic nature further rest on Numbers 21:8 and the allusion to it in
John 3:14. The thinking is explored most fully by Copeland:
Why do you think Moses, upon the instruction of God, raised a serpent
upon that pole instead of a lamb? It used to bug me: I asked, “Why in
the world did You ask to put that snake up there—the sign of Satan?
Why didn’t You put a lamb on that pole?” The Lord said, “Because it
was the sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross.”84
Similar logic is apparent elsewhere: “The serpent was the likeness of

the thing destroying the Israelites. Jesus became sin and died spiritually.
The worm and the serpent denote union and harmony with the nature
of the Adversary.”85
In contrast to 2 Corinthians 5:21, John 3:14 offers a much more obvi-
ous possible association with Satan, in the form of the serpent. Kenyon
and Copeland both implicitly rely upon the broad biblical associa-
tion between Satan and snakes, from Genesis 3:1 to Revelation 12:9.
Copeland does, however, offer further evidence that this link is appro-
priate in the case of John 3:14. He points out that in Numbers 21 the
serpents from whose bites the Israelites needed to be rescued were
the ‘plague’ destroying the Israelites.86 This obviously brings Satan to
Copeland’s mind, for Satan is the one destroying humans who need
to be rescued from his clutches, and from the sin he incites them to
commit.
However, the JDS reading of John 3:14 and Numbers 21:5–9 exhibits
a number of significant weaknesses. In Numbers 21, the snakes are not
at enmity with God, and are not associated causatively with Israel’s sin.
84 Copeland, What Happened, side 2 (cf. Kenyon, What Happened, 44–45; Father, 137).
This excerpt is quoted by Onken (“Atonement of Christ;” cf. its citation in Perriman,
Faith, 24) with small differences of individual words. Copeland is speaking fast at this
point, and certain words are difficult to hear.
85 Copeland, Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 3.
86 Copeland, Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 3.
Quite the opposite is true: the snakes are in fact sent by God, and serve
to bring Israel’s sin to an end, either by killing the sinners (implied in
Numbers 21:6) or by bringing about contrition (Numbers 21:7). Turning
now to John 3:14, the degree of parallel that can legitimately be drawn
between the details in the two passages must not be overestimated.
It is possible that John 3:14 contains the words “as Moses lifted up
the serpent in the desert” only for the reason that the crucifixion87
and the story recorded in Numbers both involve the physical act of
lifting something or someone up.88 That said, if any parallel beyond this
between the snakes of Numbers and the crucified Christ is to be drawn,
it might follow the significance of the snakes in Numbers that was
elucidated earlier in this paragraph. In other words, just as the snakes
were sent by God (Numbers 21:6) to end a sin, and the lifted snake was
provided by God’s instruction to Moses (Numbers 21:8) to save from
this divine judgement those who looked to it, so too Christ was sent by
God (John 3:17) effectively to end sin: those who looked to him would be
saved from divine judgement (John 3:15); conversely, those who refused
to do so would receive divine judgement through his agency (John 3:18–
19). If it is fair to draw this degree of significant parallel between the
passages, then such a reading does not support that offered by JDS
teaching. Insofar as Jesus was the ‘serpent’, he was not thus God’s
enemy, or participating in the nature of God’s enemy. Rather, he was
God’s provision, to bring about salvation from or judgement for sin,
depending on the response of people to him.

Copeland and Hagin clearly drew on Kenyon, though Hagin drew
back from his most outspoken avowals that Christ partook of a satanic
nature. In turn, while Kenyon might have been influenced by both
Higher Life and Faith Cure, and New Thought and Christian Science,
the whole dualistic milieu of Higher Life and Faith Cure thinking, in
87 In John 3:14, ψ'ν includes reference to the crucifixion, as the reference to
Numbers 21 indicates, though it is likely also to refer to Christ’s resurrection and

exaltation. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I–XII (AB. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 145–146.
88 So C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John (2nd edition, London: SPCK, 1978
[1955]), 214: “Later Christian writers . . . treat the serpent as a type of Christ. . . , but this
is not, it seems, John’s intention. For him the point of comparison is not the serpent but
the lifting up.”
208 chapter five
which Satan often played a fairly prominent part in presentations of

Christian thought and life, seems far closer to Kenyon’s own scheme
than does the largely monistic worldview of New Thought and Chris-
tian Science. However, no direct antecedents to Kenyon’s thought have
been found among those sources to which he was evidently or allegedly
indebted in either Higher Life and Faith Cure or New Thought and
Christian Science. The closest links were, from Faith Cure, A.B. Simp-
son, who offered some creative use of Numbers 21 and John 3:14, and
from New Thought, Trine, who freely wrote of people being ‘partak-
ers’. Neither source, however, mirrored Kenyon’s ideas at this point
entirely. Kenyon seems to have reworked existing ideas quite extensively
to create his own distinct thesis.
Turning now to their use of biblical texts, it has emerged that neither
2 Corinthians 5:21 nor John 3:14 has offered the support to JDS teach-
ing that the authors under review claim. The meaning of 2 Corinthians
5:21’s reference to ‘sin’ is disputed. Even if it is not understood as ‘sin-
offering’, it must be handled metaphorically, and seems to indicate that
Christ was treated as if he had sinned, rather than that he partook
of a ‘sin nature’, howsoever understood. John 3:14 may not perceive a
close typological resemblance between Christ and the lifted serpent. If
it does, the parallel drawn does not suggest that Christ related in some
way to Satan while being crucified.
It must also be stressed that the exegesis of isolated ‘proof-texts’ is not
a sufficient or satisfactory process in seeking to gain an appreciation of
the New Testament’s teaching on a theme. The whole tenor of the New
Testament must be taken into account. Numerous passages throughout
its canon record or interpret Christ’s death. References to a sinful or
satanic ‘nature’ in these passages are notable for their absence.89
6. History of the tradition
The absence of references in the biblical witness to the crucified Christ

partaking of a sinful or satanic nature, noted earlier in this chapter, is
mirrored by a similar situation in the witness of historical atonement
theology. While the conclusion should not be too hastily reached that
JDS teaching at this point is ‘heterodox’ (for it might be that similar
89 This is not to suggest that, according to the New Testament, Satan was completely
uninvolved in the crucifixion. See discussion in chapter 6.

ideas are present, but that their parallels with JDS teaching are masked
by terminological and even conceptual dissimilarities), theologians have
not in fact written in any form of Christ taking on a satanic nature; nor
have they referred to Christ’s taking on a sin ‘nature’ in his crucifixion
as such.
However, certain similarities do exist between the JDS perspective
and that of a nineteenth century church leader who also attracted
cries of ‘heretic!’: the flamboyant Church of Scotland minister, Edward
Irving (1792–1834). Irving too opined that Christ’s nature was sinful.
However, this was not a nature of which Christ only partook on the
cross, in ‘spiritual death’. Rather, it was that human nature which the
Word assumed in the conception. While the human nature was fallen
and ‘sinful’, the person of Christ was sinless, being kept from sin by
the constant work of the Holy Spirit.90 That Christ’s human nature
was fallen from the time of conception until resurrection was important
to Irving, a friend of McLeod Campbell,91 because, somewhat in line
with McLeod Campbell,92 Irving taught that the incarnation, at least as
much as the cross, gained salvation for humanity. As McFarlane puts
it: “There is not such great stress on the cross as on the entire life and
filial obedience of the Son to the Father as a life of sacrifice.”93 Christ’s
death was, in effect, the natural outworking of his incarnation “not to
the unfallen but to the fallen, not to the sinless but sinful condition of
the creature”; “in that nature which sinned, and which for sinning was
accursed to death.”94
Several distinct similarities with JDS teaching can be traced (though
no dependence is evident). First, for both, it was because of the sinful
nature that Christ was mortal. In Irving’s case, this nature and therefore
this mortality was ‘entered upon’ at conception, while for JDS teach-
ing Christ was physically immortal throughout his earthly life, only
becoming physically mortal when he ‘spiritually died’ and partook of
humanity’s sin nature. A second similarity is that in both cases Satan is
90 Edward Irving, The Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine of Our Lord’s Human Nature (Lon-
don: Baldwyn & Cradock, 1830), vii–viii.

91 Jim Purves, “The Interaction of Christology and Pneumatology in the Soteriology
of Edward Irving,” Pneuma 14.1 (Spring 1992): 82.

92 Purves, “Interaction,” 85–86. Purves notes that Irving was not, however, as
scathing as was McLeod Campbell of the notion of the propitiation of God’s wrath.
93 Graham McFarlane, Christ and the Spirit: The Doctrine of the Incarnation according to
Edward Irving (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996), 136.

94 Irving, Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine, 102, 91.
210 chapter five
involved. In JDS teaching, the sin nature is the satanic nature (despite
Hagin’s protestations). For Irving, Christ “did bring His Divine per-
son into death-possessed humanity. . . by the Fall brought into a state
of . . . subjection to the devil.”95 However, the action of the Spirit on
Irving’s incarnate Christ keeps the latter from ever succumbing to the
devil’s temptations. In JDS teaching, Satan is master of the situation
while Christ is ‘spiritually dead’ and partaking of his nature (as well as
this chapter, see pages 218–226). A third similarity is the strong sense
of identification or representation in both portrayals. According to Irv-
ing,
if Godhead in the person of the Son did not embrace our nature, as I
and all men possess it, that nature, which I and all men possess, is not
yet embraced by God. It is not stooped unto; it is not lifted up; it is not
redeemed; it is not regenerated; it is not raised from the dead.96
For JDS doctrine, Christ could not redeem humanity from ‘spiritual
death’, including its involvement in Satan’s sin nature, without himself
being ‘spiritually dead’ and imbued with the same sinful, satanic nature.
However, there are of course considerable contrasts, quite apart from
the timescale that places the sinful nature in Christ throughout his
earthly life for Irving, but only on the cross for JDS doctrine. First,
the sinful nature which Irving envisaged in Christ was utterly inte-
gral to his incarnate person. On the other hand, as already discussed
(sections 3 to 4), there is ambiguity about the extent to which the sin
nature in which the Christ of JDS teaching ‘partook’ was thereby gen-
uinely his in the sense of becoming an aspect of his being, or whether
it was merely something that he experienced or was somehow over-
come by. Secondly, despite the similarity in terms, the sinful nature is
not the same in both presentations. In JDS teaching, the sin nature of
which Christ partook in his ‘spiritual death’ was that which unregen-
erate, ‘spiritually dead’ humanity also participates in. In contrast, for
Irving, Christ’s sinful nature was that which regenerate people know:
“We hold that it [Christ’s sinful human nature] received a Holy-Ghost
life, a regenerate life, in the conception: in kind the same which we
receive in regeneration, but in measure greater, because of His perfect
faith.”97
95 Irving, Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine, 2–3.

96 Irving, Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine, 114.
97 Irving, Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine, vii.
At this point, if Christ’s incarnate identification with fallen humanity

is important to salvation,98 then in one respect JDS teaching actually
seems stronger than Irving’s, for though Irving wanted to believe that
he and all humans were raised from death through Christ’s stooping to
experience human mortality, Christ did not, by his account, experience
unregenerate human life. He therefore did not ‘stoop’ to experience
that which needed to be regenerated. The Christ of JDS teaching, in
contrast, did go through the experience, on the cross, of unregenerate
‘spiritual death’. In another respect, however, Irving’s Jesus identified
more fully, for he knew mortality throughout the incarnation, while
the JDS Jesus walked through life on the ‘cushion’ of immortality and
unfallenness, only experiencing fallenness and physical mortality in his
‘spiritual death’ on the cross.99
Turning now from the incarnation in general to the crucifixion in
particular, voices have at times been raised to offer outspoken state-
ments relating Christ to sin, even if not to Satan. Two famous examples
will suffice to indicate that influential theologians have not been reticent
to make this connection: Luther and Barth. Luther famously declared
that
All the prophets saw this, that Christ was to become the greatest thief,
murderer, adulterer, robber, desecrator, blasphemer, etc., there has ever
been anywhere in the world. He is not acting in His own Person now.
Now He is not the Son of God, born of the Virgin. But He is a sinner,
who has and bears the sin of Paul, the former blasphemer, persecutor,
and assaulter; of Peter, who denied Christ; of David, who was an adul-
terer and a murderer, and who caused the Gentiles to blaspheme the
name of the Lord (Rom. 2:24). In short, He has and bears all the sins
of all men in His body—not in the sense that He has committed them
but in the sense that He took these sins, committed by us, upon His own
body, in order to make satisfaction for them with His own blood.100
Similarly, according to Barth, who declared clearly of Christ in his work

on the cross, “In this place He is pure and spotless and sinless,”
98 The belief that it is can be traced back to Irenaeus’ ‘recapitulation’ theory and
Athanasius’ statements to the effect that Christ became what humans are that they
might become what he is. See, e.g., Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 172, 378.
99 That Jesus, according to JDS teaching, only became physically mortal when
he ‘died spiritually’ has already been noted (pages 32–33). That his human nature
was unfallen throughout his earthly life save for the cross is implicit throughout JDS
teaching, but occasionally stated with reasonable clarity (e.g. Kenyon, Bible, 165; Hagin,
Redeemed, 2nd edition 64).
100 Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535 on 3:13 (LW 26, 277).
212 chapter five
He as One can represent all and make Himself responsible for the sins of all
because He is very man, in our midst, one of us . . . He can conduct the
case of God against us in such a way that He takes from us our own evil
case, taking our place and compromising and burdening Himself with it.
His the sin which we commit on it; His the accusation, the judgment and
the curse which necessarily fall on us there. He is the unrighteous amongst
those who can no longer be so because He was and is for them. He is the
burdened amongst those who have been freed from their burden by Him.
He is the condemned amongst those who are pardoned because the sentence
which destroys them is directed against Him.101
In yet more flagrant language, Barth proceeded to write, in approval

of Luther, that “He has made Himself a sinner for us . . . Our sin is no
longer our own. It is His sin, the sin of Jesus Christ.” Christ is thus, in a
repeated phrase of Barth’s, “the one great sinner.”102
One can perhaps ‘blame’ the apostle Paul for initiating such outspo-
kenness, for these thoughts probably find their roots in 2 Corinthians
5:21, even more than in Galatians 3:13, which Luther was expounding
when he wrote the words quoted above.103 A number of commentators
on 2 Corinthians 5:21 quote Bengel: “Who would have dared to speak
thus, unless Paul had first led the way?”104 Clearly, several have dared to
speak thus.105
An evaluation of the wisdom and usefulness of statements linking
Christ to sin in this way lies beyond the limits of this book. All that is
attempted in this section is an assessment of the extent to which JDS
teaching coheres with or departs from influential traditional formula-
tions. It has emerged that JDS teaching is neither alone in outspokenly
‘fusing’ Christ to sin, nor alone in demanding that such a fusion should
be understood in terms of sin’s ‘nature’. However, the particular com-
bination of these ideas set out in this chapter is unique to JDS doctrine,
as is the particular way that Satan is seen to be involved in the process.
101 Barth, CD IV/1, 236–237, italics added.

102 Barth, CD IV/1, 238–239 (cf. 244, 254, 259).
103 2 Corinthians 5:21 finds itself referred or alluded to in the works of Barth repeat-
edly (e.g. CD II/1, 398, 404; IV/1, 236, 241).

104 Martin’s translation (2 Corinthians, 158) of Quis auderet sic loqui, nisi Paulus praeirit? Cf.
Barrett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 179.

105 Similar outspokenness is to be seen in the commentaries, e.g. Erich Gräßer, Der
Zweite Brief an die Korinther (Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 2002), 233: “Der Sündlose als
solcher . . . wurde zum Sünder gemacht” (italics original).
7.1. Summary
This chapter has surveyed the unusual doctrine, inherent to JDS teach-
ing, that Christ in his ‘spiritual death’ partook of a sinful, satanic
nature. It has been shown that this idea was fashioned in the mind of
Kenyon. He may have had seeds for his thoughts provided by some of
the teaching, such as that of A.B. Simpson, emanating from the dualis-
tic worldview of the Faith Cure movement. It is also possible that some
of his language was provided, or at least spurred, by the teaching of
R.W. Trine, an exponent of New Thought. Nevertheless, the precise
fusion of language and ideas seems to have been his alone. The resul-
tant scheme is reasonably clear, but does create a number of questions
about the extent to which Jesus was, as Kenyon claimed, a full substi-
tute for sinful Adam and his race. It has also emerged that both Hagin
and Copeland have followed Kenyon in plentiful reference to ‘nature’
in this context, declaring with Kenyon that Christ took a sin nature in
his ‘spiritual death’, though Hagin sought to retreat from referring to
this nature as satanic.
In the debate that has been conducted so far concerning this doc-
trine, three main criticisms have been offered. The chapter has sur-
veyed these, noting that there is reason to doubt the uniqueness of the
person of Christ expressed in the Christology underlying JDS teach-
ing at this point. Section 5 proceeded to consider the biblical material
that JDS teachers call to their aid in expounding this teaching. It con-
cluded that neither 2 Corinthians 5:21 nor John 3:14, nor indeed the
whole tenor of the biblical witness, offers the support that the teach-
ers under review claim of it. Section 6 considered ways in which the
Christian tradition has linked Christ with sin and a sinful nature, not-
ing the considerable contrasts that exist between JDS doctrine and even
its superficially most similar equivalent: the teaching of Edward Irving.
7.2. Implications
As far as Christology is concerned, the greatest weakness in this part
of JDS teaching is its inability to offer satisfactory answers to ques-
tions that are demanded by tensions between these teachers’ superfi-
cial allegiance to traditional incarnational Christology and their actual
delineation of the events of the cross. There is contradiction in their
214 chapter five
teaching between on the one hand their insistence that Christ was a full
substitute for Adam’s fallen ‘satanic’ state, and their recognition, clear-
est in Kenyon’s exposition, that Christ remained sinless while partaking
of the satanic nature. There is also a considerable degree of uncertainty
about what view of the incarnation underlies JDS teaching at this point.
Did Christ in becoming ‘satanic’ cease to be divine? If so, had he pre-
viously only somehow associated with the divine nature, in adoption-
istic terms, as opposed to subsisting eternally in his divine nature, in
traditional incarnational terms? Some of the explicit avowals of incar-
national Christology made by JDS teachers are undermined by their
exposition of this theme. In turn, the uniqueness of the JDS Christ is
compromised.
These incarnational uncertainties also have implications for the
atonement. Christianity, at least in its traditional incarnational forms,
has long held that, for Christ’s life and death to be of atoning signifi-
cance, he had to be divine. This proviso held not just with reference to
the whole of his human life on earth, but in particular to the events of
the cross. The idea, implicit in the New Testament, has developed and
flourished in the tradition, spurred by Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?,106 and
has been well expressed in the twentieth century by D.M. Baillie’s God
Was In Christ. For Baillie,
In short, ‘it is all of God’: the desire to forgive and reconcile, the appoint-
ing of means, the provision of the victim as it were from His own bosom
at infinite cost. It all takes place within the very life of God Himself: for if
we take the Christology of the New Testament at its highest we can only
say that ‘God was in Christ’ in that great atoning sacrifice, and even that
the Priest and the Victim both were none other than God.107
It is less than clear that in the JDS scheme, the ‘victim is none other
than God’. If (and it is by no means certain) the divine nature of the
incarnate Christ has been replaced by the satanic nature in his ‘spiri-
tual death’, the provision is no longer from ‘God’s own bosom’. The
cost is no longer ‘infinite’. It may be, admittedly, that a form of atone-
ment theory can still be built upon this portrayal of Christ’s death, but
it will not be that expressed by traditional incarnational Christianity.
Alternatively, if Christ’s divinity was maintained throughout his ‘spiri-
106 See discussion in Rashdall, Idea of the Atonement, 352–353; L.W. Grensted, A Short
History of the Doctrine of the Atonement (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1920),
125–126, 135.
107 Baillie, God Was In Christ, 188.
tual death’, it is vital that JDS teaching in the future clarifies this, and
declares how it is maintained.
Another potential implication for the atonement may be mentioned
in passing at this point, in order to dismiss it. It might be assumed
that the JDS depiction presents a Jesus who in his ‘spiritual death’ was
not only no longer divine, but also no longer human, for he had been
transformed, through his ‘spiritual death’, into an alien satanic being.
However, this would be an inaccurate construal of JDS teaching. The
satanic nature that Jesus participated in during his ‘spiritual death’ was
not a nature alien to humanity, but rather was the very nature that
fallen unregenerate humanity has always known. As such, although
there are certain ambiguities about the extent to which Jesus’ ‘spiritual
death’ was a full substitute of Adam’s, Jesus did not lose his humanity
by ‘dying spiritually’, and so he was capable in this experience of
playing a representative human role.
Turning finally to soteriology, a number of questions are raised by
the findings of this chapter. In functional terms, for instance, how can
a regenerate person (in other words, a partaker in the divine nature as
opposed to the satanic nature, noting that for Kenyon at least these two
natures cannot co-exist in an individual) be capable of any sin or even
failure? Indeed, how can such a person, including the incarnate Christ,
even be capable of experiencing genuine temptation? In ontological
terms, is there any difference of nature between Christ and a Christian?
The confusion that has been noted in this chapter about the extent to
which the fallen Adam and the ‘spiritually dead’ Christ truly resemble
each other stands as an analogy for similar confusion about the extent
to which the ‘spiritually alive’ Christ resembles or differs from the
regenerate Christian.108
The fact that these and other similar questions can be posed does not
in itself invalidate JDS teaching. It might be that they can be answered
satisfactorily from within the JDS framework. Also, other interpreta-
tions of the accounts of Christ’s death are liable to their own sets of
difficult questions. Nevertheless, unless and until such questions gain
an appropriate response, wider Pentecostalism must remain sceptical of
the claim that Jesus on the cross participated in a satanic nature. It is in
making this claim that JDS teaching is at its weakest.
108 Lie offers a similar criticism: “we look in vain for the biblical accentuation of the
unique position of Christ as God over his spiritually redeemed creatures” (“Theology,”
95–96, italics original).
216 chapter five

While JDS teaching’s detractors exaggerate the difficulties lying within
the doctrine’s claim that Jesus while crucified was separated from God
(see chapter 4), their criticisms of the assertion that he participated in
the satanic nature carry more weight. In particular, their charge that
the ‘spiritually dead’ Christ must thereby have ceased to be divine has
force. The JDS presentations offer no firm assurance concerning either
the continuing divinity of the crucified Christ or the uniqueness of the
incarnation, and therefore of Christ’s person.
Another key criticism of this aspect of JDS doctrine is its failure to
offer an adequate biblical foundation. Its use of 2 Corinthians 5:21 and
John 3:14 serves to illustrate both its reliance upon relatively few ‘proof
texts’ and the waywardness of its exegesis when employing them.
chapter six
JESUS’ ‘SPIRITUAL DEATH’ AS

BECOMING SATAN’S PREY
1. Introduction
According to JDS teaching, to state that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ neces-

sarily involves three elements. The first is that Jesus was separated from
God. This claim was assessed in chapter 4. The second is that Jesus
participated in a sinful, satanic nature. This second concept gained the
attention of chapter 5. The present chapter deals with the third ele-
ment: in his ‘spiritual death’, Jesus became Satan’s prey. Two aspects
can be distinguished. They are Jesus’ subjection to Satan’s domination,
and Jesus’ suffering at Satan’s hands. However, they closely intertwine.
Satan is depicted in JDS teaching, unsurprisingly, as a cruel master.
Therefore, being his subject necessarily involves suffering as a conse-
quence. These aspects and their relationship will be apparent in this
discussion.
The chapter first considers the views of Kenyon, Hagin and Cope-
land (section 2). It emerges in this section that Kenyon and Copeland
hold similar views, while Hagin held back from fully accepting all
aspects of the teaching. Thereafter, section 3 discusses the responses
to this aspect of JDS teaching that have been offered by its critics. This
involves a discussion of the possibility that JDS teachers see the atone-
ment in terms of a ransom paid to Satan. Next, section 4 reviews the
possible sources Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland have used in developing
their theories. Section 5 offers an alternative reading of Satan’s conflict
with Jesus. Finally, section 6 presents overall conclusions to the chapter.
218 chapter six
2. The views of Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland
2.1. Kenyon’s view

Kenyon regarded the ‘spiritually dead’ Christ as under Satan’s rule.1
This was not to suggest that Jesus became Satan’s servant, required to
perform Satan’s sinful will.2 Rather, Jesus was then the devil’s victim,
unprotected from Satan’s cruelty. Kenyon overtly linked this satanic
mastery with Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’: “As long as He was spiritually
dead, filled with sin, Satan ruled over Him.”3 Concerning the causal
relationship between the two, the implication of this statement, though
mild, is that ‘spiritual death’ is the cause and Satan’s mastery the
result. The following tends to confirm this: “When He was made Sin,
He was turned over by God to the Adversary. . . Satan became His
master. . . His spirit was taken by the Adversary, and carried to the
place where the sinner’s spirit goes when he dies.”4 In this temporary
conquest, Satan, as the quotation above demonstrates, took Jesus to
hell.5 (Kenyon stated paradoxically elsewhere that God sent Jesus to
hell.)6 In hell, Christ suffered under the oppression of the devil’s armies:
“It would seem as though the whole hosts of hell were upon him.
He was going through agonies beyond words.”7 Satan and his cohorts
tormented Jesus while the claims of justice were being satisfied. Kenyon
preached about “the Man hanging in defeat on the cross, carrying out
the demands of justice . . . go[ing] down into hell bearing the torments
of the damned until all hell shouted with glee. But out of the depths he
arose and stood triumphant over death, hell and the grave.”8 Once this
was over, the roles were reversed. God caused Jesus once more to be
1 As well as his more extended treatment of the subject in Father, Bible and What
Happened, Kenyon made brief references in, e.g., Wonderful Name, 8; Jesus the Healer, 26;
Two Kinds of Knowledge, 37; Identification, 28.
2 Note previous discussion (pages 190–199) about Jesus’ partaking of a sinful nature,
and especially Lie’s accurate comment, already quoted but worth repeating (“Theol-
ogy,” 100, italics original): “Kenyon . . . does not say that Jesus’ alleged spiritual death
caused any demonic hatred to flow from the spirit of Jesus. He also does not suggest
that Jesus mentally agreed to or identified with the activities of the adversary.”
3 Kenyon, Identification, 28.
5 See also Kenyon, What Happened, 89.
8 E.W. Kenyon, “Taking our Rights,” unpublished sermon preached in Pasadena,
CA, February 14, 1926, supplied by Geir Lie, email message to author, July 28, 2006.
becoming satan’s prey 219
‘spiritually alive’, ‘born again’, and in this new life Jesus now conquered
Satan.9 After this was complete, Jesus physically rose from the dead.
Kenyon’s reasons for his understanding went back to his view of
humanity’s creation and fall into sin, already described briefly in chap-
ter 1 (pages 27–28). For Kenyon, pre-fall Adam and Eve, created only
a “shade lower”10 than God, had authority over the rest of God’s
creation, including over Satan. However, in an act of “High Trea-
son”, they “turned this legal dominion over” to Satan.11 They did
not have the moral right to do so, but they did have the legal right.
Therefore, this authority over creation, including humanity, was now
Satan’s by legal right.12 God could have forcefully recaptured both this
authority, and humanity, from Satan, but not in a way that exercised
justice—towards himself, towards humanity, or least of all in this con-
text towards Satan. Kenyon insistently repeated that God acted justly
towards Satan.13 It is noteworthy in this respect that Kenyon made no
reference to God trapping Satan, in contrast both to Copeland (see
page 225), and to certain early church teachers (see page 228).
Part of the purpose of the atonement was not only to justify human-
ity before God and reconcile sinful people to their heavenly Father, but
also to restore to humans the authority over creation, including Satan,
that they had given away to Satan in Eden.14 To wrest this domin-
ion from Satan’s grasp in a way that did not undermine God’s justice
towards Satan (i.e. ‘legally’) necessarily involved, implicitly, giving Jesus
over temporarily to Satan’s control.15 How this made the process either
a just or a legal one was not explained. Neither was it stated whether
this penalty was set by God or by Satan. Furthermore, it is not clear
how the arrangement would actually overcome or cancel Satan’s ‘legal
rights’. What is clear is that Jesus’ suffering, though inflicted by Satan,
was significant in God’s eyes in righting the wrongs of the fall—it paid
9 Kenyon, Father, 117; Bible, 167.

