How Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Apparently Holger Neubauer has been feeling the heat since the Denham-Neubauer Debate back in April. So he and Steve Baisden prepared a video to deal with what Jesus dying on the cross entailed. The viewer does not need to wait long to find out what position is being advocated. Baisden blurts it out right at the outset. He says that an important question has been asked: “What death did Jesus suffer on the cross?” He immediately provides an answer:

I’m going to affirm that it was both a physical and a spiritual death. But it was only one of those that paid the price for sin. And I’m going to argue, and I’m going to say that that must certainly be the spiritual.

The explanation goes on for a half hour, and the most pertinent part of that will be considered later, but first the reader ought to consider the problem with this statement. Everyone knows that Jesus died physically on the cross. But, according to Baisden, His physical death did not pay the price for our sins. He claimed, quite enthusiastically, in fact, that of the physical and spiritual deaths that Jesus experienced on the cross—only the spiritual paid the price for our sins. If that statement is true, then it is also true that Jesus’ physical death on the cross did not pay the price for our sins. Let this claim be a warning to all hobbyists (which the AD 70 people certainly are): When someone becomes so enamored with a newfound theory (what they think is a brand new truth), he will re-interpret every other passage of Scripture in light of it, even if it means contradicting what everyone knows is true—even a fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

If God did not save us by Jesus’ physical death, what does that do to the blood of Christ? God began setting up types in the Old Testament. Many believe that, when God made appropriate-length garments for Adam and Eve (from the shoulders to the knees), He shed the blood of the animals from which those skins came as an offering for sin (Gen. 3:21). Many also think that the problem with Cain’s sacrifice was that it did not involve a blood sacrifice (Gen. 4:3-4). But whether or not brethren are correct in those matters, it is definitely the case that what Moses commanded concerning animal sacrifices did typify what Jesus would later do on the cross.

Terry M. Hightower wrote an excellent chapter on this subject for the 2016 Annual Bellview lectures, which was published in their book, Typology. His chapter was appropriately titled, “Old Testament Sacrifices.” He describes each of the five types of sacrifices and points out that the trespass offering “pointed to the costliest sacrifice of all—the priceless Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world” (85). And now we are to believe that the blood did not do it? Hightower also wrote:

This included and was especially reiterated in the millions of gallons of demanded animal blood, but the ultimate in meaning was not brought out until Christ’s bloody death (i.e., antitype) on the cross so we might truly have remission of our sins. Though “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Heb. 10:4), yet now it is possible through the crimson Lamb of God (John 1:29). From His thorn-crowned bloody brow (Matt. 27:29-30), bleeding scourge-torn back (27:26), red nail-pierced hands and feet (Luke 23:33; John 20:25), to when “a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water” (19:34), Jesus “made purification of sins” and “sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high”! (Heb. 1:3).

Are we now to believe that the blood of Jesus had nothing to do with saving us, since it was physical? Not only can these Realized Eschatologists not sing, “There’s a Great Day Coming”; they can’t even sing, “Nothing But the Blood of Jesus.” They would have to change the words to: “What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the spiritual separation of Jesus from the Father.” They can now join the Modernists and Liberals who have been trying to remove the blood of Jesus from God’s plan of salvation. And they have found a logical way to do so (they think).

Perhaps these AD 70 adherents would like to explain why the writer of Hebrews refers to the God of peace as the One Who raised up Jesus from the dead “through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20; cf. Heb. 10:19, 29). The apostle who was given the keys of the kingdom wrote that we were redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:18-19). Paul wrote that we have “redemption through His blood” (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). John declares that Jesus “washed us from our sins in His own blood” (Rev. 1:5).

Why do all of these passages refer to the physical blood of Jesus if we are saved only by the spiritual death of Jesus on the cross? Why does not each one of them say that we were saved by Jesus’ spiritual separation from the Father on the cross? The reason is obvious—the theory is wrong. Jesus died a physical death for our sins. Otherwise, these Scriptures do not have any meaning.

The Lord’s Supper

We have often wondered if the AD 70 adherents have any reason to observe the Lord’s Supper. Paul commanded that the church faithfully keep it until the Lord comes again. However, they believe the Lord came the only way He will ever come in AD 70; so why should they continue to observe it?