10 Kenyon, Bible, 20; Father, 32: “In other words, when man was created he was made
as near like Deity as it was possible for Deity to create him.” Cf. Two Kinds of Knowledge,
46; What Happened, 62.
11 Kenyon, Bible, 26; cf. 58; Father, 36.
12 Kenyon, Father, 38, 57–58; cf. Bible, 164–165.
13 Kenyon, Father, 39, 57, 113 (“nowhere does God take advantage of the Devil, but
God’s eternal justice to frail man and to mighty Satan is manifest”), 129, 139; cf. What
Happened, 99; Bible, 43.
15 See, e.g., Kenyon, Father, 57, 138.
220 chapter six
the penalty sufficiently to satisfy God’s justice,16 whoever had set the
penalty in the first place.
Although, as just stated, the satanic control lasted until Jesus had
“satisfied the demands of justice” (an oft repeated phrase of Kenyon;
see page 123), it is not clear which demands these were. While there
is evidence that the fundamental concern was that God dealt with
human sin such that he could forgive it justly, there was also at least
a hint that another demand needing to be satisfied was the demand
of God’s justice towards Satan. Conceivably, both these possibilities
were the case, for it was only while Christ was paying the penalty
for human sin that Satan’s power over Christ was active: “when the
penalty of our sin had been fully met, Satan had no power to hold Him
longer.”17 McConnell seems to see both alleged aspects of divine justice
at work, for he writes of JDS teaching, “After Jesus suffered the penalty
of man’s sin and fulfilled all of man’s legal obligation towards Satan,
God declared that justice had been done.”18 Justice now satisfied, Jesus’
three day period of suffering at Satan’s hands came to an end. Jesus was
rescued by God from Satan’s grip. Once free, he vanquished Satan in a
great display of victorious power, leaving Satan “paralyzed and broken
on the very pavements of Hell.”19 Both Christ’s presence in hell and his
defeat of Satan operated as a message proclaimed to the human and
demonic spirits that also inhabited hell at that time.20
It is important to note that there were two distinct phases being
described. Christ’s suffering at Satan’s hands and his victory over Satan
were presented as two quite separate elements in the atonement story.
The suffering was not the ‘scars of battle’ that happened to occur while
Christ wrestled with Satan. Rather, he suffered while ‘spiritually dead’,
and then conquered once ‘spiritually alive’. There is no suggestion that
Jesus could hope to overcome Satan (or even that he tried to) while
‘spiritually dead’. Equally, there is no hint that Jesus could conceivably
have failed to conquer Satan once ‘spiritually alive’. In fact, he seems
to have fought the devil, after his ‘spiritual resurrection’, without a
scratch. Christ simply beat Satan in a display of raw resurrection power,
bestowed on him by God in his ‘spiritual rebirth’. This realisation
16 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 117, 129, 134.

17 Kenyon, Father, 134; cf. 109, 116.
18 McConnell, Promise, 120–121, italics added.
creates an uncertainty concerning the relationship, if any, between the

two stages in hell—Christ’s suffering at Satan’s hands and his ensuing
victory over Satan. It is not clear that the two stages are causally
related. Did Christ have to suffer in order to win? If so, how did the
one achieve the other? If not, what part did Christ’s suffering play in
relation to Satan’s downfall? Undoubtedly, Christ’s suffering substituted
for the suffering of guilty sinful humans. That much is clear. But its
effect on Satan’s rule is not explained.
2.2. Hagin’s view

Hagin, like Kenyon, believed that fallen Adam was under satanic do-
minion.21 This domination could not be reversed by the mere fiat of
God, for then “Satan could accuse Him of doing the same thing he
did.”22 For Hagin then, as with Kenyon, Christ had to come under
Satan’s mastery in his substitutionary atoning work. So Hagin plagia-
rised Kenyon almost exactly: “whole demon hosts, when they had Jesus
within their power. . .”23 Similarly, it was “in his [Satan’s] own throne
room” that Jesus “stripped him of his authority and dominion”.24 Hagin
also wrote of “the principalities and powers that had opposed the res-
urrection of Christ”, and continued, “when Christ bore the burdens of
the world’s guilt on the cross, these powers of the air sought to exercise
their ancient prerogative, and hoped to hold Him under their power.”25
Jesus couldn’t be killed until He was made sin for us. He took our
place. He had to go down into the prison house of suffering (hell) for
us, because He was our substitute. I’m certain that all the devils of hell
raced up and down the back alleys of hell rejoicing, “We’ve got the Son
of God in our hands! We’ve defeated God’s purpose!” But on that third
morning, the God who is more than enough said, “It is enough! He has
satisfied the claims of Justice.”26
21 Hagin, New Thresholds, 56; cf. Plead your Case, 3; What to Do, 15–16.
22 Hagin, Plead your Case, 3.
23 Kenneth E. Hagin, “The Name of Jesus: The More Excellent Name,” The Word of
Faith (April 1976): 4, quoted along with Kenyon’s equivalent words by Dan McConnell,
“The Faith Movement: New Revelation or Charismatic Cultism?” (paper presented at
the European Pentecostal Theological Association, Erzhausen, 1989), 25. Kenyon had
written, “the whole demon host, when they saw Jesus in their power. . . ” (Kenyon,
Wonderful Name, 8).
24 Hagin, Zoe, 45.
25 Kenneth E. Hagin, Authority of the Believer (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1967), 24, 25.

26 Hagin, El Shaddai, 7, paragraph breaks removed.
222 chapter six
However, in Hagin’s case the picture is complicated. First, he is

understood by his critic Hanegraaff to have denied this teaching. In
correspondence with Hanegraaff, Hagin declared, “I don’t believe that
Jesus . . . submitted to [Satan’s] lordship.”27 Hanegraaff could be right:
this denial may mean that Hagin, at least at this time, did not view
Jesus as ever being at Satan’s mercy. However, it is more likely a denial
that Jesus ever obeyed Satan and committed sin. If so, Hagin was more
consistent than Hanegraaff gives him credit for.
Secondly, Hagin’s plagiarism of Kenyon did depart from the latter’s
words in a way that may have been semantically significant. To return
to a passage cited above, this time quoting it more fully, Hagin wrote,
“whole demon hosts, when they had Jesus within their power intended
to swamp Him, to overwhelm Him, and to hold Him in fearful bondage.
But the cry came forth from the throne of God that Jesus had met
the demands of Justice.”28 Kenyon, similarly but not identically, had
written, “the whole demon host, when they saw Jesus in their power
simply intended to swamp Him, overwhelm Him and they held Him in
fearful bondage until the cry came forth from the throne of God that Jesus
had met the demands of justice.”29 Hagin’s alteration of Kenyon’s “they
held Him in fearful bondage” from an action to a mere intention may
simply indicate Hagin’s wish to clarify that the demons’ intent was that
their ‘capture’ of Jesus should be permanent (hence his retention of
Kenyon’s verb ‘hold’). However, the possibility exists that Hagin wished
to draw back from ascribing domination of Jesus to ‘demon hosts’ with
quite the clarity that Kenyon had done. Hagin’s silence concerning the
source of Jesus’ suffering is perhaps also significant. Hagin believed that
Christ “went to hell in our place”, describing this place or state as a
“prison house of suffering.”30 He indicated with reasonable clarity that
Christ Himself suffered there,31 but he did not explicate whether he
viewed Satan as having a role in this experience.
In conclusion, Hagin’s ideas approximated to those of Kenyon, but
were not identical. With respect to Satan’s alleged domination of
Christ, Hagin’s plagiarising of Kenyon would suggest that he believed
27 Hagin, correspondence with Hanegraaff, quoted in Bowman, Controversy, 161, and,
more briefly, in Hanegraaff, Crisis, 156.

28 Hagin, “Name of Jesus,” quoted by McConnell, Faith Movement, 25; italics added.
29 Kenyon, Wonderful Name, 8; italics added. Almost identical words occur in Bible,
187.
30 Hagin, Name, 29, 32–33; Present-Day Ministry, 8.
31 Hagin, Present-Day Ministry, 6, 8.
that it occurred, but did not express this as forthrightly as Kenyon.

With respect to the suffering inflicted on Christ, Hagin did not explic-
itly ascribe this to Satan.
2.3. Copeland’s view

Copeland agrees with Kenyon and Hagin that Adam’s sin of treason
caused Satan to have ‘legal’ authority. Though he does not spell out the
details at the length that Kenyon did, he does nevertheless imply that
the atonement is a legal necessity, and that this issue of legality involves
Satan as one of the litigants.32 The implication is thus that God dealt
with Satan justly, although Copeland is not as insistent on this point as
Kenyon was.
Of Jesus, Copeland writes in ways that freely mix the related con-
cepts of Jesus’ being under Satan’s authority and of his suffering at the
latter’s hands. Thus he states:
The devil didn’t quite understand it. All he knew was, suddenly, Jesus was
at his mercy, and he jumped at the opportunity. In a matter of hours, he
succeeded at what he hadn’t been able to do for three years. He murdered
Jesus of Nazareth and took Him into hell.33
Copeland continues: Jesus “went into that place and all the demons of
the damned moved in on Him to annihilate Him . . . Satan thought, I’ve
finally got Him! . . . Satan was sitting on his throne ruling over Him.”34
Copeland is comfortable with graphic language to describe Christ’s
hellish sufferings.35 As with Kenyon’s exposition, however, this state was
temporary: “He went to hell and paid the price for our sin; but because
He was sinless, because He had not broken the Covenant, hell could
not hold Him! He whipped Satan and took the keys of death and
hell.”36
But suddenly, in the midst of it all, God the heavenly Father said, “that’s
enough!”. . . and the power of Almighty God began to stream down
from heaven and break the locks off the gates of hell . . . Jesus began to
stir. The power of heaven penetrated and re-created His spirit. He rose
32 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 2; cf. Force of Faith, 14.

33 Copeland, “Gates,” 5, italics added.
34 Copeland, “Gates,” 6, italics original.
35 He writes, for instance, of “Jesus’ emaciated, sin-filled spirit.” (“To Know the
Glory,” 6).
36 Copeland, Covenant, 39.
224 chapter six
up and in a moment of super conquest, He kicked the daylights out of

the devil and all those who were doing his work.
The Bible says He led captivity captive (Ephesians 4:8) and preached the
gospel in hell itself (1 Peter 3:19). Then Jesus came up out of that place
of torment in triumph, went back through the tomb, into His body, and
walked out of there.37
The reference in this paragraph to Christ’s spirit being ‘re-created’38

is evidence that this suffering at Satan’s hands was connected with
Christ’s ‘spiritual death’. However, the causality in this connection
seems to differ from that in Kenyon’s thinking. In the latter’s writing,
the implication was that ‘spiritual death’ was the cause and Satan’s
mastery the result (see page 218). In Copeland’s view, on the other
hand, Satan’s mastery, into which Christ voluntarily entered, caused
Christ’s ‘spiritual death’:
Like Adam, Christ made himself obedient to death and put himself into
the hands of God’s enemy, Satan. Unlike Adam, Christ committed this
act by choice—not by treason. He paid the price for Adam’s treason.
When He did, the same thing happened to Christ that happened to
Adam—spiritual death.39
Another viewpoint revealed in this quotation is that Copeland follows

Kenyon in regarding Christ’s position under Satan’s authority as deal-
ing with the problem of human sin: “He paid the price for Adam’s
treason” presumably refers to all human sin rather than just Adam’s.
The same is implied in the more general statement, that does not refer
to satanic suffering specifically: “It was by enduring spiritual death that
Jesus paid the complete penalty for sin.”40
While following Kenyon in stating that God acted legally in the
atonement, Copeland overtly introduces the theme that Satan acted
illegally (Kenyon may of course have believed this, without setting it
out explicitly). It is this illegality that made his end inevitable: “When
Satan took Jesus to hell illegally, he opened the door for overthrow.”41
37 Copeland, “Gates,” 6.
38 The reference to a ‘re-creation’ of Christ’s spirit is presumably loose. Hagin
emphasised that ‘spiritual death’ did not involve the cessation of existence (Name, 30).
There is no evidence that Copeland departs from this view.
39 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 3. Elsewhere, Copeland also presents Christ’s
‘spiritual death’ as the logical outcome of his being ‘made sin’ (Did Jesus Die Spiritually?,
1).
41 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 5; cf. Covenant, 29.
A further respect in which Copeland’s articulation varies from that of

Kenyon is that Copeland explicitly sees Satan as trapped by God:
He’s got Satan right where He wants him. Yeah—praise God—He had
[got him?] where he couldn’t operate because it was illegal. This Man
had not sinned. This Man had not fallen out of the covenant of God;
and He had the promise of God for deliverance. And Satan fell into the
trap. He took Him into hell illegally. He carried Him in there [when] He
did not sin. And the Bible says He was justified in the Spirit.42
Though this may initially seem to contradict Copeland’s idea of God’s
justice to Satan, it will emerge in later discussion about the beliefs of
the early church that exponents then of ransom theories were able
to combine both concepts, justice and trapping, and to offer alleged
justification for doing so (see page 228). Perhaps Copeland too sees no
difficulty in holding both ideas.
In conclusion, Copeland follows Kenyon in regarding: Jesus as both
under Satan’s authority and suffering at his hands while ‘spiritually
dead’; God as dealing with Satan justly in this process; and this suf-
fering of Jesus as instrumental in solving the problem of human sin.
He differs from or develops beyond Kenyon in seeing: Satan acting ille-
gally; Satan trapped in the process; and Christ’s domination by Satan
as the cause rather than result of his ‘spiritual death’. This last distinc-
tion between Kenyon’s and Copeland’s views suggests a slight possible
difference in understanding about the process of Christ’s demise. For
Kenyon, God removes ‘spiritual life’ from his Son, and as a result, the
latter is at Satan’s behest; for Copeland, Jesus voluntarily hands him-
self over to Satan, and ‘spiritual death’ follows inevitably. This might
explain why Kenyon could say that God sent Jesus to hell, as well as
that Satan took him there. For Copeland, in contrast, only the latter is
true.43
Finally, Copeland’s articulation offers an answer to a question that
was left open in Kenyon’s. Some explanation is provided concerning
how God’s victory over Satan is related to Jesus’ suffering at his hands.
These two phases in the salvation story are presented in tandem, as
they were by Kenyon, but are now interrelated. The illegality of Satan’s
42 Copeland, What Happened, side 2; on side 1 he speaks of God “setting this trap” for
Satan; cf. Covenant, 10.

43 See discussion on pages 153–154 about the extent to which Jesus, in these JDS
portrayals, voluntarily went to his own ‘spiritual death’.

226 chapter six
cruelty to Jesus trapped Satan and led to his downfall. Whether this is a
convincing explanation will be considered in 5.2.

In conclusion to this section, Kenyon viewed Jesus as having been
under Satan’s dominion and as having suffered under him. While
a certain ‘substitutionary logic’ is discernible—this had happened to
Adam; now it must happen to Jesus—nevertheless the overall logic is
less than impressive. Questions remain unanswered about the nature
of God’s justice and the ‘satisfaction’ of its demands, and about the link
between Christ’s suffering and victory.44 Hagin perhaps offered a ‘softer’
account of this aspect of Christ’s sufferings. Now Satan and his hordes
had Christ under their control, but the degree and consequences of
such control are less clear. Jesus suffered, but it is not set out who
or what caused this. Copeland returns to a more similar account to
Kenyon’s, but introduces the ideas of Satan acting illegally and being
trapped. Thereby he goes further than Kenyon did in attempting to
explain the causative link between Christ’s suffering and his victory.
3. Responses of the critics
In this section, critics’ concerns will be considered. Beyond brief gen-

eral observations that this third aspect of JDS teaching is taught in
the Word-faith movement,45 responses centre round the place given to
Satan in JDS teaching (see pages 188–189), and more specifically the
relationship the doctrine has with ransom theories of the atonement
emanating from the early church. The latter will be considered in this
section. It is necessary first to note that the concept of Jesus suffering at
Satan’s hands and that of Jesus being ‘paid’ as a ransom to the devil are
44 Rashdall observed similar unanswerable questions in early church ransom theo-
ries: “Why any such ransom should be paid, it is difficult to understand, since it is
admitted that man really belonged to God” and “How exactly Christ’s death . . . [was]
supposed to defeat the demons is not explained” (Idea of the Atonement, 243, 261).
45 E.g. Perriman, Faith, 23, 113–114 (who responds: “Nothing is said [in the Bible]
about him being tormented in hell”); Bowman, Controversy, 161; Brandon, Health, 124,
127 (“Dramatic pictures are painted of Jesus manacled to Satan and mocked by hosts of
leering demons . . . The story is riveting but the theology is absurd”); Hanegraaff, Crisis,
163–166.
not identical. Of course, it is easy to present a scenario in which both

occur. However, one may occur without the other. Jesus might actively
confront Satan and suffer injury in that conflict, without being handed
over to Satan at all. In contrast, Jesus could be paid, or at least offered,
to Satan, as the bait in a trap, without suffering in the process (whatever
the fate of the bait on Gregory’s fish-hook or in Augustine’s mousetrap).
A number of commentators link this ‘Satan’s prey’ aspect of JDS
teaching with classical ransom theories. These include, in the great
majority, those who are critical of JDS teaching.46 They also include,
however, a small proportion of debaters who defend JDS teaching on
the basis that its resemblance to ransom theories places it within the
range of historically accepted ‘orthodox’ understandings of the atone-
ment.47 None of the observers who note this association offers exten-
sive evidence of it, and few seek to clarify the degree of similarity that
exists.48 Indeed, at least in certain respects Hanegraaff notes marked
contrasts between ransom theories and JDS teaching.49 Therefore, this
section will first consider the extent to which JDS teaching does in
fact mirror ransom theories. In pursuing this analytical task, it must
be noted that individual ‘ransom’ writers offered differing perspectives
and details. It is therefore more appropriate to write of ‘ransom the-
ories’ than a solitary ‘ransom theory’.50 This variety naturally compli-
cates matters. A claim cannot be made that all the early ransom propo-
nents believed all the elements that are usually brought together when
ransom theology is described.
The following common factors between JDS teaching and early ran-
som theories can be noted: Satan’s grip on humanity can be traced
back to Adam’s fall;51 Satan rightfully or legally owned fallen human-
46 Perriman, Faith, 115 (Perriman’s criticism is nuanced: “Although many would
regard this sort of mythologization as an absurd and unnecessary encumbrance on

the gospel in the modern world, it is in tune with the more extreme Pentecostal
instinct for spiritual vaudeville.”); McConnell, Promise, 119, 125–126; Smail, Walker
and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 70–71; dal Bello, “Atonement Where? Part 2,”
9; Gary E. Gilley, “The Word-Faith Movement” (1999), http://www.rapidnet.com
~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/char/more/w-f.htm.
47 DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, 240, 270–271; Spencer, Heresy Hunters, 102.
48 One brief comment about the degree of similarity, e.g., is Lie’s: “Theology,” 97,
n. 71.
49 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 395, n. 2.
50 Eugene Teselle, “The Cross as Ransom,” 147–170, Journal of Early Christian Studies
4:2 (Summer 1996), offers a threefold categorisation.

51 Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.XXI.1, 3 (ANF I, 548, 550); Augustine, On the Holy Trin-
ity XIII.12 (NPNF I/III, 175), referring to Gen. 3:14, 19 together; (tentatively) Chrysos-
228 chapter six
ity;52 in giving Jesus, God acted towards Satan not with force but with
justice;53 Satan caused Jesus’ death;54 in his death, Jesus entered Satan’s
domain to deliver people from his grip;55 Satan in the process was
trapped.56 As with Copeland’s views today, the idea of Satan being
trapped could be combined with the view that God acted towards him
justly in the process. This peculiar combination was justified on the
basis that “the deceiver was in turn deceived.”57
On the other hand, there are also important differences. Nowhere in
the JDS teaching of the three proponents under review is this aspect of
the atonement referred to as a ransom. The nearest Kenyon came was
to write, “He must in some way redeem man from Satanic dominion.”58
As Lie observes,59 there is no sense in JDS teaching that Jesus was
‘paid’ to the devil, or that a transaction at an agreed price occurred.60
On the other hand, JDS teaching incorporates elements not found in
the classical formulations. Jesus’ suffering, inflicted by Satan, is now
much more than his physical death. He is taken into hell and suffers
tom, Homilies on Colossians VI (NPNF I/XIII, 286); (obliquely) Rufinus, A Commentary on

the Apostles’ Creed 15 (NPNF II/III, 549).
52 Tertullian, De Fuga in Persecutione 2 (ANF, 117); Augustine, Trinity XIII.15 (NPNF
I/III, 177).
53 Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.1.1 (ANF I, 527); Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism
XXII (NPNF II/V, 492–493)—despite Gregory’s admission that “there was deception”
in God’s “device” (Catechism XXVI [p. 495]); Augustine, Trinity XIII.14 (NPNF I/III,
177); Leo the Great, Sermon XXII III (NPNF II/XII, 130).
54 Origen, Commentary on Matthew XIII.9 (ANF X, 480); Augustine, Trinity IV.13,
XIII.14 (NPNF I/III, 78, 177).

55 Origen as understood by Rashdall, Idea of the Atonement, 261 (“The whole idea
[of ransom in Origen] is closely associated, as the context shows, with the belief that
the disembodied Christ literally went down into the strong man’s domain, preached
to the spirits in prison, delivered them from Satan’s thraldom, then rose Himself from
the dead”); Augustine, Letters CLXIV (NPNF I/I, 516–517); Rufinus, Commentary 16–17
(NPNF II/III, 550).
56 Augustine, Sermons 263.2, trans. Edmund Hill (New Rochelle, NY: New City Press,
1993), III/7, 220; Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job XXXIII.XV.52–53 (S. Gregorii Magni
Opera [Turnhout: Brepols, 1985], 1700); Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism XXIV (NPNF II/V,
494).
57 Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism XXVI (NPNF II/V, 495). In Gregory’s case, the
perceived morality of this deception was aided by the belief that Satan would ultimately
be saved (496).
58 Kenyon, Father, 114; similarly What Happened, 141; cf. Irenaeus, Heresies V.1.1 (ANF
I, 527)—redemtione; Origen, Commentary on Matthew XVI.8, quoted in Grensted, History,

38—λτρν; Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism XXII (NPNF II/V, 492)—λτρν.
60 Cf. Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 2.13.29, trans. Thomas Scheck
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 161.

there throughout the time he is ‘spiritually dead’. This is distinctly

different from the point made in some early ransom theories, and
indeed elsewhere in early Christian reflection on Christ’s death, that
Jesus went into hades and there plundered its contents. In the early
versions, Jesus had already defeated Satan on the cross (whether or
not this included his life being a ransom payment to Satan)61 and his
‘journey’ to hades was a victorious one, whether to proclaim, release,
or both.62 In the JDS version, Jesus goes to hell while the outcome of
the battle, to its participants at least, is still undecided. Satan seems to
have the upper hand, until God says, “Enough!” and Jesus, alive once
more, only now defeats Satan.
The JDS view can also be contrasted with the ‘harrowing of hell’, in
which Christ in his descent defeated not so much Satan as (personified)
hell itself. This ancient belief is attested in a number of works. Chrysos-
tom for example wrote: “By descending into hell, he made hell cap-
tive. He embittered it when it tasted of his flesh.”63 Examples include
those who used Jonah as an analogy, such as Cyril of Jerusalem, “The
one was cast into a whale’s belly: but the other of His own accord
went down thither, where the invisible whale of death is. And He went
down of His own accord, that death might cast up those whom he
had devoured,”64 and Athanasius, who wrote with similar reference to
61 Smail, Walker and Wright make essentially the same point (“Revelation Knowl-
edge,” 71).
62 As with ransom theories, beliefs about both Christ’s defeat of Satan and his
possible ‘descent’ into hades were varied and relatively unformulated. For Irenaeus,
while Jesus did indeed overthrow Satan, and wrest humanity from him, this was not
consistently linked with the cross, let alone his descent. It was as much a result of his
teaching truth. Jesus did descend during the three days, but this was to preach, not
to defeat Satan (Against Heresies IV.XXVII.2; V.XXI.3; V.XXII.1; V.XXXI.1 [ANF I,
527, 550, 560]). For Tertullian, Jesus descended to hades to “make the patriarchs and
prophets partakers of Himself.” Insofar as this was a rescue, it can possibly be inferred
that, ultimately, it was a rescue from Satan. However, Satan was not mentioned, and
although hades was “a vast deep space in the interior of the earth”, it was not portrayed
as Satan’s domain (Treatise on the Soul LV [ANF III, 231]). In Chrysostom’s thought, the
capture of Satan was overtly linked to Christ’s descent to hades (Ephesians homilies XI
[NPNF I/XIII, 104]). Only rarely, however, were all these disparate thoughts brought
together so that Christ in his descent into death or hades entered Satan’s domain and
delivered people from his clutches (e.g. Augustine, Letters CLXIV [NPNF I/I, 516–517];
cf. the yet more imaginative mythology of the Gospel of Nicodemus, part II [ANF VIII,
448–458]). Never was it in hades that victory over Satan was first achieved.
63 John Chrysostom, Paschal Homily, provided by Robert Forrest, email message to
author, 2006.
64 Cyril, Catechetical Lectures XIV.17 (NPNF II/VII, 98–99).
230 chapter six
Jonah but in the negative, “Jonah was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonah
go down to hades; nor was the whale hades; nor did Jonah, when swal-
lowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale,
but he alone came forth.”65 Liturgical attestation is also found in Gre-
gory of Nyssa’s Life of Saint Macrina,66 and in the Odes of Solomon.67 The
Odes, and similar texts, are discussed by Gounelle: “nous apprenons . . .
que l’entrée de l’enfer est brisée, que le Christ y pénètre, enchaîne
l’enfer, et en ressort avec les patriarches.”68 In these cases, Satan might
possibly be inferred to lie metaphorically behind this personification of
hades or hell, but such an inference is by no means certain.
The three previous paragraphs indicate that JDS teaching, in this
respect, cannot simply be characterised as ‘a form of ransom theory’, or
a version of the ‘harrowing of hell’, if this is meant to suggest great par-
allel with ancient forms. There are distinct commonalities, but these by
no means overwhelm the differences. The degree of difference means
an appeal cannot be made that JDS must be regarded as ‘orthodox’,
on the grounds of ransom theories’ centuries-long sway in ‘orthodox’
Christianity.69 In contrast, the degree of commonality might help to
explain how this aspect of JDS teaching came about. Smail, Walker
65 Athanasius, Against Arians III.XXV.23 (NPNF II/IV, 406).

66 Trans. Kevin Corrigan (Toronto: Peregrina Publishing, 1997), provided by Robert
Forrest, email message to author, 2006.
67 15:9 (?); 17:9–13; 22:1–4; 42:11–20, trans. James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha Vol. 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 748–771. This collection also
refers to Christ’s defeat of the “dragon with seven heads” (22:5).
68 Rémi Gounelle, La Descente du Christe aux Enfers (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 39–47,
quotation from 44.

69 Grensted, History, 33 (900 years); Rashdall, Idea of the Atonement, 247, 350 (nearly
1000 years). While many might wish to agree with the verdict of Rashdall, enthusias-
tic Abelardian proponent of a subjective atonement, that ransom theories are “child-
ish”, “hideous” “grotesque”, “monstrous”, “immoral” and “offensive”, (Idea of the Atone-
ment, 245, 248, 259, 261, 262, 319, 350, 364), nevertheless it is important to recognise
a number of opposing considerations. Darby Kathleen Ray observes that the ransom
theories were “enormously convincing to many sharp-minded people for hundreds of
years” (Deceiving the Devil: Atonement, Abuse, and Ransom [Cleveland, Ohio: The Pilgrim
Press, 1998], 121). Furthermore, some commentators today find merit in these theories,
either in their original forms, (e.g. Charles A. Taliaferro, “A Narnian Theory of the
Atonement,” Scottish Journal of Theology 41:1 [1988]: 81) or in highly demythologised ver-
sions serving feminist or other broader concerns (e.g. Ray, Deceiving the Devil [feminist];
Teselle, “Cross as Ransom”). On the other hand, the finding that ransom theories first
flourished in Marcionite and gnostic circles (Rashdall, Idea of the Atonement, 245; Teselle,
“Cross as Ransom,” 157–158; Grensted, History, 34) offers a little ‘grist to the mill’ of
those who view JDS teaching as ‘heterodox’.
and Wright, referring to ransom theories and other related ideas preva-
lent in the early centuries, claim that “Faith teachers . . . certainly have
inklings of such teachings.”70 This speculation is justified (see below).
4. JDS sources
The three JDS proponents under review claim only the Bible as the
source of their doctrine. They sometimes refer to and commend the
views of more recent Christians, but never claim them as the pri-
mary influencers of their understanding. However, it has emerged in
earlier chapters that this claim is sharply challenged, mainly by and
through the work of Dan McConnell, who claims that Kenyon was
influenced by the ‘heterodox’ ideas of New Thought and Christian Sci-
ence, and that Hagin and Copeland were also influenced indirectly,
through Kenyon. Since McConnell’s work was published, the counter-
claim has emerged that Kenyon’s main influences were actually ‘ortho-
dox’, and came largely from within the movements known as Higher
Life and Faith Cure (see discussion, pages 52–55; 116–122). It is thus
necessary to consider Kenyon’s possible non-biblical sources (4.1), be-
fore proceeding to discuss JDS teachers’ use of the Bible (4.2 to 4.4).
4.1. Kenyon’s possible non-biblical sources

There is no doubt that Kenyon was aware of early church theology.
Lie makes mention of Kenyon’s knowledge of Polycarp’s life, and that
Kenyon read Irenaeus.71 McIntyre also refers to Kenyon’s having read
“the Church Fathers.”72 So Kenyon may have picked up strands of
ransom theology and Christ’s ‘descent’ directly from early sources.
However, it will emerge below that similar ideas were prevalent in
Kenyon’s own day, among those he listened to and admired. Thus he
may also have become familiar with them as mediated through these
latter sources.
Turning now to the possible influences of his own generation on
him, and in particular of New Thought or Christian Science on the
one hand and Higher Life or Faith Cure on the other, all that needs

71 Lie, email messages to author, July 28 and 30, 2006.
72 McIntyre, email message to author, August 2, 2006.
232 chapter six
to be repeated here (see page 200) with respect to New Thought and
Christian Science is that the writers introduced in chapter 2 either did
not believe in a personal devil, or if they did, gave him little attention.
Thus none of Kenyon’s distinctive ideas about Christ as Satan’s prey
can be traced there. On the other hand, Higher Life and Faith Cure
writers, who believed in Satan and gave him some attention, though
less than Kenyon, believed that Christ’s death vanquished Satan. In
fact, a number of Kenyon’s ideas are found among them.
Andrew Murray, who in general wrote little about Satan, including
in his depictions of the atonement, nevertheless pictured one aspect of
Christ’s atoning work in terms similar to the early church on one hand
and Kenyon on the other.
God, at creation, had placed man under the government of His Son.
By yielding to the temptations of Satan man fell from God, and became
entirely subject to the authority of the Tempter; he became his slave.
It was the law of God that prohibited sin and threatened punishment.
When man sinned, it was this law that bestowed upon Satan his author-
ity. . . God Himself gave man up to be a slave, in the prison-house
of Satan; and for man there was no possibility of redemption save by
ransom—by the payment of the price which the law must righteously
demand as ransom, for the redemption of prisoners . . . Jesus Christ has
purchased, with His own blood, our freedom from the prison and slavery
of Satan, in which he as our enemy had lodged us, and to which the law
of God had condemned us.73
Adam
yielded himself to Satan, and Satan had power over him. As the jailer
keeps the prisoner under the authority of the king, Satan holds the sinner
in the power of death so long as no true legal release is given. . . He
[Jesus] entered into our death, and endured it as the penalty of sin, and,
enduring it, satisfied the law of God. And so, because the law had been
the strength of sin, He took from sin and the devil the power of death
over us.74
These quotations indicate between them that, for Murray, Satan held
sway over sinful humanity as a result of the fall (although, like some
more developed ideas in the early church,75 only as God’s gaoler), for
73 Murray, Power of the Blood, 169. Note that Murray did not indicate that the ransom
was paid to the devil. Elsewhere, he wrote that Christ “gave up His life to God” (Out of
His Fulness [London: James Nisbet & Co. Limited, 1897], 51, italics original).
74 Andrew Murray, Holiest of All, 96 (commenting on Hebrews 2:14).
75 See, e.g., Rashdall, Idea of the Atonement, 330 concerning Augustine.
release to be achieved it had to be ‘legal’, Christ’s death served as a

ransom price precisely to release humanity from satanic bondage, and in
his death, as opposed to his resurrection, Christ conquered over Satan.
It has already been demonstrated that these ideas were all present
in the early church, and may have reached Kenyon directly from
those sources. This may, additionally, have been reinforced through
intermediaries like Murray. In contrast, it must be noted that Murray
made no mention of Kenyon’s more novel ideas that Jesus suffered at
Satan’s hands, or that Jesus suffered not only on the cross but also in
the triduum mortis.
Another of Kenyon’s champions who believed that Christ in his
death conquered Satan was A.J. Gordon.76 Unlike Kenyon, he was
explicit that this was achieved on the cross, and required no further
work during the triduum: “Now all these things are passed forever both
for Him and for us, as soon as the ‘It is finished’ has been spoken.”77 In
fact, Higher Life and Faith Cure authors hardly mentioned the triduum.
A.B. Simpson did so, but indicated no suffering on Christ’s part there,
and no contact with Satan (he believed that victory over Satan occurred
on the cross): Jesus “was going out into deeper death, and His heart was
all pent up with it, until He went down into Gethsemane, down into
Joseph’s tomb, down into Hades and passed through the regions of the
dead and opened first the gates of heaven.”78 Like Murray’s ransom
teaching, this view of hades did not add anything original beyond
‘orthodox’ tradition, and therefore does not explain any of Kenyon’s
particular distinctives.
In conclusion, some of Kenyon’s motifs were already present in
Higher Life and Faith Cure. He may have drawn upon these. How-
ever, the only ones that were present were already found in the early
church. None of Kenyon’s especially controversial teachings lay there.
Given that they were also not to be found in New Thought or Chris-
tian Science, it can only be concluded, as with certain other aspects of
JDS doctrine, that Kenyon developed them himself from the raw mate-
rials of biblical data and the dualistic and idealistic worldview that he
inherited from his ecclesial and social environment.

234 chapter six
4.2. Satan in charge of the world

Discussion now moves to JDS teachers’ biblical sources. Kenyon, fol-
lowed by Hagin, frequently offered scriptural confirmation for his un-
derstanding that the fallen world lay under Satan’s charge. Jesus’ temp-
tation recorded in Luke 4:6–7 was evidence, for Kenyon, that Satan
ruled the world, and that Jesus knew this:
If the devil lied to Jesus and Jesus did not know it, Jesus was not the
incarnate Son of God. If the devil lied to Jesus, and Jesus knew that
he lied, it was not a genuine temptation. We believe that the Bible is
true, and that this was a genuine temptation. Then Jesus recognized
that Satan had authority and dominion over the kingdoms of the human
race, which he could transfer at his will to whomsoever he wished.79
Even allowing that it is possible to read Christ’s mind, Kenyon’s argu-

mentation is flawed. His first point assumes that for Jesus to be ‘the
incarnate Son of God’, he must have been all-knowing. This was not
the view of Luke, for whom Jesus grew in knowledge and wisdom like
any human, for instance by asking questions (Luke 2:46, 52). His sec-
ond point is psychologically flawed. Many have faced a ‘genuine temp-
tation’ while recognising that its basis involved untruth. Furthermore,
this attempted proof text for the rule of Satan over the world seems to
involve an unfortunate case of ‘taking Satan’s word for it’. The psalmists
declared otherwise (Psalm 24:1; 115:16).
Some biblical designations of Satan are also used in JDS teaching
to support its view of Satan’s reign. John 14:30, with its reference to
the prince, or ruler, of the world, caused Kenyon to state: “Satan
here is recognized as the political head of the human race and of
the kingdoms of the world. It does not seem necessary to attempt to
defend this point.”80 Similarly, when Hagin described Adam’s ‘high
treason’ by which he handed over his God-given authority to Satan,
he referred to Satan’s becoming ‘the god of this world’, and went on to
declare, “He is called that in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 4:4).”81
While 2 Corinthians 4:4 actually refers to ‘the god of this age’, the point
remains that Satan is in view, and called a ‘god’. Kenyon merely took
79 Kenyon, Bible, 27, paragraph breaks removed; cf. Father, 39, 58, 61; Hagin, What to
Do, 15–16.
81 Hagin, Plead Your Case, 3; cf. New Thresholds, 53 (56 in 2nd edition); Copeland,
“Gates,” 5.
this to mean that, for Paul, Satan demands worship.82 This is plausible
(cf. 1 Corinthians 12:2; Ephesians 2:2). However, Paul may also have
meant that “Satan controls this age under God’s decree,”83 but even
this, and similar references in John, do not need to suggest that Satan
had such an absolute control that God was restricted in his access until
he used a ‘legal’ means to restore it.
Lastly, Kenyon made the peculiar claim that “if you will notice, all
through the Scriptures God and the angels treat Satan with a certain
deference; they recognize his legal dominion.”84 No examples were
offered. As the task was left to Kenyon’s readers to notice this deference,
his readers are free to conclude that such deference is not ‘all through’
the Bible. Texts such as Job 1:6–12 and Jude 9 indicate a certain respect
or even deference, but not ‘legal dominion’.
4.3. Jesus in Hades/ Hell

The texts that JDS teachers refer to in defending their view of Christ
in hell are unsurprising, and their use of them in many ways unre-
markable. In order to demonstrate that Jesus went to hades, which they
simply and erroneously equate with hell,85 the teachers under review
refer to the same cluster of texts utilised by the many other Christians
who hold or have held to this widespread view. They are, primarily,
Matthew 12:40,86 Acts 2:24–31,87 Romans 10:7,88 and Ephesians 4:9.89 If
these texts are simply understood to indicate, between them, the fact
that Jesus was truly dead, they are unproblematic. Indeed, Romans 10:7
states as much. Furthermore, such passages in all likelihood contributed
to the church’s early creedal formulae that ‘He descended to hades/
hell.’90
82 Kenyon, Father, 40, 62.

83 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 78.
85 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 132.
86 Kenyon, Father, 131; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 4; Jesus In Hell, 1.
87 Kenyon, Father, 132; Bible, 166, 181; What Happened, 59; Hagin, Name, 32; Copeland,
Jesus Died Spiritually, 5; Did Jesus Die Spiritually?, 3; Jesus In Hell, 1.

88 Kenyon, Father, 133; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 4; Jesus In Hell, 2.
89 Kenyon, Father, 133; What Happened, 75; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 5.
90 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2003), 174
(Acts 2:27; Ephesians 4:9); James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (WBC. Milton Keynes: Word
[UK], 1991 [1988]), 606 (Romans 10:7).
236 chapter six
However, JDS teaching goes further. Some of the texts are used to
indicate that Jesus actively suffered in hell. Romans 10:7 is connected
with Revelation 9:1; 20:1 to claim that hades was the haunt of demons.91
This will be considered below (page 239). Acts 2:24–31 is used, because
of its reference to “the pains of death.”92 Matthew 12:40 is used because
of its evocative analogy with the experience of Jonah.93 The use to
which this analogy was put by, for instance, Cyril of Jerusalem and
Athanasius, has already been noted (pages 229–230). Copeland, how-
ever, pushes the analogy further than had traditionally been done. For
Copeland, part of the significance of the parallel between Jonah and
Jesus is that Jonah’s experience in the great fish was a painful one.
Thus, projected onto Jesus, Jonah’s experience is used to provide the
thought that Jesus suffered during the triduum mortis. He was not in par-
adise, but in torment.
Jonah did not describe his experience like a place of comfort but a place
of torment. God heard him cry “out of the belly of hell” or the grave
(Jonah 2:2) . . . Since Jonah’s words describe the death of Jesus also, we
know that Jesus went to the tormented destiny of the rich man rather
than the comforting place where Lazarus rested.94
The texts cited by Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland are a slender base
on which to build their view. They may, taken together, suggest the
ideas that JDS teaching culls from them. However, they are certainly
open to other interpretations as well. Matthew 12:40 might simply
refer to Christ’s physical burial.95 Even if it is taken to refer to hades,
which is more plausible, the difficulty with Copeland’s exegesis is the
degree of significance attributed to an analogy, and the lack of con-
cern expressed for Jesus’ own purpose in offering this analogy, as por-
trayed by Matthew. This is not to claim that Copeland’s conclusion is
91 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 4; Jesus In Hell, 2.

92 Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 5: “Jesus had already been delivered from the pain
of physical death as soon as He left His body . . . Jesus had to be loosed from the pains
of death because He had gone down where the punishment for sin was . . . Jesus was
delivered from a spiritual death that was painful and full of travail.”
93 For discussion about whether rabbinic beliefs that Jonah descended to the under-
world were old enough to have affected the conceptuality and composition of Matthew
12:40, see W. Hall Harris III, The Descent of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
1998 [1996]), 59–62.
95 Admittedly, this is unlikely, given the association between BCδης and καρδα in
LXX Jonah 2:3–4. See John Yates, “ ‘He Descended Into Hell’: Creed, Article And
Scripture Part II,” Churchman 102.4 (1988): 303.
necessarily wrong—only that the analogy in Matthew is not sufficient

evidential premise on which to rest such a conclusion. Romans 10:7
may refer to hades, but says nothing of suffering. Ephesians 4:9 is noto-
riously difficult. It might refer to the incarnation,96 Christ’s death,97 or
the giving of the Spirit and his gifts.98 It is not safe to place much weight
on this verse.
Acts 2:24–31 provides an opportunity to consider the overall views of
a biblical author on the subject, for Luke mentioned hades a number
of times. Exegesis of the references in Acts to abandonment to hades
has already been offered (pages 172–173). It was concluded there that in
this passage Luke did not conceive of Christ going to hades. Further
study of the Lukan material confirms such a conclusion. Whatever
stage the development of the concept of hades had reached by the
time Luke wrote, there is no doubt that for Luke, it was a place or
state of both shame (Luke 10:15) and suffering (Luke 16:23). On the
other hand, paradise was a place or state of promise and comfort
(Luke 23:43). It is therefore unlikely that in Luke’s worldview paradise
was a ‘compartment’ within hades. With all this in mind, Luke 23:43
serves as a statement not only about the thief ’s blessedness immediately
after death, but about Christ’s as well.99 It is safe to conclude that Luke
was consistent: Jesus did not ‘descend’ to hades after death, but was
welcomed into paradise. Luke 23:46 serves to confirm this conclusion.
All this tends to support the understanding of Acts 2:27, 31, against JDS
teaching, that Luke meant to convey the idea that God did not allow
Jesus to go to hades, understood as a place of suffering, at all.
While Luke cannot be taken to have been speaking for the whole
New Testament at this point, his view is nevertheless instructive,100 and
suggests that caution must be exercised before deciding that other New
Testament authors regarded Christ as entering a state or descending
into a place of suffering while dead.
96 O’Brien, Ephesians, 294–296.

97 Dunn, James D.G., Christology in the Making (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1980), 186–
187.
98 Harris, Descent of Christ.
99 JDS teaching ‘bypasses’ this verse by understanding it to mean, “I tell today, you
will be with me in paradise.” For discussion of this unlikely interpretation, see page 173.
100 The Johannine death cry, “It is finished!” is likely to testify to the same belief.
238 chapter six
4.4. Jesus and Satan’s armies

JDS teaching goes further still. Not only did Jesus suffer in hell, but this
suffering was at the hands of Satan and his hordes. This is supported
biblically with reference to, especially, Colossians 2:15,101 Hebrews
2:14,102 and Romans 10:7 taken with Revelation 9:1; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1.103
These texts require little discussion.
Kenyon offered a dramatic reconstruction from Colossians 2:15:
And “having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a
show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” (Col. 2:15) It is
more graphic in a marginal rendering. “Having put off from himself
the principalities and the powers, (It would seem as though the whole
hosts of hell were upon him. He was going through agonies beyond
words, and suddenly is justified, made alive.) “He hurls back the hosts
of darkness.”104
It is indeed possible that 4πεκδυσ%μενς is validly translated as ‘having
put off from himself ’, rather than ‘having disarmed’.105 However, there
is no need from this text to separate this event temporally from the
cross, as Copeland seeks to do, denying that ν α,τ# refers to the
cross106 (which it may or may not do). A JDS reading also requires
that the “rulers and authorities” be understood as demonic, rather than
human. Such an interpretation is contested.107
Hebrews 2:14 shows clearly a contest with Satan, with the victory
achieved through Christ’s death. However, it is easier to associate this
victory with Christ’s death on the cross than with a battle in the
underworld between Satan and the ‘spiritually resurrected’ but not
yet physically resurrected Christ. This, nevertheless, is what Kenyon
portrayed:
When this cry [that Jesus had met the demands of justice] reached the
dark regions, Jesus rose and hurled back the hosts of darkness, and
met Satan in awful combat as described in Hebrews 2:14: “In order
101 Kenyon, Father, 117, 133–134; Wonderful Name, 8; Bible, 167, 186–187; What Happened,
65, 69, 79, 89, 116; Copeland, Jesus Died Spiritually, 5; Jesus In Hell, 2.
102 Kenyon, Wonderful Name, 9; Bible, 187; What Happened, 65, 117.
105 James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC. Carlisle:
The Paternoster Press, 1996), 167.

106 Copeland, Jesus In Hell, 2.
107 E.g. by Colin Gunton, The Actuality of Atonement (London, New York: T&T Clark
Ltd, 1988), 55.

that through death, He might paralyze him that held the dominion of
death—that is, the devil.” (Rotherham) In other words, after Jesus had
put off from Himself the demon forces and the awful burden of guilt, sin,
and sickness that He carried with Him down there, He grappled with
Satan, conquered him, and left him paralyzed, whipped and defeated.108
Romans 10:7 implies that Jesus in his death was in the D8υσσς. Cope-
land notes that in Revelation this word is used to refer to “the lowest
regions of the underworld,” “the abode of demons, out of which they
can be let loose.”109 This may be true in Revelation, but to conclude
that the word has precisely the same referent in Romans is illegitimate.
Romans 10:7 itself simply interprets the abyss as the realm of the dead.
In conclusion to this subsection, there is no unequivocal biblical
testimony that Jesus suffered at Satan’s hands, or indeed ‘met’ Satan
in any way, while his body was lying in the grave. Indeed, to posit that
Christ’s spirit was doing anything active at all while his body lay in
the passivity of death requires a degree of anthropological dualism with
which the New Testament is not consistently comfortable (see pages
107–109).

This section has surveyed JDS teaching’s implicit and explicit sources.
As far as implicit sources are concerned, it has emerged that some
relevant early church teaching reached and influenced Kenyon, either
by direct reading or through such intermediaries as Andrew Murray
and A.B. Simpson. In contrast, Kenyon’s ideas in this area did not arise
from any alleged influence of New Thought or Christian Science on
him. Turning now to Kenyon’s, Hagin’s and Copeland’s explicit sources
(scriptural texts), it has become clear that the texts to which they refer
do not support their distinctive ideas about Satan’s authority over the
world, Jesus’ suffering in hell, or his being tortured there by Satan. In
more general terms, however, their case that Jesus suffered at Satan’s
hands, and achieved a victory over him, remains to be considered. The
following section will build an alternative case concerning this aspect of
Christ’s suffering, its relationship to his victory, and the timing of these
events.

240 chapter six
5. Alternative proposals
Much of the JDS teaching that has been considered in this chapter is
to be rightly rejected. However, the rejection need not be total. For
instance, although there is reason to refuse the portrayal of Satan’s
authority over the fallen world, those who see Satan as actively prob-
lematic for people seeking to serve God find much support for their
view in the Bible and in Christian tradition. Furthermore, the idea that
Jesus himself was confronted by Satan during his incarnation and yet
achieved victory over him is easily supported from a variety of biblical
texts and later Christian writers. It is feasible, therefore, that a case can
be put forward concerning Christ’s conflict with Satan that bears some
resemblance to JDS teaching, but stands on a firmer foundation. The
following aspects of such a case are considered in this section: Jesus’ suf-
fering at Satan’s hands (5.1); his victory over Satan (5.2); and the timing
of these events (5.3).
5.1. Suffering at Satan’s hands

The conclusion of section 4, that Jesus did not have anything to do with
Satan during the triduum mortis, does not mean that Jesus did not suffer
at Satan’s hands at all. There is reason to believe that, in the eyes of
some New Testament authors, such suffering occurred during Christ’s
final approach to death, even though it must be conceded immediately
that New Testament depictions of the suffering of Christ do not include
references to Satan with anything like the frequency found in JDS
teaching. Given the worldview of the New Testament, it would hardly
be surprising that Satan was presented as the instigator of Christ’s
suffering. After all, Satan is presented early on in the synoptic gospels
as Christ’s enemy, intent upon his downfall and the destruction of his
mission (Matthew 4:3–11; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:3–13). And in Johannine
literature, Christ’s conflict with Satan is given as the very reason for the
incarnation and its consequences (John 12:31; 1 John 3:8).
Added to this is the widespread New Testament theme of Christ’s
being ‘handed over’ (e.g. Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:10; Luke 18:32; John
18:30; Acts 2:23; Romans 4:25; 8:32).110 In the gospels, this handing over
is simply from one human to another, sometimes with the connotation
110 Cf. Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2, 25; 1 Peter 2:23, in which Jesus gave himself over,
sacrificially and/or entrustingly, to God.

of passing on not only the victim, but also the responsibility. In Acts
and Romans, however, there is the sense of God’s purpose lying behind
the victimisation and death of Jesus. This accords with the mainly
Johannine portrayal of a Jesus who consciously and willingly handed
himself over to his enemies (John 10:11, 15, 17–18; 13:27b; 18:4–11; cf.
Matthew 26:53–54; Mark 10:32, 45). In John’s narrative, Jesus handed
himself over, it would seem, not only to his human persecutors, but
also to ‘the prince of this world’. John 14:30–31 seems to indicate not
only a knowledge on the part of Jesus that Satan would exercise some
sway over him (“the ruler of this world is coming”), but also that Jesus
gave himself to that sway for the sake of the fulfilment of his task (“He
does not have anything in me, but I am doing just what the Father
commanded me, so that the world may know. . .”). That Satan did
indeed persecute Jesus, in Johannine eyes, is confirmed by the remark
that Satan entered Judas prior to Judas’ treachery (John 13:27a; 18:2).
Luke testified to the same idea (22:3, 53).
The Johannine and Lukan idea that Satan played a part in causing
Christ’s suffering finds a possible echo in 1 Corinthians 2:8. According
to this text, Jesus was crucified by “the rulers of this age.” These have
been understood to be either human or demonic rulers. There are
strong linguistic arguments for accepting that Paul’s primary reference
was to human rulers.111 Nevertheless, a number of recent commentators
suggest that Paul might have had both categories of ruler in view:
“In 2:6–9, Paul emphasizes the superhuman origin of the wisdom he
preached, which prevails over the wisdom of all other powers, terrestrial
and celestial.”112
In view of this Johannine, Lukan and possible Pauline testimony,
Kenyon and Copeland are not progressing far beyond the Bible in
stating that Satan persecuted and murdered Jesus.113 It is reasonable
111 The arguments are set out briefly but clearly by Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle
to the Corinthians (NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987),
103–104, especially n. 24.
112 David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House
Co., 2003), 94; cf. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC.
Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000), 237–238; Gerd Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline
Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987 [1983]), 378.
113 Kenyon, What Happened, 89: Satan “had stirred the selfish hearts of the High
Priesthood until in a jealous frenzy they had crucified Him.” (It is necessary to note
that, according to the canonised gospels, Jesus was crucified by Romans; Christ’s
crucifixion was by no means a purely Jewish crime); Copeland, “Gates,” 5. Kenyon
242 chapter six
to suppose that, in the eyes of biblical authors, Satan was the instigator
of human efforts to rid the world of Jesus.
Moving now from biblical witnesses to those of the later church,
voices continue to be found that placed responsibility for Christ’s death
at Satan’s feet. The views of Origen and Augustine have already been
noted (page 228). Despite Anselm’s assault on the place of Satan in the
atonement,114 Aquinas was still able to follow Augustine and write of
“the devil who in the passion of Christ overstepped the limits of the
power allowed him by God, plotting the death of the sinless Christ.”115
Luther seems to have been alluding to the same idea when he wrote,
“This is the wonderful wisdom of God, that He does not punish the
ungodly except with their own stratagems, He mocks them with their
own mockeries, He pierces them with their own javelins, as David did
with Goliath and Christ did with the devil.”116
Coming to Barth in the twentieth century, Satan, however Barth
understood that entity,117 played a part in the crucifixion. Barth wanted
to take the biblical language of ransom and victory seriously.118 Satan,
as Barth understood the gospels, was active in Gethsemane and be-
yond. In stark evocative language, Barth wrote that death was the only
answer Jesus received to his Gethsemane prayer:
The will of God was done as the will of Satan was done. The answer of
God was identical with the action of Satan. That was the frightful thing.
The coincidence of the divine and the satanic will and work and word
was the problem of this hour, the darkness in which Jesus addressed God
in Gethsemane.119
Satan was thereby acting as “upheld by the left hand of God.”120 But in
this act, Satan also experienced his downfall.121
and Copeland both understood 1 Corinthians 2:8 to refer to demons (Kenyon, Bible, 59;
Copeland, What Satan Saw, side 1; Covenant, 10).
114 Anselm, Cur Deus Homo? I.7 trans. Edward S. Prout (London: Religious Tract
Society, n.d.) 43–47; cf. Rashdall, Idea of the Atonement, 350–351.

115 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3a. 49, 3 (vol. 54, 101).
116 Luther, “Psalm Seven,” First Lectures on the Psalms (LW 10, 86).
117 For Barth, Satan and demons were not creatures, but real manifestations of the
‘nothingness’ at enmity with God (CD III/3, 520–524); cf. Henri Blocher, “Agnus Victor:
The Atonement as Victory and Vicarious Punishment,” in What does it Mean to be Saved?
ed. John G. Stackhouse, Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 72, n. 15.
118 Barth, CD IV/I, 274.
Thus from Origen in the third century to Barth in the twentieth,

there can be discerned a plausible thread of affirmation that Satan
played a part in the death of Christ. There is of course no need to
accept all that JDS teaching proposes concerning this role. In partic-
ular, Satan’s participation can be understood as less direct than JDS
teaching suggests. It is unnecessary to imagine that Satan attacked Jesus
apart from human agency. Rather, it is sufficient to see Satan success-
fully tempting Judas, and no doubt others, to perform ungodly deeds
against Christ. It is also reasonable to conclude that, if Satan was inflict-
ing pain on Jesus, then Jesus was in some albeit indirect way under his
influence or power. (There need be no suggestion at all in this assertion
that Jesus obeyed Satan’s commands.) These ideas are not only plau-
sible, but also useful in forming a backdrop to discussion concerning
Christ’s victory over Satan, to which discussion this chapter now turns.
5.2. Victory over Satan

There is no doubt that the idea that Christ in his death achieved a
victory over Satan can be traced back to the New Testament. Ref-
erence need only be made to Hebrews 2:14. (However, it is probably
the case for most New Testament authors that Christ’s incarnation,
death, burial and resurrection taken as a whole was the pivotal event
that overcame Satan [e.g. Acts 10:38; Philippians 2:6–11; 1 John 3:8]).
Furthermore, Christ’s victory over Satan has been declared and cele-
brated throughout Christian history as an important aspect of his aton-
ing work.122 It is therefore unarguable that JDS teaching is ‘orthodox’
in this declaration at least.
However, difficulties and questions are created by JDS teaching’s
particular articulation of Christ’s victory over Satan. One difficulty is
that neither Kenyon nor Copeland offers a satisfactory account as to
how Christ’s suffering at Satan’s hands is meant to achieve his victory
over him.123 Classical ransom theories supplied an answer to this ques-
tion, but it is not an answer that Kenyon followed, and it has been
found wanting by subsequent theology. Other explanations must be
122 This is true despite the effect Anselm’s and Abelard’s teaching had on ear-
lier atonement theories. For vastly different evaluations of Anselm and Abelard, see
Rashdall, Idea of the Atonement, 350, 358–359 and Gustav Aulén, Christus Victor, trans.
A.G. Hebert (London: SPCK, 1970 [1931]), 86–87, 96.
123 Hagin’s view is not discussed here, for, as indicated on page 222, he did not state
that Satan caused Christ’s hellish suffering.

244 chapter six
sought. It was identified in 2.1 that, for Kenyon, Christ simply van-
quished Satan in a display of raw power, returned to him through
his ‘spiritual resurrection’. Then in 2.3 it emerged that, for Copeland,
Christ’s domination by Satan was illegal, and effectively trapped Satan.
Neither explanation is satisfactory. Kenyon’s leaves the events preced-
ing Christ’s spiritual resurrection devoid of any purpose in achieving
victory. Copeland’s explanation is more similar to ransom theories than
Kenyon’s. However, there is no emphasis on Jesus as bait; it is the ille-
gality of Satan’s act that traps him. Given that all of Satan’s rebellion
is by definition offensive to God and therefore presumably ‘illegal’, it is
hard to see why this one illegality should lead to his downfall in a way
that is not true of all the others.124
Gustav Aulén, in his enthusiastic representation of classical theories,
characterised them as declaring that “Christ—Christus Victor—fights
against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the ‘tyrants’
under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in him God
reconciles the world to Himself.”125 Here another answer is proffered.
If Satan caused Christ suffering, it arose as ‘the scars of war’ in their
struggle with one another, a struggle in which Satan lost, and humanity
was saved. Unfortunately, this explanation will not suffice either. Inci-
dentally, it is not an accurate representation of early church beliefs,
in which God was presented as the winner—Deus Victor—and Christ
as the passive victim of Satan’s cruelty, a cruelty through which God
organised his downfall. Christ was not involved in active combat with
Satan. More particularly, Aulén’s presentation does not reflect the life
and death of Christ as portrayed in the gospels or understood in the
epistles. Jesus did not fight. He most certainly did not retaliate against
his human persecutors. As far as satanic persecutors were concerned,
there is no evidence that he fought against them either. There is none
in the gospels. In John, Jesus cast out the prince of this world not
by fighting against him but by giving in to the arrest that Satan had
implicitly inspired Judas to arrange. In the epistles, Jesus overcame the
devil (Hebrews 2:14; cf. Colossians 2:15 if ‘rulers and authorities’ are
demonic), but did so precisely by dying, not by fighting.126
124 JDS teaching’s counter-claim, that Satan’s acquisition of authority over the earth
was legal, for Adam ‘sold’ it to him of his own free will, does not explain the deceit
involved in Adam and Eve’s serpentine temptation.
125 Aulén, Christus Victor, 4.
126 F.F. Bruce, in his reading of Colossians 2:15 (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon,
Among those who accept penal substitutionary atonement, Blocher,

closely followed by Strange, suggests that the answer lies in the Devil’s
primary function as accuser.127 Because people have sinned against
God, they are open to accusation of their sins from Satan. As God
is just, this is a real weapon. Blocher goes so far as to state that God’s
justice is Satan’s main weapon.128 Only once human sin is expiated,
through penal substitutionary atonement, does Satan lose his ammu-
nition. Thus he is defeated. This is certainly a more useful attempt to
answer the question than that offered by JDS teaching. However, it is
reductionist and anthropocentric. It may explain how Satan no longer,
after the atonement, has grounds to accuse sinful humans, but it does
not explain how Satan is destroyed.
Perhaps the answer lies in paradox. Jesus as portrayed in the New
Testament handed himself over, and in this God handed him over,
to sinful people; it was because he resisted people and their evil (non-
violently), refusing to lower himself morally to their hypocritical ways
but showing them up by his resistance, that he was arrested and died.
Paradoxically, he overcame them—though only the eye of faith can see
the victory—by not fighting their battles at their level.129 By extension,
with Copeland, Jesus handed himself over to Satan (he did not resist
Judas, for example); paradoxically, he thereby succeeded in resisting
Satan. He had already resisted the wilderness temptations and resisted
the people Satan inspired (e.g. in John 8:33–59). In his handing him-
self over, he pivotally, crucially, expressed his resistance—his refusal to
escape; his refusal to retaliate; his refusal to give in to self-pity (the evan-
and to the Ephesians [NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1984], 110–111), fell into the same misunderstanding as Aulén:
The very instrument of disgrace and death by which the hostile forces thought
they had him in their grasp and had conquered him forever was turned by him
into the instrument of their defeat and disablement. As he was suspended there,
bound hand and foot to the wood in apparent weakness, they imagined they had
him at their mercy, and flung themselves on him with hostile intent. But, far from
suffering their attack without resistance, he grappled with them and mastered
them, stripping them of the armor in which they trusted, and held them aloft in
his outstretched hands, displaying to the universe their helplessness and his own
unvanquished strength. Such seems to be the picture painted in these words.
127 Blocher, “Agnus Victor;” Strange, “Many-splendoured Cross,” 15–17.
128 Blocher, “Agnus Victor,” 84.
129 Gunton, Actuality, 77, while discussing Christ’s suffering, refers to a “submission
which consists in a refusal to submit.” It can equally be said that there is a refusal to
submit that consists in submission.
246 chapter six
gelists allude to Christ’s continuing concern for others in Luke 23:34

and John 19:26). Thus, in both giving in to, and paradoxically refusing
to give in to, Satan, he conquered him. He won by not fighting. By not
‘lowering’ himself to Satan’s level, he proved crucially and finally that
Satan had no hold on him. Satan thus lost in his battle with Christ, and
his power was overcome. As with the human victory, only the eye of
faith can see this. Only the eschaton will bring the victory to the view
of all.
5.3. The timing of Christ’s suffering and victory

It has become clear that no good biblical case can be made that Christ
suffered during the triduum mortis, still less that he did so at Satan’s
hands. Such ideas are not only effectively denied by the Bible’s silence,
but also dismissed by the largely consistent testimony of historical the-
ology. Irenaeus seems to have believed that the triduum was a time of
blessed waiting for resurrection, insofar as he believed this experience
of Christ to have been mirrored by his disciples’ later time between
death and eschatological resurrection.130 Augustine took Acts 2:27 as
evidence that Jesus descended to hell, but stated that he did not suf-
fer there. In fact, while Augustine implied that Satan punished people
in hell, he also implied that Satan found nothing in Jesus deserving
punishment (if “the prince and captain of death” referred to Satan).131
Aquinas believed that Christ overcame Satan before descending to
hell.132 Luther was somewhat equivocal. He referred to the view, not
his own, that during the triduum, in Christ’s words, “the torments of
Belial, or the devil, confounded Me (that is, strong devils have utterly
terrified Me in death).” In possible denial of this view, he wrote, “I do
not know how anyone could explain this statement.” His own position
followed:
130 Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.XXXI.2 (ANF I, 560). That Irenaeus also believed that
Christ preached during the triduum has already been noted (page 229, n. 62).
131 Augustine, Letters CLXIV (NPNF I.I, 515–517, quoting 516). He believed that in
the triduum Jesus was both in paradise (in his Godhead) and in hell (in his soul).
132 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 3a.52.1 (vol. 54, 155). Aquinas did, however, see soteri-
ological value in Christ’s descent: “Man had merited by his sins not only the death of
his body but also his own descent into hell [inferos]. If then Christ died in order to free
us from death, it was fitting that he descend into hell in order to deliver us from going
down to hell.”
I firmly believe that Christ did not feel the punishments and griefs of the
damned, who are the children of despair, but that Christ always hoped.
Nevertheless, these words [Psalm 18:5] testify that He was not altogether
without grief. And if there had been no other griefs, yet because He was
held by the ropes and in the power of death and hell, this in itself was
without doubt loathsome and irksome to His most noble soul, for without
putting off the substance He desired freedom and His own brilliant
glorification. Yet it is exceedingly rash to deny that His soul was held
captive in hell and to go against so clear a Bible passage.
Having said all of that, he continued quickly to concede that those who
disagreed with him could, if they preferred, follow Augustine’s view.133
It is well known that Calvin ‘demythologised’ the phrase in the creeds
referring to Christ’s descent into hell: this referred, for Calvin, to the
hell of the cross, not to journeys of the soul while the body lay dead.134
Turning to the twentieth century, Barth captured the thoughts of
both Luther and Calvin in this regard: Christ suffered hell in his dying
and in his being dead. However, more than Luther, Barth withdrew
from any suggestion that in death Christ experienced ongoing con-
scious suffering; his monistic anthropology would not have allowed
him to. Instead, while the hell of the cross was divine wrath, “alien-
ation from God”, “an annihilatingly painful existence in opposition to
Him,”135 the ‘abyss’ of death was “the cessation of being and nothing-
ness.”136 Thus for Barth there was no journey to hades where Jesus
would meet Satan: Matthew 12:40, for instance, simply served to em-
phasise “the actual event of His death.”137
There is therefore no need to place the suffering of Christ after his
physical death. In fact there is every reason not to do so. If Christ suf-
fered at human, satanic, and even, arguably, divine, hands in his dying,
his suffering surely came to an end as he expired. If, with Barth,138
one interprets the New Testament witness in terms of an anthropo-
logical monism, then Christ or any human, when dead, could experi-
ence precisely nothing, good or bad. If on the other hand one accepts
133 Luther, “Psalm Eighteen,” First Lectures on the Psalms (LW 10, 115–116). Elsewhere
he wrote of Jesus: “what He did or felt after leaving the body we, of course, do not
know.” He went on to decry wasted speculation about what Christ’s soul did in the
triduum mortis (commenting on Genesis 42:38 [LW 7, 302–303]).
134 Calvin, Institutes II.XVI.10 (vol. I, 443).
135 Barth, CD III/2, 603.
138 Barth, CD III/2, 350.
248 chapter six
some degree of dualistic anthropology, Luke 23:43 can be understood

to indicate that Christ was blessed during the triduum mortis in paradise.
Whichever is preferred, the New Testament accounts make sense with-
out the adumbration of mythological speculations concerning a suffer-
ing Christ during the triduum. JDS teaching’s understanding of the tim-
ing of Christ’s suffering at Satan’s hands is untrue to the New Testa-
ment and not beneficial in seeking to understand atonement.
5.4. Conclusions to section 5

This section has sought to offer an alternative reading of Christ’s suf-
fering at Satan’s hands to that presented by JDS teaching. In so doing,
it has continued to evaluate JDS doctrine’s presentation of this matter.
In summary, JDS teaching is right to declare that Christ suffered in
this way, although there is no need to see Satan’s activity as impinging
directly on Christ, rather than through human agency. Secondly, JDS
teaching is in accord with both biblical and ecclesial witnesses in declar-
ing that Jesus won a victory over Satan in his atoning work. However,
JDS doctrine completely fails to offer any worthy explanation as to how
Jesus’ suffering and his victory are linked causally. An understanding of
the events that recognises their paradoxical nature is helpful here. Jesus
handed himself over to Satan’s power and torture, at least indirectly. In
so doing, he paradoxically resisted Satan and so broke his power, as will
become evident to all at the eschaton. Finally, JDS teaching misplaces
Christ’s suffering at Satan’s hands temporally. It did not occur during
the triduum mortis, but was over once Jesus expired.
6.1. Summary
This chapter has explored the belief, inherent to JDS teaching, that
Jesus, while ‘spiritually dead’, was Satan’s prey. Section 2 analysed the
views of Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland. Hagin offered the least strident
account, apparently drawing back from an uncomplicated avowal that
Jesus was at Satan’s behest, and not ascribing Jesus’ suffering in hell to
Satan. However, Kenyon and Copeland are not hesitant in declaring
that Jesus was held completely in Satan’s grasp for three days, and
suffered satanic agonies in the process. For Copeland alone, this is
an illegal move that traps Satan and leads to his defeat. Section 3
surveyed the responses of critics, indicating that they are aware of
similarities between it and older ransom theories. In response, the
degree of similarity with ransom theories was noted, as was, however,
a significant degree of contrast. The similarity supplied some indirect
explanation for the genesis of Kenyon’s particular ideas. Section 4’s
survey of possible sources for this aspect of JDS teaching demonstrated
that both the early church’s ideas and those of Higher Life and Faith
Cure teaching may have contributed to Kenyon’s construct, while New
Thought and Christian Science did not. New Testament texts, however,
were not found to support distinctive JDS conclusions. In section 5,
some agreement with JDS teaching was suggested, particularly to the
idea that Jesus did indeed suffer at Satan’s hands, those ‘hands’ being
the agency of misled humans. Also, it was agreed that Christ won a
victory over Satan. This could be causally linked to his suffering by
seeing a paradoxical resistance to and breaking of Satan’s power in
the very act of submitting to his torture. Disagreement, however, was
expressed with the idea that Christ suffered during the triduum mortis.
His agonies occurred in the events leading up to and including the
crucifixion, not beyond it.
6.2. Implications
There is much in this overall aspect of JDS teaching, that Jesus became
Satan’s prey, which is worthy to be rejected. Nevertheless, its value,
however small, is that it highlights the unpalatable but inescapable idea
that Jesus was, temporarily, at Satan’s ‘mercy’ and suffered thereby. This
aspect of Christ’s suffering can be understood as an element within the
whole experience of physical, psychological, spiritual and social pain
that Jesus went through in his dying. For those who see saving value in
the suffering and death of Christ, the victory that Jesus won through
his non-resistant suffering reached its climax in his victory over Satan
himself.
This recognition has implications for Christians—those who see
themselves as ‘in Christ’. The Christian is called to walk Christ’s path,
to carry his or her own cross and to participate—proleptically in this
life and fully in the one to come—in the victory that Christ won in
his death and resurrection. For JDS teaching, participation in Christ
here and now means only enjoying his victory, for the suffering has
been endured on our behalf by Christ, and is over. However, it is
250 chapter six
more worthwhile to see a tension between suffering and victory, and

to expect the paradox of Christ’s own suffering to be replicated in that
of his followers. Christians may suffer, but their God-given ability to
do so without retaliation or violent resistance, without ‘stooping’ to the
level of their antagonists, will achieve a victory, the outworking of which
may be invisible to human eyes in this life, but which will be enjoyed
throughout eternity.

If, among its three aspects, JDS doctrine’s view concerning a separation
of the crucified Christ from God holds the most in common with tradi-
tional Christianity (chapter 4), and its belief that he partook of a satanic
nature holds the least (chapter 5), then the focus of this chapter, that he
became Satan’s prey, comes between those extremes. Although biblical
testimony does not support the details of the JDS exposition, the more
general depiction of Satan’s aggression against Jesus is supported from
within the Bible, the first millennium church, and Kenyon’s ‘ortho-
dox’ contemporary sources. However, the distinctive parts of this aspect
of JDS teaching seem to result from Kenyon’s creativity rather than
directly from his sources. However impressive the imaginativeness of
this creativity may be to some, the resulting construct does not add
helpfully to Christian understanding of Christ’s victory over Satan,
which understanding can be developed without recourse to JDS teach-
ing.
chapter seven
CONCLUSIONS
1. Introduction
This final chapter aims to summarise and draw together material pre-
sented in the preceding six. Section 2 summarises previous findings
(2.1), implications (2.2), and key observations (2.3). As set out at the end
of the book’s introduction, the concluding subsections to each chapter
entitled ‘key observations’, and therefore the summarised key observa-
tions in 2.3, focus on those aspects of this work which present original
material and thereby significantly advance the debate concerning JDS
teaching. In doing so, 2.3 offers a response to one of the most significant
criticisms of JDS doctrine made in the debate, that the teaching, like
so much that is promulgated within the Word-faith movement, owes
its origins not to ‘orthodox’ Christianity, but to the ‘heterodox’ ideas
prevalent in New Thought and Christian Science.
Section 3 offers some further responses to those charges laid against
JDS doctrine by its main critics. It considers whether JDS doctrine can
fairly be labelled as ‘heresy’ (3.1), whether the standpoint of these critics
is itself in danger of presenting a reductionist account of the suffering
and death of Christ (3.2), and finally whether JDS teaching has become
increasingly bizarre and dangerous as it has passed from Kenyon to its
more recent proponents (3.3).
Thereafter, two brief sections close the book. Section 4 offers two sets
of sundry observations, concerning semantic considerations (4.1) and
the triduum mortis (4.2). Finally, section 5 presents an overall appraisal of
JDS teaching.
252 chapter seven
2. Summaries
2.1. Summary of research findings

The teaching that Jesus ‘died spiritually’, as first expounded by Kenyon,
now finds its home in the controversial Word-faith movement, notably
in the teaching of Hagin and Copeland. Kenyon, Hagin, and Copeland
employ a relatively small number of biblical texts to agree that to state
that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ is to aver that Jesus was separated from
God, participated in a sinful, satanic nature, and became Satan’s prey.
This teaching has proved highly controversial, with many voices raised
against it. Critics of the doctrine have largely focused on countering
JDS teaching’s reading of biblical teaching, and on seeking Kenyon’s
thinking in New Thought and Christian Science.
The claim that Jesus ‘died spiritually’ cannot rely on the scriptural
texts which gain the attention of the JDS teachers, such as Isaiah 53:9
or 1 Timothy 3:16. 1 Peter 3:18 is also an uncertain foundation. Neither,
however, does the teaching arise from statements in New Thought or
Christian Science. Instead, if any source is to be identified, it is in
Higher Life and Faith Cure, for instance from Henry Mabie, though
this too is far from certain. Those outside JDS teaching who have
taught a ‘spiritual death’ of Christ have meant by this only that he was
separated from God. Kenyon’s other entailed meanings are absent from
wider Christian theology. JDS doctrine’s position is not only that Jesus
‘died spiritually’: he had to do so to atone for human sin. This idea rests
on a stark pneumocentric anthropological trichotomism which is not
biblically defensible, though it is detectable in Higher Life and Faith
Cure writing.
Of the three ideas integral to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ in JDS teach-
ing, his alleged separation from God occurred as God the Father turned
away from the sin that Christ the Son had become. It was evidenced,
for example, in the ‘cry of dereliction’ and in 2 Corinthians 5:21. The
JDS understanding of the cry is possible, though neither necessary nor
certain. It regards as clear that which is rare and ambiguous. Also, it
fails to hold postulation of a separation in tension with avowals of the
unity of the Father and the crucified Son.
The second integral idea, that Christ in his ‘spiritual death’ partook
of a sinful, satanic nature, finds no clear precursor in the Bible (for
example, John 3:14 and 2 Corinthians 5:21) or in Kenyon’s contempo-
rary sources. Comparison with Irving’s teaching about the sinful nature
conclusions 253
of the incarnate Christ also identifies considerable differences. Finally,

and in contrast, the belief that Christ in his dying became Satan’s
prey was found to echo partially teaching in both the first millennium
church and in Higher Life and Faith Cure. Furthermore, it approxi-
mates, though only loosely, to a biblical perspective that Satan played
an indirect role in Christ’s suffering, and thereby met his own downfall.
In overall summary, then, JDS teaching’s claim to represent biblical
teaching accurately is of variable merit. The idea of a separation of
Jesus from God can possibly build on gospel material, as can, more
reliably, Satan’s part in Christ’s sufferings. On the other hand, the idea
of Christ’s participation in Satan’s nature is without biblical support.
Similarly, while the ideas of Jesus’ being separated from God and
becoming Satan’s prey have roots in early Christianity and in Higher
Life and Faith Cure, as well as elsewhere, that of Jesus partaking in
a satanic nature is original to Kenyon, is least helpful, and is most
problematic.
2.2. Summary of implications

The first implication relates to the debate concerning JDS doctrine.
Debate has been limited, and further research therefore warranted.
Not only has study of biblical texts tended to be atomistic, but study of
both New Thought and Christian Science, and Higher Life and Faith
Cure has been methodologically lax, and little application of historical
theology has appeared. This work has grasped the ensuing opportunity
for methodological development. The broadening of method which this
book has brought to the debate has furthered discussion considerably.
A first implication arising from study of JDS teaching itself is the
importance of anthropology as a prerequisite for this discussion about
Christ’s death. While the descriptive elements of JDS teaching might
survive a transition from their own anthropological presumptions to
another milieu, the prescriptive element does not. In other words, one
has to accept JDS teachers’ claim that ‘You are a spirit, you have a
soul, and you live in a body’ in order to begin to take seriously their
equal claim that without some distinctly ‘spiritual’ element to Christ’s
death, atonement is impossible. Clearly, many would baulk at such an
anthropological formulation, and with good reason.
A second set of implications arises from observing that the teaching
that Jesus was separated from God the Father is not held in tension with
a recognition that he was concurrently united intimately with God. If
254 chapter seven
Jesus’ divinity is claimed in this unbalanced separation, then the trinity

seems to disintegrate into tritheism. Contrastingly, if Jesus’ divinity is
minimised or denied in the separation, the incarnationalism underlying
this depiction seems to present a Christ in whom the natures are all
too readily separable. Furthermore, the presentation does not strongly
guard against the idea of separate purposes in the minds of Christ the
Son and God the Father.
Thirdly, important questions for JDS teaching emanate from its
view that Christ partook of the satanic nature. Did Christ maintain
his divinity in this experience? What, if any, was his uniqueness as a
human? Was the atoning work of the cross a truly divine work? On
the other hand, fourthly, the JDS portrayal of Christ’s suffering at the
hands of Satan, while needing to be considerably reworked, offers some
potential for exploring both the victory of Christ over evil, and the
opportunity afforded to others to share in this victory.
In summary, JDS doctrine struggles to articulate its relationship with
the traditional forms of trinitarianism, incarnation, and substitutionary
atonement to which it claims to adhere. Furthermore, it rests upon a
distinct satanology and anthropology that have poor biblical support
and are unlikely to win many adherents. That which is problematic
outweighs that which offers potential for fruitful theological thought.
2.3. Summary of key observations

In the debate so far concerning JDS doctrine, most voices have been
critical, although a few have dissented from that line. Among the crit-
ics, there is no doubt that a key contributor to the debate is Dan
McConnell, whose voice cannot be ignored. His most significant con-
tributions are his indisputable identification of widespread dependence
of Hagin on Kenyon, and his much more controvertible assertion that
Kenyon was in turn dependent on New Thought and Christian Sci-
ence. In the case of the latter assertion, his comparative methods are
weak. A comparison is necessary not only between Kenyon and New
Thought and Christian Science on the one hand, but also between
Kenyon and his ‘orthodox’ sources in the Higher Life and Faith Cure
movements on the other. Some more recent debaters, such as Simmons
and Perriman, succeed in comparing Kenyon both with New Thought
and Christian Science, and with Higher Life and Faith Cure, but only
in general terms. This work applies such comparisons specifically and
in detail to JDS teaching. It seeks commonalities, significantly absent
conclusions 255
common ground, and overt contrasts. In doing so, it demonstrates that

the doctrine was not present in incipient or full form in New Thought
or Christian Science. McConnell was misleading when he averred that
what he called Kenyon’s ‘spiritualisation’ of Christ’s death implied what
was explicit in New Thought and Christian Science. However, neither
was JDS teaching apparent, in the form Kenyon expounded, in Higher
Life or Faith Cure. Nevertheless, incipient aspects were. In particu-
lar, voices in these groups occasionally made reference to the crucified
Christ’s separation from God, and to certain motifs present in Kenyon’s
portrayal of Christ as Satan’s prey.
Turning now to the three aspects of JDS doctrine which occupy the
attention of chapters 4 to 6 of this book, it is clear that the JDS por-
trayal of the crucified Christ’s separation from God is the least contro-
versial facet of the teaching. It presents a possible, though not necessary,
reading of scriptural texts, a reading held in common with varied the-
ological voices outside the Word-faith movement. In particular, among
Kenyon’s ‘orthodox’ contemporary sources, this view of Jesus’ death
was held by the Higher Life and Faith Cure advocates, and friends of
one another, A.J. Gordon and Henry C. Mabie. As discussed in chap-
ter 4, this understanding of Jesus’ death is not above criticism, but what-
ever criticisms are to be levelled against it must also be aimed at any
other version of Christian teaching which makes the same claims.
In contrast to the idea of Jesus being separated from God while cru-
cified, the claim that at the same time he also participated in a sinful,
satanic nature is undoubtedly the most suspect aspect of JDS doctrine.
It well illustrates the capacity of JDS teaching to rest significant themes
on slender biblical evidence, and to offer wayward exegesis of that evi-
dence in reaching its conclusions. At the same time, it highlights the
creativity of Kenyon’s thinking. Whatever meagre portions of his syn-
thesis were available to Kenyon among his sources, he reworked them
quite extensively in developing his conclusions, and most extensively at
this point.
The third aspect of JDS doctrine under study, that Jesus in his
death became Satan’s prey, presents middle ground between the first
two, in terms of the extent to which it departs from traditional Chris-
tian themes and assertions. The sometimes lurid details of Kenyon’s,
Hagin’s and Copeland’s representations of Satan’s role in Christ’s suf-
fering and death are neither necessary nor helpful in the attempt to
understand that death’s role in God’s victory over Satan. Nevertheless,
distinct commonalities are traceable between this aspect of JDS teach-
256 chapter seven
ing and facets of Christian ‘ransom’ theories both in the first millen-
nium church and among Kenyon’s possible ‘orthodox’ sources. That
Kenyon maintained these beliefs is unsurprising. That he built on them
with his characteristic creativity, and with the results noted in chapter 6,
is lamentable.
3. Further responses to the critics
3.1. Charges of ‘Heresy’

As noted in chapter 1, a number of commentators conclude that JDS
doctrine is ‘heretical’. In offering definitions of heresy, Hanegraaff,
Smail, Walker and Wright, and Bowman refer to the creeds: heresy is
teaching which opposes or contradicts “the basic core truths of creedal
Christianity.”1 At first sight, appeal to creeds may seem crucial, at least
in respect of Kenyon, for he implied an anti-creedal stance, writing,
“Men have faith in Creeds, in Organizations, in their Church . . .” and
“The Church has kept this ‘Samson’ [the Christian] imprisoned by
false teachings and by creeds and doctrines.”2 However, Kenyon was
not being anti-creedal as such. He was criticising the church for failing
to practise fully what it (ought to have, in his view) believed.
In fact, despite the confidence of these commentators’ verdicts, it is
difficult to categorise JDS teaching as heretical on the basis of historic
creeds. The original Nicene creed merely stated that Christ “for the
sake of us men and for the sake of our salvation came down and was
enfleshed, became man, suffered and rose again on the third day. . .”3
Even in its expanded form after the Council of Constantinople its detail
was not substantially greater: Christ “was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried. . .”4 The apostles’ creed is
fuller: Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and
1 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 46; Smail, Walker and Wright, “Revelation Knowledge,” 58–
60 (quoting 58); Bowman (Controversy, 225–226) refers back to his earlier work, Orthodoxy
for definitions: cf. Orthodoxy, esp. 49 f., 59–67, 80.
2 Kenyon, Two Kinds of Faith, 22; Presence, 61.
3 As quoted in J. Burnaby, The Belief of Christendom: a Commentary on the Nicene Creed
(London: SPCK, 1959), 5–6.

4 As quoted in Burnaby, Belief, iii.
conclusions 257
buried. He descended to the dead.”5 Even so, there is no statement in

this cursory coverage of Christ’s work that JDS opposes or contradicts.
Indeed, it might be argued that JDS teaching offers a fuller account of
a ‘descent’ than do many presentations.
Bowman’s definitions of and tests for heresy, however, go beyond ref-
erence to creeds: doctrines should also be tested by comparison with
the Bible, the gospel, and the teaching of the church catholic.6 On this
count, JDS teaching fares worse. There is clearly little support from
either biblical material or the historic deliberations of the church to
support JDS distinctives. Thus, by Bowman’s definition, it is neces-
sary to conclude that these more unusual aspects of JDS teaching are
‘heretical’. Nevertheless, other aspects, though unsophisticated, cannot
be dismissed in this way. It is an oversimplification to reject the whole
of JDS doctrine with the cry of “heresy!”7
3.2. Dangers of reductionism

In criticising JDS doctrine, Hanegraaff, McConnell, and Bowman dis-
play a considerable reductionism in their accounts of Jesus’ suffering.
Only the physical is acknowledged, both as historical datum and as
soteriologically significant.8 Although Hanegraaff offers a worthwhile
critique of JDS teaching at this point, asking: “why is it that Christ
Himself told us to remember the sacrifice He made with His body
and blood (both of which are essentially physical), while saying noth-
ing about any spiritual sacrifice . . .?” he is surely premature in his next
comment: “All the biblical evidence indicates that Jesus never died spir-
itually and that His physical death paid the price for humanity’s sin.”9
No acknowledgement is offered here that Christ’s death involved rejec-
tion, or that it was the death of a criminal. Neither is any consideration
given to the possibility that these non-physical aspects might be soterio-
logically significant.
5 As quoted in Alister E. McGrath, Theology: The Basics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004),
xx–xxi.
6 Bowman, Orthodoxy, ch. 7.
7 Bowman’s verdict of Word-faith teaching as a whole, that it is “suborthodox and
aberrant” (227) more usefully characterises JDS doctrine in particular than Bowman’s
own earlier declaration that the latter is “heretical” (176).
8 E.g. Bowman, Controversy, 165; McConnell, Promise, 129.
258 chapter seven
The reductionism evident in the critics’ work illustrates a problem

with anthropological dualism when applied to Christ’s death. The dual-
ism of JDS teaching highlights the ‘spiritual death’ of Christ and min-
imises the physical. Some critics effectively do the opposite. A more
monistic anthropology at this point succeeds in ‘not dividing what
God has joined together’. A full, rounded view of Christ’s death, if it
identifies atoning significance in it, might simply see that significance
in Christ’s ‘whole’ death, rather than one ‘compartment’ of it. Here,
monists such as Barth and Balthasar will be on firmer ground.
3.3. Comparisons between Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland

It emerged in chapters 5 and 6 (pages 193–194; 222–223) that, in regard
to Christ’s ‘spiritual death’ as participating in a satanic nature and
becoming Satan’s prey, Kenyon and Copeland offer similar presenta-
tions, and Hagin holds back from their full-blooded statements, offer-
ing instead a somewhat toned down version. The differences are not
substantial. Nevertheless, they contradict, at least with regard to JDS
teaching, the claim of Hanegraaff and Bowman that the ‘heresy’ has
gained strength from generation to generation, becoming more and
more grotesque as it has been passed in turn from Kenyon to Hagin
and from Hagin to Copeland.10 In fact, as Copeland gives little indi-
cation of his non-biblical sources, it seems likely, given his similarity to
Kenyon as against Hagin, that Copeland has simply read Kenyon for
himself. If he is aware of the differences between Kenyon and Hagin,
he has chosen to approximate his own views to the former.
4. Sundry observations
4.1. Semantic considerations

Is it useful to speak of Jesus ‘dying spiritually’, whatever might be meant
by the phrase? Noting Saussure’s observation that words as signifiers
have an arbitrary relationship with the mental concepts so signified,11
one must concede that Kenyon, Hagin and Copeland on the one hand
10 Hanegraaff, Crisis, 31; Bowman, Controversy, 225.

11 Paul Cobley and Litza Jansz, Introducing Semiotics (Cambridge: Icon Books, 1999),
13.
conclusions 259
and the wider Christian world on the other are entitled to use ‘JDS
terminology’ in explicating the sufferings of Christ, provided that they
explain what they refer to by such terms. However, language use, while
essentially arbitrary, is powerfully driven by convention. Certain socio-
linguistic conventions surrounding the phrase ‘Jesus died spiritually’
detract from the value of its use in Christian formulations.
First, as was indicated in chapter 3, the wider Christian world has
displayed no great appetite to express its beliefs concerning Christ’s
sufferings in the words ‘Jesus died spiritually’. Given the frequency with
which JDS teachers use the term, and the centrality of this language in
their expressions of Christ’s atoning work, it is reasonable to conclude
that, with few exceptions, the term largely belongs to the teaching.
Furthermore, on the rare occasions when other Christians have used
the term, they have not referred to all the concepts that JDS teaching
involves. If JDS teaching becomes increasingly widespread and familiar,
JDS terminology is likely to be used less and less by others who disagree
with at least part of what JDS teachers refer to by the term. Unless
new factors arise to alter the situation, JDS terminology may become
limited entirely to use by JDS teachers. A likely result will be that, in
the eyes of many, the meanings of JDS phraseology will become equally
restricted to those intended by JDS teachers.12 It will thus become more
and more advisable for Christians who do not agree with any or all of
JDS doctrine’s distinctives to eschew the term, to avoid the possibility
of being misunderstood.
Secondly, JDS terminology connotes, in the minds of some, concepts
foreign to JDS doctrine itself. To certain readers, ‘death’ means cessa-
tion of existence. Judith Matta, for instance, believes that, if Jesus ‘died
spiritually’, there must have been a short time when God, or one per-
son of the Trinity, did not exist. Referring to her understanding of JDS
doctrine’s depiction of the resurrected Christ, Matta writes:
This new Jesus, a Born-Again Man at the right hand of God, did not
exist while on earth. God the Son, a reiteration of Adam, ceased to
exist. He was sacrificed—“died out” if you will—and another being was
brought into existence in the pit of Hell . . . If there, at some point in
time, was no God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, did the Trinity
cease to be Triune in its Godhead? The Trinity itself, would reflect the
12 “In the majority of cases the meaning of a word is its use” (Alan J. Torrance, Persons
in Communion [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996], 330, referring to the work of Wittgenstein
[italics original]).
260 chapter seven
Duality of Gnostic thought! Logically, this must be so. However, these

teachers would never verbalize such a thought because (hopefully!) cries
of “Heresy!” would greet their words.13
This certainly misunderstands JDS teaching’s position, which explicitly
denies that ‘spiritual death’ is the cessation of existence.14 However, it
does indicate that JDS terminology is unhelpful for some, if cessation
of existence is a natural inference that they draw from JDS language.
While this misunderstanding is not widespread among critics, it might
be more likely among those holding to annihilationist views of hell, who
interpret ‘second death’ (Revelation 20:6, 14), and therefore perhaps
‘spiritual death’, as cessation of existence. Kenyon explicitly denied
annihilationism,15 and many Pentecostal denominations deny it in their
statements of belief,16 but a proportion of evangelical authors espouse
it.17 Given this breadth of evangelical ideas about hell, references to
Jesus’ ‘dying spiritually’ might only serve to confuse. For this reason it
would also be advisable for JDS teachers themselves to cease use of JDS
terminology, and find other words with which to express their views
concerning the sufferings of Christ.
4.2. The triduum mortis

When JDS teaching projects Christ’s suffering beyond Good Friday and
into Holy Saturday, it seems not to reflect the New Testament. Perhaps,
then, the New Testament understood the agony of dying rather than the
state of being dead as of primary atoning significance. If so, a question
is raised about the purpose (if there was one) of the triduum mortis. The
New Testament authors offer no explanation as to why Jesus stayed
dead the length of time he did. The burial is clearly important to early
Christian testimony (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:4), and no doubt emphasised
the fact that Jesus was indeed dead, but the only application of that
significance, to baptism (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12), does not suggest
any intrinsic importance to the length of time Christ was dead.
13 Matta, Born Again Jesus, 58–59.

14 E.g. Hagin, Name, 30.
16 See Hollenweger, Pentecostals, 514–521.
17 E.g. John Stott in Essentials, David L. Edwards and John Stott (London: Hodder
& Stoughton, 1988), 314–320; Wright, Radical Evangelical, 88–94 (modified annihilatio-
nism).
conclusions 261
One must be careful to avoid undue speculation in the absence of

data. Nevertheless, the answer to the question, “What was Holy Satur-
day for?” might lie in the answer to the prior question, “What happened
on Holy Saturday?” This seems to be, “Nothing.” It was, after all, the
Sabbath. Given the silence, stillness and passivity of death, that Saturday
is best seen as a hiatus, a marker not only temporally between death
and resurrection, but also eschatologically between unrenewed earthly
life and the renewed resurrection life of the world to come, initiated in
Christ. It thus prefigures the intermediate state of those who have died
in Christ, and more loosely the ‘intermediate state’ of every earthly
Christian life, and indeed of the whole church age.
5. Overall appraisal of JDS teaching
JDS teaching is not simply a ‘spiritualisation of Christ’s death’. It is

a cluster of ideas drawn partly from patristic and early mediaeval
sources, and partly from the western protestant Christianity of which
Kenyon was heir. In particular, Higher Life and Faith Cure played a
part in supplying Kenyon with language and ideas that he wove into
his distinct doctrine. In contrast, New Thought and Christian Science
played very little part, if any. Beyond all these sources, undoubtedly,
Kenyon was a creative thinker, and several aspects of JDS teaching are
original to him.
The value of JDS doctrine is limited. It is a useful rejoinder to any
docetic tendency to ‘sanitise’ the cross. It highlights unpalatable aspects
of Christ’s death, even if in the process it clearly misrepresents them. It
broadens study of Christ’s suffering beyond the merely physical aspects
to consider ‘spiritual’ ones. It is by no means docetic.
However, JDS teaching is in many ways unhelpful. It creates more
difficulties and questions than it even begins to overcome. In particular,
with reference to systematic theology, it undermines the traditional
forms of trinitarianism, incarnationalism and atonement theology that
much Pentecostalism holds dear.18 Although critics of the Word-faith
movement express deep concern about the movement’s beliefs and
practices relating to such matters as physical healing, material prosper-
18 The widespread existence of Oneness Pentecostalism is noted.

262 chapter seven
ity and ‘positive confession’,19 it may actually be the movement’s view

of Christ’s death and therefore the atonement about which the wider
Christian world should be most cautious. On one level JDS teaching
may have less impact on the everyday worship and witness of churches
espousing it than do prosperity teaching and aggressive stances towards
faith and healing. However, its serious defects cannot be ignored by
those who take underlying beliefs as seriously as everyday practices. At
this stage in the evolution of the Word-faith movement, it is unclear
whether JDS teaching will flourish or wither. It is to be hoped that the
latter is the case. The extent to which wider Pentecostalism is tempted
to adopt the teaching may well be minimised by this wider movement’s
increasing appetite for theological education, which is to be welcomed.
As stated in the introduction, the hypothesis that this work set out to
test was that JDS doctrine is more congruent with biblical and historic
Christian affirmations about the death of Christ than its detractors
have suggested. The research concludes that, while this hypothesis is
to a limited extent true, nevertheless there is much about JDS teaching
which Christians in general, and Pentecostals in particular, do well to
reject. As Pentecostalism continues to ponder on the mystery of the
cross, it is advised not to understand or express this under the banner,
‘Jesus died spiritually’.
19 E.g. McConnell, Promise, chs 8–10; Hanegraaff, Crisis, parts 2, 5, 6; Bowman,
Controversy, chs 7, 14, 15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aalders, G. Genesis Volume 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.

Alexander, Kimberley Ervin. Pentecostal Healing. Blandford Forum: Deo Pub-
lishing, 2006.
Anderson, Allan. An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2004.
Anderson, R.M. Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism.
Oxford: OUP, 1979.
Anselm, Cur Deus Homo? Translated by Edward S. Prout. London: Religious
Tract Society, n.d.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Thomas Gilby, gen. ed.
Westminster: Blackfriars, 1958.
Archer, Kenneth J. “Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation.” JPT 18 (2001):
32–70.
———. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect.” JPT 8 (1996):
63–81
Arrington, French L. “The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals.” Pneuma 16.1
(Spring 1994): 101–107.
Atkinson, William P. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Worth a Second Look?”
Evangel 21:2 (Summer 2003): 49–54.
Augustine. Sermons. Translated by Edmund Hill. New Rochelle, NY: New City
Press, 1993.
Aulén, Gustav. Christus Victor. Translated by A.G. Hebert. London: SPCK, 1970
(1931).
Bacchiocchi, Samuele. Immortality or Resurrection? Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical
Perspectives, 1997.
Baillie, D.M. God Was In Christ. London: Faber, 1961 (1956).
Balthasar, von, Hans Urs. Elucidations. Translated by John Riches. London:
SPCK, 1975 (1971).
———. Mysterium Paschale. Translated by Aidan Nichols. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1990 (1970, 1981).
———. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics VII. Translated by Brian
McNeil. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989 (1969).
Barabas, S. So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention.
London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1952.
Barnhart, J.E. The Billy Graham Religion. London & Oxford: Mowbrays, 1972.
Barr, James. Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press, 1977.
———. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. London: SCM, 1992.
Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to John. 2nd edition. London: SPCK, 1978
(1955).
———. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: Adam & Charles
Black, 1973.
264 bibliography
Barrett, D.V. Sects, ‘Cults’ & Alternative Religions. London: Blandford, 1996.
Barron, Bruce. The Health and Wealth Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1987.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Translated by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance,
editors. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–1969 (1942–1968).
———. The Theology of Schleiermacher. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edin-
burgh: T&T Clark, 1982 (1923/4).
Bartholomew, Craig, Colin Greene and Karl Möller. After Pentecost: Language &
Biblical Interpretation. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001.
Barton, J. “Thinking About Reader-Response Criticism.” Expository Times 113.5
(February 2002): 147–151.
Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1995.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC. Milton Keynes: Word (UK), 1991
(1987).
Bebbington, David. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain. London: Routledge,
1989.
Belleville, Linda L. 2 Corinthians. INTC. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Bello, dal, M. “Atonement Where? Part 2.” 1994. http://www.banner.org.uk/
wof/moreno2.html (accessed September 25, 2003).
Best, Ernest. Ephesians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
———. Mark: The Gospel as Story. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983.
———. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. BNTC. London: A & C
Black, 1972.
Billheimer, Paul E. Destined for the Throne. London: Christian Literature Cru-
sade, 1975.
Bitgood, Gregory J. “The Mystery of the 3 Days and Nights.” http://www.kcc
.net/greg/3days.htm (accessed September 25, 2003).
Bock, Darrell L. Luke 9:51–24:53. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1996.
Boom, ten, Corrie. Tramp for the Lord. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1974.
Bosworth, F.F. Christ the Healer. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company,
1973 (1924).
Bowman, Robert M., Jr. The Word-Faith Controversy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 2001.
———. Orthodoxy and Heresy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992.
Boyd, Jeffrey H. “A History of the Concept of the Soul during the 20th
Century.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 26.1 (1998): 66–82.
Brandon, Andrew. Health & Wealth. Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1987.
Brewster, P.S., ed. Pentecostal Doctrine. N.pl.: P.S. Brewster, 1976.
Brooks, James A. Mark. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1991.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I–XII. AB. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1966.
Brown, Tom. “Did Jesus Suffer in Hell?” http://www.tbm.org/jesussuffershell
.htm (accessed September 25, 2003).
Bruc e, F.F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984.
bibliography 265
———. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, revised edition
1990 (1963).
———. I & II Corinthians. NCBC. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971.
Bruno, Michael. Christianity in Power. Slippery Rock, PA: Abba Ministries, 1994.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament Volume 1. Translated by Ken-
drick Grobel. London: SCM Press, 1952.
Burgess, S.M. & G.B. McGee, eds. Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Move-
ments. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988.
Burnaby, J. The Belief of Christendom: a Commentary on the Nicene Creed. London:
SPCK, 1959.
Butler, Keith, conversing with Kenneth Copeland. “God’s Position on Na-
tional Government.” Believer’s Voice of Victory Webcast, October 20, 2004.
http://kcm.org/media/webcasts/ (accessed October 29, 2004).
Cairns, David. The Image of God in Man. London: Collins, revised edition 1973
(1953).
Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Vol. III. Translated by
William Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 (1558).
———. Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Translated by James Anderson. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 (1557).
———. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Translated by William
Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 (1550).
———. Genesis. Translated by John King. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1847
(1554).
———. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. London:
James Clarke & Co., Limited, 1962 (1536).
Cameron, Ron. The Other Gospels. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1982.
Campbell, John McLeod. The Nature of the Atonement. London: MacMillan and
Co., 5th edition 1878.
Carey, George. I Believe in Man. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1977.
Cargal, Timothy B. “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pen-
tecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age.” Pneuma 15:2 (Fall 1993):
163–187.
Carter, Howard. Gifts of the Spirit. N.pl.: Howard Carter, 1946.
Chapman, J. Wilbur. The Life of Dwight Lyman Moody. 1900. http://www.biblebe-
lievers.com/moody/15.html. (accessed February 6, 2005).
Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 2. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1985.
Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament as Canon. Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity
Press International, pb 1994 (1984).
Cho, P.Y. Successful Home Cell Groups. Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1981.
Cobley, Paul, and Litza Jansz. Introducing Semiotics. Cambridge: Icon Books,
1999.
Cole, R. Alan. Mark. TNTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961.
Cooper, John W. Body, Soul and Life Everlasting. Leicester: Apollos, 2nd edition
2000 (1989).
Copeland, Gloria, ed. John G. Lake. Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland
Publications, revised 1995 (1994).
266 bibliography
Copeland, Kenneth. “A Covenant of Love.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 24.6 (June

1996): 4–7.
———. “A Higher Form of Power.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 24.10 (November
1996): 4–7.
———. “Because of the Cross.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 22.4 (April 1994): 3–6.
———. “Believe the Love!” Believer’s Voice of Victory 24.5 (May 1996): 4–7.
———. Did Jesus Die Spiritually? Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries,
n.d.
———. “Don’t Hang the Curtains . . . Hang the Rod!” Believer’s Voice of Victory
33.6 (June 2005): 2–5.
———. “Dream More Than You Can Dream.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 21.10
(October 1993): 2–5.
———. “Entering God’s Rest.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 25.8 (September 1997):
4–7.
———. “Expect the Glory!” Believer’s Voice of Victory 23.3 (March 1995): 2–5.
———. “Faith for the Final Days.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 23.5 (May 1995): 2–5.
———. “God Isn’t Mad Anymore!” Believer’s Voice of Victory 21.5 (May 1993): 2–5
———. “Hope: The Blueprint of Faith.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 23.11 (Novem-
ber 1995): 2–5.
———. Jesus Died Spiritually. Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries,
n.d.
———. Jesus In Hell. Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.
———. “Join The It Shall Come to Pass Generation.” Believer’s Voice of Victory
26.5 (May 1998): 4–7.
———. “Knowing and Receiving Your Inheritance: Part 1.” Believer’s Voice of
Victory 27.3 (March 1999): 4–7.
———. “Let Your Joy Overflow.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 27.11 (December 1999):
5–7.
———. “Living at the End of Time.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 25.10 (November
1997): 4–7.
———. “No Problem!” Believer’s Voice of Victory 26.7 (July/August 1998): 4–7.
———. Our Covenant with God. Fort Worth, TX: KCP Publications, 1976.
———. “Pleasing Daddy Has Its Rewards.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 26.6 (June
1998): 4–7.
———. “Stand Up and Be Counted.” (2004) http://www.upray.org/vote/be
_counted.php (accessed 29.10.04).
———. “Taking An Offense.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 23.7 (July 1995): 2–5.
———. “The Fire, the Light and the Glory.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 25.1 (Jan-
uary 1997): 4–7.
———. The Force of Faith. Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publications,
1983.
———. The Force of Righteousness. Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publica-
tions/ Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1984.
———. “The Gates of hell Shall Not Prevail.” Believer’s Voice of Victory, 25.4 (April
1997): 4–7.
———. “The Gospel to the Poor.” Believer’s Voice of Victory, 25.2 (February 1997):
4–7.
bibliography 267
———. “The Great Exchange.” Believer’s Voice of Victory, 24.2 (February 1996):
4–8.
———. The Laws of Prosperity. Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1974.
———. “The Message of the Anointing.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 24.7 (August
1996) 5–9.
———. “The Might and Ministry of the Holy Spirit in You.” Believer’s Voice of
Victory 24.4 (April 1996): 4–7.
———. “The Power of Resistance.” Believer’s Voice of Victory, 25.6 (June 1997):
4–7.
———. “Turning Up the Power.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 23.10 (October 1995):
2–5
———. “Turn Your Hurts Into Harvests.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 25.7 (July/
August 1997): 6–9.
———. “Wanted: Sons of the Most High God.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 27.3
(March 1999): 4–7.
———. What Happened from the Cross to the Throne. Audio tape 02–0017. Fort
Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.
———. “What Kind of Faith do you have?” Believer’s Voice of Victory, 25.5 (May
1997): 4–7.
———. What Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost. Audio tape 02–0022. Fort Worth,
TX: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.
———. “When the Devil Runs for Cover.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 24.1 (January
1996): 4–7.
———. “Worthy to be Anointed.” Believer’s Voice of Victory 24.9 (October 1996):
4–7.
Cotterell, Peter & Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. London:
SPCK, 1989.
Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel According to Mark. Cambridge: CUP, 1959.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999
(1998).
Dale, R.W. The Atonement. London: Congregational Union of England and
Wales, 23rd edition 1904 (1875).
Danielou, J., A.H. Couratin and John Kent. Historical Theology. Harmonds-
worth: Penguin, 1969.
Davids, P.H. The First Epistle of Peter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Davies, W.D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. Matthew Volume III. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1997.
Davis, Stephen T. Risen Indeed. London: SPCK, 1993.
Dayton, D.W. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 1987.
DeArteaga, W. Quenching the Spirit. Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 2nd edition
1996 (1992).
Dibelius, M. and H. Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1972.
Dresser, Horatio W., ed. The Quimby Manuscripts. Electronic Edition: Cor-
nerstone Books, 2000 (1921). http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage
.htm (accessed January 28, 2005 to May 12, 2006).
268 bibliography
Dresser, Horatio W. A History of the New Thought Movement. Electronic Edition:

Cornerstone Publishing, 2001 (1919). http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/
framepage.htm (accessed January 30, 2005).
Dunn, James D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM Press, 1970.
———. Christology in the Making. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1980.
———. Romans 1–8. WBC. Milton Keynes: Word (UK), 1991 (1988).
———. Romans 9–16. WBC. Milton Keynes: Word (UK), 1991 (1988).
———. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGTC. Carlisle: Paternoster,
1996.
———. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
———. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 2nd edition
1990.
Eddy, Mary Baker. No and Yes. Boston, MA: The First Church of Christ,
Scientist, 1887.
———. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Boston, MA: The First Church
of Christ, Scientist, revised edition 1891 (1875).
Edwards, David L. and John Stott. Essentials. London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1988.
Edwards, Troy J., Sr. “The Divine Son of God Tasted Death In All It’s (sic)
Phases So You Don’t Have To: Part 1.” May 2003. http://www.victoryword
.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/jds/tenrsn3.html (accessed July 21, 2004).
———. “The Divine Son of God Tasted Death In All It’s (sic) Phases So You
Don’t Have To. Part Two: Did Jesus Descend to Hell?” 2002. http://www
.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/jds/tenrsn3_1.html (accessed July
28, 2004).
Elliott, J.H. 1 Peter. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Elim Foursquare Gospel Alliance. The Constitution of the Elim Pentecostal Church
Cheltenham: The Elim Pentecostal Church, 2000.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Divinity School Address.” 1838. http://cornerstone
.wwwhubs.com/framepage.htm (accessed March 24, 2005).
———. “Representative Men.” 1850. http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/frame-
page.htm (accessed April 14, 2005).
Ervin, Howard M. “Hermeneutics: a Pentecostal Option.” Pneuma 2:2 (Fall
1981): 11–25.
Farah, Charles, Jr. From the Pinnacle of the Temple. Plainfield, NJ: Logos Interna-
tional, 1979.
———. “A Critical Analysis: The ‘Roots and Fruits’ of Faith-Formula Theol-
ogy.” Pneuma 3.1 (1981): 3–21.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987.
———. God’s Empowering Presence. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
———. Gospel and Spirit. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
———. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984.
Feinberg, J.S. “1 Peter 3:18–20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate
State.” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 303–336.
Fendley, Margaret. “Letter from Kenneth Copeland Ministries.” 1996. http://
www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/copeland_response.htm (accessed Oc-
tober 8, 2004).
bibliography 269
Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism. Translated by Anthony Alcock.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
Filson, Floyd V. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. London:
Adam & Charles Black, 1960.
Foster, Paul. “Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?”
NTS 52 (2006): 1–28.
Frady, Marshall. Billy Graham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979.
France, R.T. Matthew. TNTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985.
———. The Gospel of Mark. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002.
Freeman, Hobart. “Exposing the JDS Heresy.” n.d. http://achristiancounselor
.com/false.html. (accessed July 21, 2004).
Friedrich, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume VI. Trans-
lated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968 (1959).
Frodsham, Stanley H. Smith Wigglesworth: Apostle of Faith. London: Elim Pub-
lishing Company, 1949.
Gaebelein, F.E., ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zon-
dervan, 1990.
Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House Co., 2003.
Geldard, Richard. The Spiritual Teachings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Great Barring-
ton, MA: Lindisfarne Books, 2001.
Gelder, Michael, et al. Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry. 3rd edition Oxford: OUP,
1996 (1983).
Gilley, Gary E. “The Word-Faith Movement.” 1999. http://www.rapidnet
.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/char/more/w-f.htm (accessed February
18, 2005).
Goppelt, Leonhard. Der erste Petrusbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1978.
Gordon, A.J. Behold He Cometh. London: Thynne & Co. Ltd., 1934 (1896 as Ecce
Venit).
———. In Christ: The Believer’s Union with his Lord. London and Glasgow: Picker-
ing & Inglis, n.d.
Gould, E.P. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896.
Gounelle, Rémi. La Descente du Christe aux Enfers. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.
Graham, Billy. Answers to Life’s Problems. Minneapolis, MN: Grason, 1960.
———. Just As I Am. London: HarperCollins, 1997.
———. Peace With God. Kingswood, Surrey: The World’s Work, 1954.
Gräßer, Erich. Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 2002.
Green, Clifford, ed. Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom. Edinburgh: T&T Clark
Ltd, 1991 (1989).
Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Leicester: Apollos, 2002.
Green, Joel B., ed. Hearing the New Testament. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995.
Gregory the Great. Moralia in Job S. Gregorii Magni Opera. Turnhout: Brepols,
1985.
Grensted, L.W. A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1920.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester: IVP, 1994.
270 bibliography
Guinness, Os. Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think & What to Do
About It. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995.
Gunton, Colin. The Actuality of Atonement. London, New York: T&T Clark Ltd,
1988.
Hagin, Kenneth E. A Fresh Anointing. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1989.
———. Authority of the Believer. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1967.
———. Concerning Spiritual Gifts. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1974.
———. Demons: And How To Deal With Them. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 1968.
———. Don’t Blame God! Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1979.
———. El Shaddai. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1980.
———. Exceedingly Growing Faith. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1973.
———. Faith Food: Daily Devotions for Spring. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 1977.
———. How To Make The Dream God Gave You Come True. Tulsa, OK: Faith
Library Publications, 1981.
———. How You Can Be Led By The Spirit Of God. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library
Publications, 1978.
———. In Him. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1975.
———. Knowing What Belongs to Us. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1989.
———. Man On Three Dimensions. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1973.
———. Ministering to the Oppressed. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 4th
edition 1973.
———. Must Christians Suffer? Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1982.
———. New Thresholds of Faith. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 2nd
edition, 1985 (1972).
———. Plans, Purposes & Pursuits. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1988.
———. Plead Your Case. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1979.
———. Prayer Secrets. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 11th printing 1978.
———. Praying To Get Results. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1983.
———. Redeemed from poverty. . . sickness. . . death. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publi-
cations, 1966.
———. Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness and Spiritual Death. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library
Publications, 2nd edition, 1983 (1966).
———. Right and Wrong Thinking. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1966.
———. The Art of Intercession. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1980.
———. The Human Spirit. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 6th printing
1980.
———. The Interceding Christian. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 9th
printing 1979.
———. The Key to Scriptural Healing. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1978.
———. The Name of Jesus. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1979.
———. The New Birth. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1975.
———. The Origin and Operation of Demons. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1978.
bibliography 271
———. The Present-Day Ministry of Jesus Christ. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publica-
tions, 2nd edition 1983.
———. The Real Faith. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1970.
———. Three Big Words. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1983.
———. Turning Hopeless Situations Around. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications,
1981.
———. Understanding the Anointing. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1983.
———. What To Do When Faith Seems Weak & Victory Lost. Tulsa, OK: Faith
Library Publications, 1979.
———. Zoe: The God-Kind of Life. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1981.
Hagin, Kenneth Jr. “Memorial Address, Kenneth E. Hagin’s funeral.” 2003.
http://www.rhema.org/KEH_Memorial/videoclip.cfm (accessed January
16, 2005).
Hagner, D.A. Matthew 14–28. Dallas, TX: Word, Inc., 1995.
Hamilton, V. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1990.
Hanegraaff, Hank. Christianity in Crisis. Milton Keynes: Nelson Word Ltd: UK
edition, 1995 (1993).
Hanegraaff, Hendrik H. “What’s Wrong with the Faith Movement?—Part
One: E.W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of Another Gospel.” Christian
Research Journal (Winter 1993). www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-
jrnl/crj0118a.txt (accessed September 25, 2003).
Hanegraaff, Hendrik H. and Erwin M. de Castro. “What’s Wrong with the
Faith Movement?—Part Two: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland.” Chris-
tian Research Journal (Spring 1993). www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/
cri-jrnl/crj0119a.txt (accessed October 1, 2003).
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the
Mirror of Secular Thought. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.
Hanson, A.T. The Pastoral Epistles. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982.
Hardesty, Nancy A. Faith Cure: Divine Healing in the Holiness and Pentecostal Move-
ments. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003.
Harrell, David E., Jr. Oral Roberts: An American Life. San Francisco, CA: Harper
& Row, 1985.
Harris, J.L. “An Exposition of Genesis 2:4–11:32.” Southwestern Journal of Theol-
ogy 44.1 (Fall 2001): 39–55.
Harris, Murray J. Raised Immortal. London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1983.
———. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Milton Keynes: Paternoster,
2005.
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament Volume 1. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980.
Harris, W. Hall III. The Descent of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998
(1996).
Harrison, Milmon F. Righteous Riches: The Word of Faith Movement in Contemporary
African American Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Hill, Charles E. & Frank A. James III. The Glory of the Atonement. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. London: Oliphants, 1972.
272 bibliography
Hocken, P. Streams of Renewal. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2nd edition 1997

(1986).
Hoehner, H.W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
2002.
Hoekema, A.A. Created in God’s Image. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1986.
Hollenweger, Walter J. The Pentecostals. London: SCM, 1972.
Horton, Stanley M., ed. Systematic Theology. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Pub-
lishing House, revised edition, 1995 (1994).
Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. The True Image. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1989.
Hunt, Dave & T.A. McMahon. The Seduction of Christianity. Eugene, OR: Har-
vest House Publishers, 1985.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
———. Mark. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983.
Irving, Edward. The Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine of Our Lord’s Human Nature.
London: Baldwyn & Cradock, 1830.
Jackson, R. “Prosperity Theology and the Faith Movement.” Themelios 15.1
(1989): 16–24.
Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset and David Brown. A Commentary Critical, Exper-
imental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans, 1945 (1866–1870).
Jinkins, Michael, and Stephen Breck Reid. “John McLeod Campbell on
Christ’s Cry of Dereliction: A Case Study in Trinitarian Hermeneutics.”
Evangelical Quarterly 70:2 (1998): 135–149.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Creed. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2003.
Johnson, Sherman E. The Gospel According to St Mark. London: Adam & Charles
Black, 2nd edition 1972 (1960).
Jowers, Dennis W. “The Theology of the Cross as Theology of the Trinity:
A Critique of Jürgen Moltmann’s Staurocentric Trinitarianism.” Tyndale
Bulletin 52.2 (2001): 245–266.
Kaiser, Bill. Who In The World In Christ Are You? Dallas, TX: Word of Faith
Publishing, 1983.
Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics in the Making: On the
way from Fundamentalism to Postmodernism.” JEPTA XVIII (1998): 76–
115.
Kazen, Thomas. “Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians?” NTS 51:4 (2005):
561–578.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1999.
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. London: Adam & Charles Black, 5th
edition 1977 (1958).
Kenyon, E.W. Identification: A Romance in Redemption. Los Angeles, CA: E.W.
Kenyon, 1941.
———. In His Presence. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Society,
2003 (1944).
———. Jesus the Healer. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Society,
2000 (1943).
bibliography 273
———. The Bible in the Light of Our Redemption. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel
Publishing Society, 1969 (posthumously edited and compiled by Ruth Ken-
yon Housworth).
———. The Blood Covenant. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing Soci-
ety, 1969 (1949).
———. The Father and His Family. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing
Society, 1998 (1916, 1937).
———. The Two Kinds of Faith. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing
Society, 1998 (1942).
———. The Two Kinds of Knowledge. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publishing
Society, 1998 (1938).
———. The Wonderful Name of Jesus. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s Gospel Publish-
ing Society, 1998 (1927, 1935).
———. What Happened from the Cross to the Throne. Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon’s
Gospel Publishing Society, 1969 (1945).
Kidner, Derek. Genesis. TNTC. Leicester: IVP, 1967.
Kinnebrew, James M. “The Charismatic Doctrine of Positive Confession: A
Historical, Exegetical, and Theological Critique.” Th.D. diss., Mid-Ameri-
ca Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988.
Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1974.
Lauber, David. Barth on the Descent into Hell. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.
Lewis, Alan E. Between Cross & Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.
Liardon, R. Smith Wigglesworth Speaks to Students of the Bible. Tulsa, OK: Albury
Publishing, 1998.
Lie, Geir. “E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder or Evangelical Minister?” Translated
by Geir Lie, William DeArteaga and Glenn Gohr. Master’s thesis, Norwe-
gian Lutheran School of Theology, revised 1994.
———. “E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder or Evangelical Minister?” JEPTA 16
(1996): 71–86.
———. “The Theology of E.W. Kenyon: Plain Heresy or Within the Bound-
aries of Pentecostal-Charismatic ‘Orthodoxy’?” Pneuma 22.1 (2000): 85–
114.
Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Dallas, TX: Word, 1990.
Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Translated by
Fellowship of St Albans and St Sergius. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.
Ltd., 1957 (1944).
Lührmann, Dieter. “Kann es Wirklich Keine Frühe Handshrift des Petruse-
vangeliums Geben?” NovT XLVIII.4 (2006): 379–383.
Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium Nach Matthäus: Mt 26–28. Düsseldorf: Benziger
Verlag, 2002.
Mabie, Henry C. How Does the Death of Christ Save Us? London: Hodder and
Stoughton Publishers, 1908.
———. The Divine Reason of the Cross. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company,
1911.
274 bibliography
MacArthur, J.F., Jr. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publish-
ing House, 1992.
MacLaren, Alexander. “Love and Fear.” http://www.txdirect.net/~tgarner/
maclaren8.htm (accessed February 18, 2005).
———. Sermons Preached in Manchester: First Series. London: MacMillan and Co.
1869.
———. St Mark Chapters IX to XVI. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906.
———. “The Absent Present Christ.” http://www.txdirect.net/~tgarner/
amac5.htm (accessed February 18, 2005).
———. “The Cross the Proof of the Love of God.” http://www.txdirect.net/
~tgarner/amac2.htm (accessed February 18, 2005).
———. “The Disciple’s Confession and the Master’s Warning.” http://www
.puritansermons.com/sermons/discip.htm (accessed February 18, 2005).
Marshall, I. Howard. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1983.
———. The Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.
Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Dallas, TX: Word, 1986.
Martin, Walter R. The Kingdom of the Cults. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1965.
Matta, Judith A. The Born Again Jesus of the Word-Faith Teaching. Bellevue, WA:
Spirit of Truth, 2nd edition 1987 (1984).
McCann, Vincent. “An Evaluation of the Key Doctrines in the Health and
Wealth Faith Movement.” 1998. http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/
faithmov.htm (accessed September 25, 2003).
McConnell, Dan. The Promise of Health and Wealth. London: Hodder & Stough-
ton, 1990.
———. “The Faith Movement: New Revelation or Charismatic Cultism?” Pa-
per presented at the European Pentecostal Theological Association confer-
ence, Erzhausen, 1989.
McCrossan, T.J. Bodily Healing and the Atonement. Re-edited by R. Hicks and
Kenneth E. Hagin. Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1982 (1930).
McFarlane, Graham. Christ and the Spirit: The Doctrine of the Incarnation according to
Edward Irving. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996.
McGrath, Alister E. Theology: The Basics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
McIntyre, Joe. E.W. Kenyon and His Message of Faith: The True Story. Orlando, FL:
Creation House, 1997.
———. “Jesus’ Spiritual Death.” http://www.kenyons.org/JesusSpiritualDeath
.htm (accessed July 26, 2004).
McLean, Mark D. “Toward a Pentecostal Hermeneutic.” Pneuma 6.2 (Fall
1984): 35–56.
Menzies, Allan. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume X. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974 (n.d.).
Menzies, Robert P. Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
———. “Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon.” Pneuma 16.1 (Spring 1994):
115–120.
Michaels, J.R. 1 Peter. Waco, TX: Word, 1988.
bibliography 275
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God. 2nd edition translated by R.A. Wilson
and John Bowden. London: SCM, 1974 (1973).
———. The Experiment Hope. Translated by M. Douglas Meeks. London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1975.
———. The Future of Creation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1979 (1977).
Montgomery, Carrie J. The Prayer of Faith. London: Victory Press, new edition
1930 (1880).
Morris, Leon. The Cross of Jesus. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994 (1988).
———. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, revised edition 1991 (1959).
———. The Gospel According to John, Revised. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1995.
———. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.
Motyer, Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah. Leicester: IVP, 1993.
Murphy, Nancey. Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity
Press International, 1996.
Murray, Andrew. Abide in Christ. Philadelphia, PA: Henry Altemus, 1895 (1864).
———. Absolute Surrender. London & Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,
Ltd, n.d.
———. Holy in Christ. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., n.d. (1887).
———. Out of His Fulness. London: James Nisbet & Co. Limited, 1897.
———. The Holiest of All. London: Oliphants Ltd., 1960 (1894).
———. The New Life. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., revised edi-
tion 1965 (1885).
———. The Power of the Blood of Jesus and the Blood of the Cross. London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, Ltd., 1935, 1951 (n.d.).
———. The Spirit of Christ. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1888.
Neuman, H.T. “Cultic Origins of the Word-Faith Theology Within the Charis-
matic Movement.” Pneuma, 12.1 (Spring 1990): 32–55.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Nature and Destiny of Man Vol. I. London: Nisbet & Co.,
1941.
Nichols, Aidan. No Bloodless Myth: A Guide Through Balthasar’s Dramatics. Edin-
burgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
Nineham, D.E. Saint Mark. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963.
———. The Use and Abuse of the Bible. London: MacMillan, 1976.
Noel, B.T. “Gordon Fee and the Challenge to Pentecostal Hermeneutics:
Thirty Years Later.” Pneuma 26:1 (Spring 2004): 60–80.
Nolland, John. Luke 18:35–24:53. WBC. Dallas, TX: Word, 1993.
Norris, Richard A., Jr. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press, 1980.
O’Brien, P.T. The Letter to the Ephesians. Leicester: Apollos, 1999.
O’Neill, J.C. The Bible’s Authority. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
Onken, Brian. “The Atonement of Christ and the “Faith” Message.” n.d.
www.equip.org (DP060.pdf) (accessed November 26, 2003).
Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck.
Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001.
276 bibliography
Osborn, T.L. Healing the Sick. Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1951.
Packer, J.I. Celebrating the Saving Work of God. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998.
———. ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God. Leicester: IVP, 1958.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Anthropology in Theological Perspective. Translated by Mat-
thew J. O’Connell. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1985.
Pelikan, Jaroslav, and Helmut T. Lehmann, gen. eds. Luther’s Works. Saint
Louis: Concordia, 1955–1986.
Penn-Lewis, Jessie. Soul and Spirit. Leicester: Overcomer Book Room, 3rd edi-
tion, n.d.
Perkins, Pheme. Gnosticism and the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 1993.
Perriman, Andrew, ed. Faith, Health & Prosperity. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003.
Pierson, A.T. Evangelistic Work in Principle and Practice. London: Passmore &
Alabaster, 1892.
———. Many Infallible Proofs. London: Morgan and Scott, n.d.
———. The New Acts of the Apostles. London: James Nisbet & Co., Limited, 1901.
Plato. The Republic. Translated by John Davies and David Vaughan. London:
MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1941.
Plessis, du, J. The Life of Andrew Murray. London: Marshall Brothers, Limited,
1919.
Poirier, J.C. “Some Detracting Considerations for Reader-Response Theory.”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62:2 (April 2000): 250–263.
Pollock, John. Billy Graham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1966.
Porte, Joel. “Ralph Waldo Emerson.” 1979. http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/
framepage.htm (accessed January 30, 2005).
Porter, Stanley E., ed. The Nature of Religious Language: A Colloquium. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Powell, L.P. Mary Baker Eddy: A Life Size Portrait. Boston, MA: The Christian
Science Publishing Society, ‘renewed’ 1958, 1978 (1930).
Price, C.S. The Real Faith. Pasadena, CA: Charles S. Price Publishing Co.,
1940.
———. Spiritual and Physical Health. Plainfield, NJ: Logos Int’l, 1972 (1946).
Purves, Jim. “The Interaction of Christology and Pneumatology in the Soteri-
ology of Edward Irving.” Pneuma 14.1 (Spring 1992): 81–90.
Quimby, Phineas P. “Jesus’ Healing and His Mission.” 1860. http://corner-
stone.wwwhubs.com / framepage.htm through “Other Quimby Writings
Online.” (accessed January 30, 2005).
———. “Jesus, His Belief or Wisdom.” 1862. http://cornerstone.wwwhubs
.com/framepage.htm through “Other Quimby Writings Online.” (accessed
January 30, 2005).
———. “Questions and Answers.” n.d. http://www.ppquimby.com/sub/
articles/questions_and_answers.htm (accessed May 12, 2006).
———. “What Is Death?” 1863. http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage
.htm through “Other Quimby Writings Online.” (accessed January 30,
2005).
Radford, John, and Ernest Govier. A Textbook of Psychology. London: Sheldon
Press, 1980.
bibliography 277
Rahner, Karl. Theological Investigations Vol. 7. Translated by David Bourke.

London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1971 (1966).
Rashdall, Hastings. The Idea of the Atonement in Christian Theology. London:
MacMillan and Co., Limited, 1919.
Ray, Darby Kathleen. Deceiving the Devil: Atonement, Abuse, and Ransom. Cleve-
land, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 1998.
Reicke, Bo. The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism. Copenhagen: Ejnar
Munksgaard, 1946.
Robert, Dana L. Occupy until I Come: A.T. Pierson and the Evangelization of the World.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol-
umes I–VIII. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1951 (1885–1886).
Roberts, Oral. 3 Most Important Steps to your Better Health and Miracle Living. Tulsa,
OK: Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association, 1976.
Robinson, H. Wheeler. The Doctrine of Man. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911.
Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. New York: Harper
Collins, revised edition 1990 (1978).
Robinson, John A.T. The Body. London: SCM, 1952.
Russell, Walter B. The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians. Lanham, NY: University
Press of America, 1997.
Ruthven, Jon. “What’s Right About the Faith Movement.” n.d. http://www
.victoryword.100megspop2.com / mt1996.htm (accessed September 25,
2003).
Schaff, Philip, ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series I. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1974–1976 (1887–1888).
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–1976 (1887–1891).
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers. Trans-
lated by John Oman Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994
(revised 1821).
Schwöbel, Christoph and Colin E. Gunton. Persons, Divine and Human. Edin-
Sherlock, Charles. The Doctrine of Humanity. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1996.
Simmons, Dale H. E.W. Kenyon and the Postbellum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and Plenty.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1997.
Simpson, A.B. Standing on Faith. London & Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan &
Scott Ltd, n.d.
———. The Gospel of Healing. London: Morgan & Scott Ld. (sic), new edition
1915 (1888).
———. The Holy Spirit or Power from On High Volume I. New York: The Christian
Alliance Publishing Co., 1895.
———. The Holy Spirit or Power from On High Volume II. New York: The Christian
Alliance Publishing Co., 1896.
Smail, Thomas, Andrew Walker & Nigel Wright. Charismatic Renewal. London:
SPCK, 1995.
278 bibliography
———. “ ‘Revelation Knowledge’ and Knowledge of Revelation: The Faith

Movement and the Question of Heresy.” JPT 5 (1994): 57–77.
Smith, Hannah W. The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. Westwood, NJ: Fleming
A. Revell Company, 1952 (n.d.).
Spencer, J.R. Heresy Hunters: Character Assassination in the Church. Lafayette, LA:
Huntington House Publishers, 1993.
Speiser, E.A. Genesis. New York: Doubleday, 1964.
Stackhouse, John G., Jr., ed. What does it Mean to be Saved? Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2002.
Stibbs, A.M., and A.F. Walls. 1 Peter. TNTC. Leicester: IVP, 1959.
Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Leicester: IVP, 1986.
Strange, Daniel. “The Many-splendoured Cross: Atonement, Controversy and
Victory.” Foundations 54 (Autumn 2005): 5–23.
Stronstad, R. The Prophethood of All Believers. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999.
Taliaferro, Charles A. “A Narnian Theory of the Atonement.” Scottish Journal
of Theology 41:1 (1988): 75–92.
Taylor, Vincent. The Cross of Christ. London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd, 1956.
———. The Gospel According to St Mark. London: MacMillan, 2nd edition 1966
(1952).
Teselle, Eugene. “The Cross as Ransom.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4:2
(Summer 1996): 147–170.
Theissen, Gerd. Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology. Translated by John
P. Galvin. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987 (1983).
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000.
———. The Two Horizons. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980.
Thomas, John Christopher. The Devil, Disease and Deliverance. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998.
———. “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible: An Experiment in Pentecostal
Hermeneutics.” JPT 5 (1994): 41–56.
Thrall, Margaret E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians Volume I. ICC. Edin-
Tidball, Derek. The Message of the Cross. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001.
Torrance, Alan J. Persons in Communion. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
Torrance, Thomas F. Scottish Theology from John Knox to John McLeod Campbell.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
———. Theology in Reconstruction. London: SCM, 1965.
———. The Trinitarian Faith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.
Torrey, R.A., Exec. Sec. The Fundamentals vol. II. Los Angeles, CA: The Bible
Institute of Los Angeles, 1917.
———. How to Obtain Fulness of Power. London: James Nisbet & Co., Limited,
1902.
———. How to Succeed in the Christian Life. Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1984
(n.d.).
———. What the Bible Teaches. London: James Nisbet & Co., Limited, n.d.
Towner, P.H. 1–2 Timothy & Titus. Leicester: IVP, 1994.
bibliography 279
Trine, Ralph Waldo. In Tune With The Infinite. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd.,
1952 (1897).
———. The Man who Knew. Electronic Edition: Cornerstone Publishing, 2001
(1936). http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage.htm (accessed January
30, 2005).
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in this Text? Leicester: Apollos, 1998.
Wacker, G. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. London: Har-
vard University Press, 2001.
Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1990.
Warrington, Keith. Jesus the Healer. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000.
Watchman Fellowship. “Faith Assembly (Hobart Freeman).” Watchman Exposi-
tor (2000), http://www.watchman.org/cults/freeman.htm (accessed July 21,
2004).
Watson, G.D. A Pot of Oil. Electronic edition, 2001 (n.d.). http://www.enterhis-
rest.org/wisdomminister/pot_of_oil.pdf (accessed February 4, 2005).
———. Coals of Fire: Being Expositions of Scripture on the Doctrine, Experience, and
Practice of Christian Holiness. n.pl.: n.pub., 1886.
———. Our Own God. Blackburn: M.O.V.E. Press, n.d. (1904).
Watts, J.D.W. Isaiah 34–66. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
Wenham, G.J. Genesis 1–15. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
Westermann, C. Genesis 1–11. Translated by John J. Scullion. London: SPCK,
1984 (1974).
Whittaker, C. Seven Pentecostal Pioneers. Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan and
Scott, 1983.
Whybray, R.N. Isaiah 40–66. London: Oliphants, 1975.
Wigglesworth, Smith. Ever Increasing Faith. Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing
House, revised edition 1971 (1924).
Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1988.
Wolmarans, Theo. Blood Covenant. Dallas, TX: Word of Faith Publishing, 1984.
Wright, David & Jill. 30 Hymns of the Wesleys. Exeter: The Paternoster Press,
1985.
Wright, Nigel. The Radical Evangelical: Seeking a Place to Stand. London: SPCK,
1996.
Wuest, Kenneth S. First Peter in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1942.
Yates, John. “ ‘He Descended Into Hell’: Creed, Article And Scripture.
Part II.” Churchman 102.4 (1988): 303–315.
Yeomans, Lilian B. Balm of Gilead. Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House,
revised edition 1973 (1936).
———. Health and Healing. Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House, revised
edition 1973 (1938 as The Royal Road to Health-Ville).
York, Michael. The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-Pagan
Movements. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1995.
N.a. Christian Science: A Sourcebook of Contemporary Materials. Boston, MA: The
Christian Science Publishing Society, 1990.
280 bibliography
N.a. “History.” http://www.rhema.org/about/history.cfm (accessed October

27, 2006).
N.a. “It’s Harvest Time!” Believer’s Voice of Victory 25.7 (July/August 1997): 16–29.
N.a. “What Does the Bible Say About the Prosperity Gospel?” www.gotques-
tions.org/prosperity.htm (accessed December 3, 2004).
N.a. “What Is Spiritual Death?” www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-death.html
(accessed December 3, 2004).
Email correspondence from the following supplied:
Forrest, Robert: Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Saint Macrina

———John Chrysostom, Paschal Homily
Lie, Geir: unpublished sermon material from E.W. Kenyon
———biographical information about E.W. Kenyon
McIntyre, Joe: biographical information about E.W. Kenyon
Simmons, Dale: biographical information about E.W. Kenyon
INDEX OF REFERENCES
Old Testament Psalm 22:14–18 167

Psalm 22:24 166, 168
Genesis 1:1 69 Psalm 24:1 234
Genesis 1:26 129, 131 Psalm 88 168
Genesis 2:17 68, 100–103, Psalm 88:5 168
141, 145, 154 Psalm 91 167
Genesis 3:1 206 Psalm 115:16 234
Genesis 3:8 100 Psalm 116:3 172
Genesis 3:8–10 150, 154 Psalm 121 167
Genesis 3:10 100, 150 Psalm 127 167
Genesis 3:19 154 Psalm 133:3 103
Genesis 3:22–24 102
Genesis 3:23 100, 150, 154 Isaiah 53 34
Genesis 4:25 101 Isaiah 53:9 18, 31, 44,
Genesis 20:7 102 48, 68, 70,
Genesis 20:17 102 72, 100, 104–
Genesis 42:38 247 105, 110, 141,
252
Exodus 31:14 102 Isaiah 53:10 203
Isaiah 53:10–11 34
Numbers 15:32–36 102 Isaiah 53:12 105
Numbers 21 200, 206–208 Isaiah 60 167
Numbers 21:5–9 206–207
Jonah 2:2 236
Deuteronomy 28:1–14 Jonah 2:3–4 236
167
Deuteronomy 30:19–20
103 New Testament
Job 1:6–12 235 Matthew 2:15 160

Matthew 3:17 168
Psalm 1 167 Matthew 4:1–10 167
Psalm 16 172 Matthew 4:3–11 240
Psalm 16:10 168 Matthew 12:40 31, 68, 235–
Psalm 18:4–5 172 236, 247
Psalm 18:5 247 Matthew 16:21 167
Psalm 22 71, 158, 161, Matthew 17:5 168
165, 167 Matthew 17:22–23 167
Psalm 22:1 44, 163 Matthew 20:28 167
Psalm 22:6–8 167 Matthew 25:41 189
282 index of references
Matthew 26:28 167 Luke 16:23 237

Matthew 26:36–44 167 Luke 18:32 240
Matthew 26:39 182 Luke 22:3 241
Matthew 26:53–54 241 Luke 22:42 182
Matthew 26:67–68 167 Luke 22:53 241
Matthew 27:26 240 Luke 23:28 161
Matthew 27:26–31 167 Luke 23:34 196, 246
Matthew 27:35 167 Luke 23:43 44, 159, 161,
Matthew 27:43 167 172–173, 175,
Matthew 27:46 31, 68, 117– 237, 248
118, 154, 160, Luke 23:44 161
162, 165, 169 Luke 23:45 173
Matthew 27:51 32 Luke 23:46 44, 159, 172–
Matthew 27:54 160 173, 175, 237
Luke 23:47 161
Mark 1:1 160
Mark 1:11 168 John 1:29 181
Mark 1:13 167, 240 John 3:14 31, 44, 68,
Mark 8:31 167 194, 206–208,
Mark 9:7 168 213, 216, 252
Mark 9:31 167 John 3:15 207
Mark 10:32 241 John 3:16 181
Mark 10:45 167, 181, 241 John 3:17–19 207
Mark 11:23 87 John 4:24 129–131, 140
Mark 12:30 138 John 5:21–26 103
Mark 14:24 167 John 5:24 103, 201
Mark 14:32–40 167 John 5:36 181
Mark 14:36 182 John 8:33–59 245
Mark 15:10 240 John 8:44 202
Mark 15:15 167 John 10:11 241
Mark 15:17–20 167 John 10:15 241
Mark 15:24 167 John 10:17 181, 241
Mark 15:33 161 John 10:18 181, 241
Mark 15:33–34 126 John 10:37–38 181
Mark 15:34 31, 68, 117, John 12:31 240
157, 160, 165, John 13:27 241
169 John 14:30–31 234, 241
Mark 15:37 160 John 16:32 169
Mark 15:39 160 John 17:4 181
John 18:2 241
Luke 1:46–47 139 John 18:4–11 241
Luke 2:46 234 John 18:30 240
Luke 2:52 234 John 19:26 246
Luke 4:3–13 240 John 19:26–27 161
Luke 4:6–7 234 John 19:28 161
Luke 10:15 237 John 19:30 33, 161, 173,
Luke 12:5 189 175
index of references 283
Acts 2:17–21 173 2 Corinthians 1:5 205

Acts 2:23 181, 240 2 Corinthians 2:11 205
Acts 2:24 31, 100, 155– 2 Corinthians 3:6 103
156, 172–173 2 Corinthians 4:4 205, 234
Acts 2:24–31 68, 235–237 2 Corinthians 4:8–10 205
Acts 2:27 155, 172, 235, 2 Corinthians 4:10 205
246 2 Corinthians 4:11 132
Acts 2:31 172, 237 2 Corinthians 5 109
Acts 2:32 172 2 Corinthians 5:2–4 133
Acts 10:38 243 2 Corinthians 5:14–20
Acts 17:11 41 204–205
2 Corinthians 5:19 181
Romans 1:4 106 2 Corinthians 5:21 32, 35, 44, 48,
Romans 2:7 103 68, 72, 154,
Romans 2:24 211 156, 165, 169,
Romans 2:28 132 171, 181, 183,
Romans 3:25 181 202–206, 208,
Romans 4:25 240 212–213, 216,
Romans 5:8 181 252
Romans 6:4 260 2 Corinthians 6:15 37, 205
Romans 6:6 161 2 Corinthians 7:5 132
Romans 8:4–7 130, 132 2 Corinthians 12 109
Romans 8:29 152, 174 2 Corinthians 12:7 205
Romans 10:7 32, 68, 235–
239 Galatians 1:4 182
Galatians 2:20 181, 240
1 Corinthians 2:2 205 Galatians 3:13 154, 165, 169,
1 Corinthians 2:6–8 69 212
1 Corinthians 2:6–9 241 Galatians 5:16–17 130, 132
1 Corinthians 2:8 196, 205, 241– Galatians 5:19–21 133
242
1 Corinthians 3:3 133 Ephesians 2:1 68, 100, 102–
1 Corinthians 7:10 205 103, 110, 141,
1 Corinthians 11:23–25 145
205 Ephesians 2:1–5 201
1 Corinthians 12:2 235 Ephesians 2:2 235
1 Corinthians 12:8–10 Ephesians 2:3 189
9 Ephesians 2:5 102
1 Corinthians 14:14–15 Ephesians 4:9 68, 235, 237
133 Ephesians 4:18 102
1 Corinthians 14:15 139
1 Corinthians 15 109 Philippians 1:23 174
1 Corinthians 15:3–7 205 Philippians 1:24 133
1 Corinthians 15:4 260 Philippians 2:6–11 243
284 index of references
Philippians 2:7 26, 48 Jude 9 235

Philippians 2:8 182
Revelation 9:1 236, 238
Colossians 1:18 100 Revelation 11:7 238
Colossians 2:15 32, 68, 238, Revelation 20:1 236, 238
244 Revelation 20:6 260
Revelation 20:10 189
1 Thessalonians 5:23 68, 72, 129– Revelation 20:14 260
130, 133, 137,
140
Pseudepigrapha
1 Timothy 3:16 32, 44, 68, 71,
100, 105, 110, Gospel of Nicodemus 2
141, 252 229
1 Timothy 5:6 102
Gospel of Peter 5:19 162
Hebrews 2:9 100, 120
Hebrews 2:14 32, 232, 238, Gospel of Philip 68:26
243–244 165
Hebrews 4:12 129–130, 137–
138, 140 Odes of Solomon 15:9
Hebrews 9:14 182, 196 230
Odes of Solomon 17:9–13
1 Peter 1:19 196 230
1 Peter 1:24 107 Odes of Solomon 22:1–4
1 Peter 2:23 240 230
1 Peter 2:24 108, 181 Odes of Solomon 42:11–20
1 Peter 3:7 103 230
1 Peter 3:18 32, 48, 68,
106, 108–110,
124, 142, 196, Nag Hammadi Literature
252
1 Peter 3:19 224 On Baptism B 114, 134
1 Peter 3:21 108
1 Peter 4:1 107 Treatise on the Resurrection
1 Peter 4:2 107 45:40–46:2 114, 134
1 Peter 4:6 107 Treatise on the Resurrection
46:22–47–24 114, 134
2 Peter 1:4 190, 201 Treatise on the Resurrection
2 Peter 1:16–19 135 47:37–48:3 114, 134
1 John 3:8 240, 243 Valentinian Exposition 35:28–37

1 John 3:12 201 114, 134
1 John 3:14 103
1 John 3:14–15 201
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Aalders, G., 100 Bello, dal, M., 71–72, 196–197, 227

Aker, Benny C., 92 Best, Ernest, 103, 137, 168
Alexander, Kimberley Ervin, 37 Billheimer, Paul E., 35, 71
Allison, Dale C., Jr, 166 Bitgood, Gregory J., 34–35, 125
Ambrose, 161 Bock, Darrell L., 174
Anderson, Allan, 74 Boom, ten, Corrie, 85
Anderson, R.M., 20 Bosworth, F.F., 84, 86
Anselm, 91, 214, 242–243 Bowman, Robert M., Jr, 2, 7–8, 11,
Aquinas, Thomas, 108, 162, 168, 16, 25–26, 37, 41, 53, 56–59, 67,
242, 246 69, 74, 103, 105, 129–130, 157–
Archer, Gleason L., 203 158, 173, 187, 193, 196–198, 222,
Archer, Kenneth J., 76, 93 226, 256–258, 262
Arrington, French L., 75 Boyd, Jeffrey H., 132
Athanasius, 161, 189, 211, 229–230, Brandon, Andrew, 1, 10, 12, 42, 48,
236 71–72, 90, 157–158, 168, 173, 195–
Atkinson, William P., 9, 73 196, 226
Augustine, 91, 101, 108, 133–134, 161, Brewster, P.S., 92
227–229, 232, 242, 246–247 Brooks, James A., 168
Aulén, Gustav, 243 Brown, David, 120
Brown, Raymond E., 207
Bacchiocchi, Samuele, 132 Brown, Tom, 34
Baillie, D.M., 176, 178, 214 Bruce, F.F., 138, 203–204, 244
Balthasar, von, Hans Urs, 126–127, Bruno, Michael, 89–90
144, 164–165, 170, 174–175, 178– Bultmann, Rudolf, 109, 132–133, 138
179, 181–182, 184, 258 Burgess, S.M., 8–9, 19–20, 84–85,
Barabas, S., 15 87, 93
Barnhart, J.E., 125 Burnaby, J., 256
Barr, James, 9–10, 131
Barrett, C.K., 203, 205, 207, 212 Cairns, David, 131
Barrett, D.V., 16 Calvin, John, 54, 83, 90, 92, 101–
Barron, Bruce, 10, 39, 89–90 102, 108, 117, 127, 134, 138, 163,
Barth, Karl, 127, 133, 138, 163–165, 170, 178, 247
170, 174–176, 178–182, 211–212, Cameron, Ron, 162
242–243, 247, 258 Campbell, John McLeod, 164, 166,
Bartholomew, Craig, 77 185, 209
Barton, J., 76 Carey, George, 132
Bauckham, Richard, 178 Cargal, Timothy B., 74–76, 93
Beasley-Murray, George R., 131 Carter, Howard, 85
Bebbington, David, 10 Castro, de, Erwin M., 48, 72, 197
Belleville, Linda L., 203 Chapman, J. Wilbur, 15
286 index of authors
Childs, Brevard S., 77 Farah, Charles, Jr, 7, 11–13, 40, 43–

Cho, P.Y., 87 46, 48–49
Chrysostom, John, 161, 229 Fausset, A.R., 120
Cobley, Paul, 258 Fee, Gordon D., 40, 74, 106, 132–
Cole, R. Alan, 165, 168 133, 241
Conzelmann, H., 106 Feinberg, J.S., 106
Cooper, John W., 108–109, 131, 133 Fendley, Margaret, 89
Copeland, Gloria, 22, 84, 87 Filoramo, Giovanni, 79
Copeland, Kenneth, 1–2, 5–6, 8, Filson, Floyd V., 168
11–13, 21–30, 33–34, 37–38, 40, Foster, Paul, 162
48–49, 54, 58, 60, 64, 67–74, Frady, Marshall, 125
84, 86–89, 99–100, 102, 104, France, R.T., 162, 165–166, 168
106, 128–130, 132, 141, 147–148, Freeman, Hobart, 10, 39–40, 43–44,
150–156, 159, 162, 170–173, 175– 48, 70, 90
176, 180–181, 187–190, 193–200, Frodsham, Stanley H., 73
202–203, 206–207, 213, 217–
219, 223–226, 228, 231, 234–236, Garland, David E., 241
238–239, 241–245, 248, 252, 255, Geldard, Richard, 79, 114, 131,
258 136
Cotterell, Peter, 72 Gelder, Michael, 132
Cranfield, C.E.B., 165, 168, 182 Gilley, Gary E., 227
Crossan, John Dominic, 109 Goppelt, Leonhard, 107
Cyril of Alexandria, 177 Gordon, A.J., 17, 80–81, 85, 122, 124,
Cyril of Jerusalem, 229, 236 134, 142, 155–156, 186, 201, 233,
255
Dale, R.W., 117, 127, 163–164 Gould, E.P., 168
Davids, P.H., 107, 144 Gounelle, Rémi, 230
Davies, W.D., 166 Govier, Ernest, 132
Davis, Stephen T., 131 Graham, Billy, 6, 125–126, 145
Dayton, D.W., 15, 80–82 Gräßer, Erich, 212
DeArteaga, W., 18, 40–42, 45, 49– Green, Gene L., 137
50, 53–55, 89, 91–92, 227 Green, Joel B., 72
Dibelius, M., 106 Gregory of Nyssa, 91, 228, 230
Dresser, Horatio W., 16, 114, 136, Gregory the Great, 227–228
200 Grensted, L.W., 214, 228, 230
Dunn, James D.G., 76–77, 109, 132, Grudem, Wayne, 92
137–139, 203, 235, 237–238 Guinness, Os, 89
Gunton, Colin, 130, 238, 245
Eddy, Mary Baker, 16, 78–79, 81,
112, 114–116, 131, 136–137, 141– Hagin, Kenneth E., 1–2, 5–8, 11–
142, 155–156, 200 13, 19–30, 32–35, 37–38, 40, 46,
Edwards, David L., 260 48, 54, 56, 58–60, 64, 67–68, 70–
Edwards, Troy J., Sr, 10, 35–36, 120 71, 73–74, 83–89, 99–100, 102,
Elliott, J.H., 107 128–130, 141, 147–151, 153–156,
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 79, 112, 172–173, 175, 181, 187–190, 193–
114–115, 136–137, 200 199, 202–203, 207, 210–211, 213,
Ervin, Howard M., 74–76 217–218, 221–224, 226, 231, 234–
index of authors 287
236, 239, 243, 248, 252, 254–255, Kazen, Thomas, 162

258, 260 Keener, Craig S., 167
Hagin, Kenneth Jr, 20 Kelly, J.N.D., 29, 124, 211
Hagner, D.A., 168 Kenyon, E.W., 1–2, 5–8, 10–11, 15–
Hamilton, V., 100–101 22, 24–38, 40–71, 74, 77–92, 96,
Hanegraaff, Hank, 2, 11–13, 36–37, 99–100, 104–106, 111–112, 114,
41, 47–51, 53–54, 56–57, 59, 71– 116–126, 128–132, 134–137, 140–
72, 74, 89–91, 110, 148, 158–159, 145, 147–156, 168, 172–176, 180–
170, 173, 188, 193, 195–197, 222, 181, 183, 186–203, 206–208, 211,
226–227, 256–258, 262 213–215, 217–226, 228, 231–236,
Hanegraaff, Wouter J., 16, 79 238–239, 241–244, 248–256, 258,
Hanson, A.T., 106 260–261
Hanson, R.C., 93–94 Kidner, Derek, 102
Hardesty, Nancy A., 15, 81 Kinnebrew, James M., 1, 7, 13, 17,
Harrell, David E., Jr, 8, 19, 40 20, 22, 48, 63–64
Harris, J.L., 100–101 Knight, George W., III, 106
Harris, Murray J., 109, 203–204
Harris, R. Laird, 203 Ladd, George Eldon, 131
Harris, W. Hall III, 236–237 Lauber, David, 178–180
Harrison, Milmon F., 7–8, 11, 13, 23, Leo the Great, 228
63 Lewis, Alan E., 127, 164, 170, 177–
Hill, Charles E., 181 180, 185
Hill, David, 166 Liardon, R., 85
Hocken, P., 8 Lie, Geir, 11, 16, 18, 22, 28–29,
Hoehner, H.W., 103 41–42, 47, 54–55, 74, 80–81,
Hoekema, A.A., 131, 137–139 87, 90, 117, 119, 140, 151, 153,
Hollenweger, Walter J., 3, 89, 260 192, 197, 215, 218, 227–228,
Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe, 131, 134 231
Hunt, Dave, 7, 11, 41, 48, 53 Lincoln, Andrew T., 103
Hurtado, Larry W., 115, 162, 165 Lossky, Vladimir, 103
Lührmann, Dieter, 162
Irving, Edward, 209–211, 213, 252 Luther, Martin, 108, 134, 162–163,
Irenaeus, 90, 115, 130, 138, 141, 211, 165, 211–212, 242, 246–247
227–229, 231, 246 Luz, Ulrich, 160
Jackson, R., 11, 56 Mabie, Henry C., 117–126, 142–143,

James, Frank A., III, 181 145, 155, 200–201, 252, 255
Jamieson, Robert, 120 MacArthur, J.F., Jr, 8, 47, 74
Jansz, Litza, 258 MacLaren, Alexander, 119–121, 126,
Jinkins, Michael, 164 143, 145
Johnson, Luke Timothy, 235 Marshall, I, Howard, 105, 137
Johnson, Sherman E., 166 Martin, Ralph P., 203–204, 212, 235
Jowers, Dennis W., 166, 178–179 Martin, Walter R., 16
Jüngel, Eberhard, 170 Matta, Judith A., 7, 48, 130, 259–260
McCann, Vincent, 196
Kaiser, Bill, 36 McConnell, Dan, 1, 7–8, 10–13, 15–
Karkkainen, Veli-Matti, 75, 93 17, 22–23, 36–37, 40, 46–57, 62,
288 index of authors
66, 74, 78–80, 82, 86, 90–91, 96, Perkins, Pheme, 109
99, 105, 111–112, 116, 124–125, Perriman, Andrew, 2, 7–9, 11–13,
128, 130, 142, 145, 155–156, 159, 22–23, 40, 42–43, 45, 57–59, 69–
170–171, 173, 188, 191, 195–196, 70, 72, 74, 83, 129, 155, 157, 195–
199, 220–222, 227, 231, 254–255, 197, 206, 226–227, 254
257, 262 Pierson, A.T., 17, 80–81, 122, 134–
McCrossan, T.J., 85 135
McFarlane, Graham, 209 Plato, 134, 136
McGee, G.B., 8–9, 19–20, 84–85, Plessis, du, J., 81
87, 93 Poirier, J.C., 76
McGrath, Alister E., 257 Pollock, John, 125
McIntyre, Joe, 15–18, 35–36, 41–42, Porte, Joel, 79
47, 53, 78, 80–85, 88, 90, 104– Powell, L.P., 16
105, 111, 116–119, 121–122, 124– Price, C.S., 85
126, 140, 142, 231 Purves, Jim, 209
McLean, Mark D., 76
McMahon, T.A., 7, 11 Quimby, Phineas P., 16, 78–79, 112–
Menzies, Robert P., 75–76 114, 136–137, 200
Michaels, J.R., 107
Moltmann, Jürgen, 127, 144, 164– Radford, John, 132
166, 170, 174–180, 184 Rahner, Karl, 127, 144
Montgomery, Carrie J., 80–81, 122, Railey, James H. Jr., 92
201 Rashdall, Hastings, 124, 214, 226,
Morris, Leon, 131, 137–138, 164–166, 228, 230, 232, 242–243
168, 170 Ray, Darby Kathleen, 230
Motyer, Alec, 104 Reicke, Bo, 106
Murphy, Nancey, 132 Reid, Stephen Breck, 164
Murray, Andrew, 17, 80–81, 85, 122– Robert, Dana L., 81
123, 135, 141, 201, 232–233, 239 Roberts, Oral, 8, 19, 22, 36, 40, 56,
58–59, 87, 125
Nestorius, 177 Robinson, H. Wheeler, 108, 138
Neuman, H.T., 30 Robinson, John A.T., 108–109, 133,
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 138–139 137
Nichols, Aidan, 179 Rufinus, 228
Nineham, D.E., 72, 166 Russell, Walter B., 133
Noel, B.T., 74 Ruthven, Jon, 14
Nolland, John, 173–174
Norris, Richard A., Jr, 177 Sailhamer, J.H., 102
Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 163–164
O’Brien, P.T., 103, 237 Schwöbel, Christoph, 130
O’Neill, J.C., 94 Sherlock, Charles, 137–139
Onken, Brian, 171, 206 Simmons, Dale H., 1, 15–18, 40, 47,
Origen, 91, 189, 228, 242–243 52–53, 55, 57, 66, 78, 80, 83–84,
Osborn, T.L., 84 90, 254
Packer, J.I., 9–10, 126, 145 Simpson, A.B., 17, 80–81, 85, 122–
Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 138 123, 135, 137, 140, 142, 200–201,
Penn-Lewis, Jessie, 140–141 208, 213, 233, 239
index of authors 289
Smail, Thomas, 11–12, 42, 47, 50–51, Turner, Max, 72

74, 90–92, 97, 188, 195–196, 198,
227, 229–231, 256 Vanhoozer, Kevin J., 71, 76–77
Smith, Hannah W., 80–81, 201
Smith, Wilbur M., 120 Wacker, G., 20, 93
Spencer, J.R., 41, 50, 227 Walker, Andrew, 11–12, 42, 47, 50–
Speiser, E.A., 100–101 51, 74, 90–92, 97, 188, 195–196,
Stackhouse, John G., Jr, 242 198, 227, 229–231, 256
Stibbs, A.M., 107 Walls, A.F., 107
Stott, John, 164, 168, 182, 260 Waltke, Bruce K., 203
Strange, Daniel, 103, 245 Wanamaker, Charles A., 137
Stronstad, R., 30 Warrington, Keith, 31
Watson, G.D., 80, 82, 122–123, 135,
Taliaferro, Charles A., 230 201
Taylor, Vincent, 166, 185 Watts, J.D.W., 104
Tertullian, 185, 228–229 Wenham, G.J., 102
Teselle, Eugene, 227, 230 Westermann, C., 100–102
Theissen, Gerd, 241 Whittaker, C., 85
Thoedore of Mopsuestia, 177 Whybray, R.N., 104
Thiselton, Anthony C., 72, 241 Wigglesworth, Smith, 20, 73, 85–86
Thomas, John Christopher, 76 Williams, J. Rodman, 92
Thompson, John O., 58 Wolmarans, Theo, 35
Thrall, Margaret E., 203 Wright, David & Jill, 180
Tidball, Derek, 165, 168 Wright, Nigel, 10–12, 42, 47, 50–51,
Torrance, Alan J., 259 74, 90–92, 97, 188, 195–196, 198,
Torrance, Thomas F., 93–95, 164, 227, 229–231, 256, 260
189 Wuest, Kenneth S., 106, 126, 145
Torrey, R.A., 80–82, 122–123, 201
Towner, P.H., 106 Yates, John, 236
Trine, Ralph Waldo, 16, 79–80, 112, Yeomans, Lilian B., 85
115–116, 137, 141–142, 155–156, York, Michael, 200
200–201, 208, 213
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Abandonment, 116, 126–127, 149, Christ’s spiritual rebirth, see Re-

158, 162, 164, 168–171, 176, 179, birth, spiritual, Christ’s
181 Constantinople, Council of, 138, 256
Adoptionism, 29, 185, 198 Covenant, Abrahamic, 29–30, 32–
Alliance, Christian and Missionary, 34, 173
see Christian and Missionary Creeds, 16, 54, 64, 161, 235, 247,
Alliance 256
Alliance, Evangelical, see Evangeli- Cry of dereliction, see Dereliction,
cal Alliance (UK) cry of
Anthropological dualism, see Dual- Cult-Watch Ministries, 40–41, 60
ism, anthropological Curtain, temple, 173–174
Anti-intellectualism, 88–89
Apollinarianism, 29, 144, 185, 198 Dereliction, cry of, 126, 154–158,
Assemblies of God, 16, 19, 85, 87, 92 161–171, 175, 177, 182–183, 252
Atonement, 14–16, 19, 31, 35, 45–47, Devil, the, see Satan
49–50, 54–55, 57–59, 64, 70, 84– Divine justice, see Justice, divine
85, 104, 112, 117–119, 123, 128– Divine nature, 27, 37, 84–85, 190–
129, 141, 153, 164, 170–171, 179, 191, 197–199, 214–215
183–186, 188–189, 199, 208, 214– Divinity of Christ, 29–30, 158, 185,
215, 219–220, 223–224, 226–228, 198, 213–215
230, 242, 245, 248, 253–254, 261– Dualism, anthropological, 107–109,
262 129–141, 239, 258
Dualism, God-Satan, 27, 45, 176,
Baptist, Free Will, 16, 88 188–189
Baptist Missionary Union, Ameri-
can, 117 Elim Pentecostal Church, 3, 12, 92,
Baptist, Southern, 19 94
Bethel Bible Institute, 17 Emerson College of Oratory, 17, 46,
Born-again Christ, the, see Rebirth, 53, 66, 80
spiritual, Christ’s Eschatology, 38, 85–86, 189, 246,
Boston, 81 248, 261
Evangelical Alliance (UK), 42–43
Christian and Missionary Alliance, Evangelicalism, evangelicals, 1–2,
81–82 10–11, 14, 41–42, 58, 60–61, 76,
Christian Science, 15–17, 47, 51, 60– 80, 89, 125–126, 173, 260
62, 64–66, 77–79, 81, 83, 95–96,
99, 111–112, 116, 124, 131, 136–137, Faith Cure, 15, 17, 55, 60–62, 66–
141–143, 145, 155–156, 183, 199– 67, 78, 80–81, 84, 95–97, 99, 111,
200, 207–208, 231–233, 239, 249, 122–125, 131, 134–135, 140–143,
251–255, 261 145, 155–156, 183, 186, 199–201,
292 index of subjects
207–208, 213, 231–233, 249, 252– Keswick conventions, 15, 52–53, 81

255, 261 Knowledge, revelation, see Revela-
Free Will Baptist, see Baptist, Free tion knowledge
Will Knowledge, sense, see Sense knowl-
Gethsemane, 148, 154, 182, 233, 242 edge
Gnosticism, Gnostics, 45, 79, 114–
115, 130, 141, 188, 230, 260 Latter Rain Movement, 56, 58
God-Satan dualism, see Dualism,
God-Satan Monism, monist, 16, 107–109, 127,
131–133, 138, 142, 144, 174, 200,
Hades, 44, 70, 123, 172–173, 229– 208, 247, 258
230, 233, 235–237, 247 Moody Bible Institute, 81, 106
Harrowing of hell, 229–230
Hell, 9, 18, 32–33, 36, 49, 54, 69, Nag Hammadi literature, 114–115,
91–92, 105, 113, 117, 149–157, 134, 141
170, 172, 174–176, 189, 192, 197, Nature, divine, see Divine nature
218–230, 235–239, 243, 246–248, Nature, satanic, see Satanic nature
259–260 New Thought, 15–17, 43–44, 46–49,
Heresy, heretic, heretical, 1, 10–11, 51–55, 57, 59–62, 64–66, 77–80,
13, 39, 41, 43, 45, 48–50, 54–55, 82, 91, 95–97, 99, 111–112, 116,
57, 60, 62, 91, 112, 171, 186, 209, 124, 130–131, 136, 141–143, 145,
256–258, 260 155–156, 183, 199–200, 207–208,
Hermeneutics, 9, 58, 71–77, 91, 94– 213, 231–233, 239, 249, 251–255,
95 261
Higher Life, 15, 17, 37, 52–53, 55, 57, Northfield conferences, 15, 80–81,
59–62, 66–67, 78, 80–82, 95–97, 117–118, 124
99, 111, 117, 121–122, 124–125, 131,
134–135, 140, 142–143, 145, 155, Oral Roberts University, 8, 22, 40,
199, 201, 207–208, 231–233, 249, 44–46, 60, 74
252–255, 261 Oratory, Emerson College of, see
Historical theology, 82–95 Emerson College of Oratory
Holy Saturday, 159, 260–261 ORU, see Oral Roberts University
Incarnation, 26, 29–31, 37, 44, 49, Pauline corpus, 68–69

64, 84–85, 109, 114, 144, 176, 179– Penal substitution, see Substitute,
181, 183–186, 197–198, 209–211, substitution
213–216, 234, 237, 240, 243, 253– Pentecostal, Pentecostalism, 1–3, 5,
254, 261 7–12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 30, 37, 40–41,
53, 55–56, 58–60, 66–67, 73–77,
Justice, divine, 25, 31–32, 68, 84, 105, 84–87, 89, 92–95, 215, 227, 260–
123–124, 148, 154, 156, 218–222, 262
225–226, 228, 245 Platonism, Platonists, 108, 130, 133–
134, 136
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 12– Postmodernism, 75
13, 22, 24, 89
Kenneth Hagin Ministries, 7, 12, Ransom theories, 47, 50, 54, 91–92,
20 225–233, 242–244, 249, 256
index of subjects 293
Rebirth, spiritual, Christ’s, 32–33, 111–112, 116, 142, 145, 199, 255,
49, 106, 149, 152, 220, 244 261
Reductionism, 47, 245, 251, 257–258 Spiritual rebirth, Christ’s, see Re-
Regeneration, spiritual, human, 8, birth, spiritual, Christ’s
37–38, 84, 210–211, 215 Substitute, substitution, 31–33, 35,
Regent College, 40, 126 64, 84, 100, 104–105, 123, 126,
Regent University, 14 128, 149, 153–154, 170, 191–192,
Reincarnation, 49, 84 203, 213–215, 221, 226, 245, 254
Resurrection, spiritual, Christ’s, see
Rebirth, spiritual, Christ’s Televangelism, televangelist, 11, 56,
Revelation knowledge, 46, 50–51, 58
88, 95, 135 Temple curtain, see Curtain, temple
Revivalism, revivalists, revivals, 7–8, Temptation, Christ’s, 167, 188–189,
59, 93 210, 215, 234, 245
Trichotomism, 27, 72, 127, 129–130,
Sacrifice, sacrifices, 31–34, 44, 112, 137–142, 252
115, 174–175, 185, 196, 209, 214, Triduum mortis, 174, 233, 236, 240,
240, 257, 259 246–249, 251, 260–261
Satanic nature, 3, 9, 27–28, 31, 34– Trinitarianism, 25–26, 44, 64, 96,
35, 44, 60, 84, 111, 142, 148, 187, 150–152, 158, 161, 164, 177–178,
189–202, 206–210, 213–217, 250, 180, 183–184, 186, 254, 261
252–255, 258 Tritheism, 178, 184, 254
Science, Christian, see Christian
Science Veil, temple, see Curtain, temple
Seattle Bible Institute, 17
Semantics, 105, 159, 166, 194, 222, Word-faith movement, Word-faith
258–260 teaching, 1–3, 5, 7–14, 23–24, 30,
Sense knowledge, 68, 88–89, 135 36, 39–52, 56–63, 69–73, 86–87,
Sin nature, see Satanic nature 89–93, 96, 125–126, 188–189, 196,
Southern Baptist, see Baptist, South- 251–252, 255, 257, 261–262
ern
Spiritualisation, 47, 74, 77, 79, 99, Zoroastrianism, 188

The Spiritual Death of Jesus a Pentecostal Investigation 1nbsped 9789047425311 9789004171992 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Spiritual Death of Jesus a Pentecostal Investigation 1nbsped 9789047425311 9789004171992 Compress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Spiritual Death of Jesus a Pentecostal Investigation 1nbsped 9789047425311 9789004171992 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The ‘Spiritual Death’ of Jesus

William Kay, Bangor University

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Atkinson, William, 1961-

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

printed in the netherlands

1. The JDS debate and debaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Scope, criteria and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3. Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ and its necessity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4. Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ as separation from God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

5. Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ as partaking of a sinful, satanic nature . . . . 187

6. Jesus’ ‘spiritual death’ as becoming Satan’s prey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

I am most grateful for the contributions* of others who helped me in the

in this book of material that has previously been published as follows:

AB The Anchor Bible

(Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1997).

ogy. It self-consciously furthers an already existing debate. As such, it

summarise or reflect upon the findings of each whole chapter. Instead,

THE JDS DEBATE AND DEBATERS

This chapter is designed to serve three main purposes. First, it devel-

2. The Word-faith movement

This section will present a brief overview of the movement’s origins

3 ‘Word-faith’ is the term preferred by Bowman, Controversy and Judith A. Matta,

‘movement’, and his aﬃrmative conclusion, see Bowman, Controversy, 28–29.

Library Publications, 1978), 39; McConnell, Promise, 60; Perriman, Faith, 3.

revivalists such as Oral Roberts;6 and he plagiarised Kenyon in much of

1983), 4; McConnell, Promise, 60–61, 67–69. Roberts (1918–) is a retired Pentecostal

Riches, 6–7; Perriman, Faith, 3.

described as “a subdivision of the charismatic movement” by J.F. MacArthur Jr in

for instance, it can probably best be regarded as ‘fundamentalist’,11 in

14 Hobart Freeman, “Exposing the JDS Heresy,” http://achristiancounselor.com/

“Faith Assembly (Hobart Freeman),” Watchman Expositor (2000), http://www.watchman

So You Don’t Have To: Part 1,” http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/

evangelicalism will suﬃce: it is marked by conversionism, activism, biblicism, and cru-

ing Word-faith views as “occultic,”20 through seeing them as “heresy”21

aries of Pentecostal-Charismatic ‘Orthodoxy’?” Pneuma 22.1 (2000): 114, with specific

lead independent churches, often with great numerical success, and

27 E.g. ‘Kenneth Hagin Ministries’; ‘Kenneth Copeland Ministries’; ‘Jerry Savelle

Ministries’; ‘Morris Cerullo World Evangelism’.

Health, 137; criticisms in Hanegraaﬀ, Crisis, ch. 17, “Cultural Conformity.”

33 Farah, “Analysis,” 16.

documented by Harrison, Righteous Riches, 14–18.

As the presence and influence of the movement have grown, so the

2.5. Conclusion to section 2

3. Three foremost JDS teachers

3.1. Essek William Kenyon (1867–1948)

Movements (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003); Dayton, Roots, 128.

Insofar as New Thought was founded by one individual, this was

Christian Science was founded by Mary Baker Eddy. It is a healing

First Church of Christ, Scientist, revised edition 1891 [1875]).

(1996): 76; McIntyre, Kenyon, 146.

61 Simmons, Kenyon, 30, 44; McIntyre, Kenyon, ch. 12, 157.

Kenyon once used “The Why of Bolshevism” as a section title,70 his

70 Kenyon, Wonderful Name, 72.

1945, and posthumous respectively.

3.2. Kenneth Erwin Hagin (1917–2003)

80 E.g. Kenyon, Father, 118.

Publications, 1968), 12–13, quoting 12.

printing 1978), 11; How You Can Be Led, 39.

of, especially, E.W. Kenyon, John G. Lake, and Smith Wigglesworth.