But if that is not enough of a reason to quit the practice, surely Baisden’s and Neubauer’s latest theory will be sufficient. What does the Lord’s Supper commemorate—the spiritual separation of the Father and Jesus on the cross? No, Jesus said of the unleavened bread: “Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” He said of the fruit of the vine: “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:23-26). All of this would appear to involve physical elements which represent the physical body and the physical blood of Jesus.

The Gospel

Neither is the gospel based on an alleged spiritual separation of the Father and Jesus. Salvation is based on the blood of Jesus. How often have preachers mentioned John 19:34, which informs us that, when the spear pierced Jesus’ side, blood and water came forth? How often have we compared Acts 22:16 with Revelation 1:5? We are saved through baptism (the water), in which the blood of Jesus washes our sins away. How often has it been noted that the church was purchased with His own blood? God set forth Jesus to be “a propitiation by His blood” (Rom. 3:25). We are justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9; cf. 1 Cor. 6:11). Where is a verse that tells us that we are saved by or are to commemorate the spiritual death of Jesus on the cross? It is Jesus’ physical death (and particularly the shedding of His blood) that saves us.

The Necessity of Physical Suffering?

Another question which one might ask is, “If the physical suffering of Jesus had nothing to do with salvation, then why was He crucified?” Why not just have Him go out into the wilderness somewhere and be separated from God, paying the spiritual price? Why have both of them? Baisden must have figured someone would ask that question; so he prepared an answer. After quoting Matthew 12:39-40, he states: “His physical death, burial, and resurrection was a sign to that wicked generation that the true resurrection, the true judgment, was coming then in that generation.” So, what do these words mean—that the sign of Jonah was about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? These men are obsessed. The sign was about the length of time Jesus would be in the tomb before being raised up.

How Long Was the Alleged Separation?

In the last article (5-28-17), we indicated that we did not think that Neubauer was saying Jesus remained separated from God for three days until the resurrection. Apparently, however, he does. He commented:

Now Denham argues, “Well, Jesus said, ‘Into thy hands I commend my spirit.’” It’s because the Father certainly had the determination of where He had to go. But where did He go? Did He not go to Hades? Were they not separated from God in the Hadean world? And if He tasted death for every man—in fact, He would then have to go and overcome that death which Jesus then demonstrated that He had overcome in Hades.

Consider the ideas taught in this section. First, Jesus commended His spirit to the Father but did not know the Father would send Him to Hades instead. Really? So, where is Paradise located? If Neubauer wants to argue that Paradise is Heaven, then Jesus lied to the thief on the cross, since they went to Hades instead. If Neubauer wants to say that Paradise is part of the Hadean realm, then Jesus knew the two of them would be in the Hadean realm. But He has another problem: How does He know that God’s presence is not in Paradise? Abraham was in Paradise; had he not been in the presence of God for 2,000 years?

Second, how did Jesus overcome the Hadean world, which (it is alleged) separated Him from the Father? Is there no fellowship with the Father in Hades? Was Jesus battling demons the whole time, as per Joyce Meyer? Which part of the Hadean realm was Jesus in? If He was in the place of torture with the rich man, then He lied to the thief about being in Paradise. If He was in Paradise with Lazarus, how was He separated from the Father, and how was He tasting death for every man? The answers to these questions are quite obscure.

The Separation Theory

Neubauer’s theory is this: What is the penalty of sin? And the answer is separation of God. What gives him credence is that there are senses in which this is true. When Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, part of the penalty was a disruption of the perfect fellowship they had once enjoyed together. Sin does separate us from God (Isa. 59:1-2). Eternal death is separation from God—permanently (2 Thess. 1:6-10). When the soul (or spirit) separates from the body, that constitutes physical death (James 2:26). When the soul separates from God, spiritual death occurs. On earth, we have the opportunity to repent—through the sacrifice of Jesus. In eternity no more opportunities exist; the separation is final and permanent.

The logical conclusion (to Neubauer and Baisden) is that, since separation is a result of sin, the separation of Jesus from the Father must be the price for sin. But that is not the case in the New Testament. They are confusing result with price. God said that the price for sin was Jesus’ physical death on the cross. He was the only one qualified to serve as the blood sacrifice for our sins since He was the only one who never sinned and was never separated from the Father. Besides, the second death, the final separation, is eternal. Jesus could not pay such a price for three hours or three days. He would be taking our place by being forever separated from the Father.

The price for sin had been spelled out from the beginning of the Old Testament, and it involved blood—not separation. Jesus’ physical death paid the price.

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: